Bottom of the Barrel

We have countless awards ceremonies which applaud the best of our beloved industry, but aside from the notorious Golden Raspberry Awards and the odd scathing review which target specific performances, nothing really wounds an actor's career enough for them to jack the craft in forever. Some of you will undoubtedly dream up some outcast who claims they have retired from the business but has been driven out by studios and critics in actuality, but I'm referring to the shoddy 'thespians' who have somehow still got screen credits in the pipeline and, in some cases, exhaustive filmographies when their talents definitely don't warrant the glitz and fame. The following is a brief selection of imminent has-beens who should be attempting another line of work and, in some cases, should have never made the transition from what they do best – cross-overs of any sort but particularly from music to film and vice-versa just never seem to work. Well… Streisand is an exception to the rule (even though I'm not a huge fan), but Cher and Beyonce? And as for 50 Cent and Eminem, someone must be having a private joke somewhere. Anyway, on with my pick of the most unpleasant cringe-worthy thespians… (one definitely has the capabilities to improve though which is the most frustrating thing!)

Vinnie Jones
Actors are frequently typecast but surely nobody plays exactly the same role as often as the ex-football nutjob. Somehow though the Welshman's extensive career (30+ films in 10 years) seemingly gallops on with no respite. Even the Yanks understand his hardman image these days; his violent soccerball career was legendary and he has even been banned from Virgin flights after causing a fight on the way to Tokyo, but we do not need to be constantly reminded of this sadistic personality with his dreadful on-screen characterisations. Examples of his monotone I'm-going-to-break-your-face attitude can be seen in X-Men: The Last Stand, his collaborations with Guy Ritchie, and The Condemned. His football guise is epitomised however with EuroTrip where he fuses his on the pitch persona into a hooligan character delightfully named Mad Maynard – what a must-see concoction of talent and charisma that appearance is. At least he is trying to play a character in the teen fodder flick though. Mean Machine on the other hand is basically a continuation of a rather mediocre professional career. The prison setting, a result of an assault conviction, simply makes him feel more at home. Go for a role with some substance, Vincent.

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
Well the jury is still awaiting Southland Tales evidence but the whispers are not exactly glowing for Richard Kelly's forthcoming film. Johnson's comedic ability was confirmed in his WWE wrestling career and sporadic appearances on Saturday Night Live but as we have seen numerous times before, instances of jesting and coolness in front of the camera do not always translate to a full feature. The Rock is someone on this list though who I actually want to succeed – he has natural talent but his track record so far isn't pretty reading. His double turn as The Scorpion King in The Mummy franchise was generally pitiable but kudos should go to him for actually attempting a role in that particular unoriginal mould. Unluckily however The Rundown and Walking Tall hardly set the world alight and as for Doom, well, as one reviewer stated at the time, "If you go to the box-office and ask for "Doom", that is exactly what you'll get!" Gridiron Gang is a step in the right direction however with a compelling portrayal and Southland Tales may be a constructive choice in hindsight. Hopefully for The Rock his next projects push the envelope in terms of both improving his aptitude and weight as a bankable star. Nevertheless, if he continues on his current trajectory he will rapidly transform into a Hulk 'has-been' Hogan figure if he isn't cautious. I remember eagerly anticipating The Scorpion King a few years ago and when I returned from the cinema one of my friends, who was incidentally just as excited as I was, asked, "Whoa, I didn't know The People's Champion could act?!" I replied with, "He can't." Optimistically though at the present time I hope he soon can.

Keira Knightley
This is a rather short entry as I'm certainly not an expert on the Londoner's career. I do know enough though and it's plain for everyone to see – she cannot act. She is as stiff and inexpressive as I have ever seen an actress and how she has the cheek to continue auditioning for roles is beyond me – Miss Knightley must have one hell of an agent. I haven't seen Atonement but Rich states in his review that director Joe Wright managed to squeeze a performance out of her but if indeed true, this is surely her only decent turn. Domino fans may beg to differ but nobody can escape the tawdriness of her Elizabeth Swann heroine in the Pirates trilogy. Phoniness oozes from her delivery and she always acts like a reality television show winner, only in the film because of strokes of luck. Hopefully her lucky run will soon dry out.
Aside: Also, and this is nothing to do with her acting, her skinny figure is nearly as bad as Winehouse's drug habit as an influence on young girls. Please get it sorted dear, it's not big or clever and it just brings your stock down even more if you gallivant around the world parading as a quasi-anorexic.

Paul Walker
The Fast and the Furious and its sequel, Into the Blue and She's All That. These are not exactly masterworks but then again Paul Walker isn't exactly a masterful thespian. Whereas the Van Dammes, Seagals, and Chans of this world receive offers for films based on their martial arts ability instead of their acting knack, Walker has no redeeming features. He is a prettyboy in an age when the audience doesn't need another with Pitt, Clooney, and Cruise still knocking around, let alone the countless newcomers. Orlando Bloom is the sort of person Walker wants to be. He may be named after a vacationer's paradise and he is an appalling actor but he has two huge franchises behind him – Walker has nothing to rescue him. Running Scared and Flags of Our Fathers are respectable but surely yet another Fast and Furious sequel (currently in pre-production) will cancel them out. Wake up Mr Walker and go and apply for a presenter's job at MTV or something.

I'm sure everyone has an opinion on who is truly god-awful on the silver screen – a friend of mine even detests the supremely likeable Owen Wilson! Is Orlando Bloom surpassed by the trees' acting in LOTR? Is Carmen Electra as wooden as the effect she is on-screen to create? By all means please reply to this post and air your views. Maybe we can boycott their films and drive these wastes of Hollywood skin out of the business. Lawyers, that was a joke, I don't want anyone to be unemployed – just do a job you're good at!

Thanks for reading, take care and be well,

Joel

Striking Gold

A strike has hit Hollywood at the moment, and is taking up plenty of column inches. The Writers' Guild of America (WGA) has shut up shop as they want a bigger share of DVD profits, or something. What this has meant is that many US chat shows have already been cancelled indefinitely, a lot of major TV dramas are in trouble (such as 24) as new episodes are not allowed to be written, and no more scripts are allowed to be submitted to the film studios.

Inevitably this led to a mass of scripts being rushed to completion in time for the deadline before the strike started. The problem is, scripts tend to be modified continuously during production, but with the writers on strike now, no modifications are allowed to the scripts. If they're not right, tough. Due to this, a few big films have already been postponed, most notably the Da Vinci Code sequel Angels & Demons (perhaps not a bad thing). Although the strike shouldn't affect moviegoers for the time being, if it continues for a considerable length of time there will be a noticeable reduction in the number of films reaching cinemas. 2008's blockbusters are mostly locked and in the can already, but 2009's are a different story. We could be in for a barren patch.

For obvious reasons, many have forecasted a time of doom and gloom for the industry if the worst fears are played out. Last time a strike was threatened in 2001 (but one didn't actually happen back then), it resulted in a batch of less than stellar product, such as Tomb Raider and the clearly rushed Jurassic Park III. We could be in for another wave of rushed blockbusters, including Bond 22 - the script for which writer Paul Haggis has said that he's not entirely satisfied with - and the much-maligned Justice League of America movie, featuring Batman, Superman and a bunch of other DC heroes, but intended to be completely separate from the Batman Begins and Superman Returns franchises, which is rumoured to be having difficulties.

Well, I'm here to offer a glass-half-full perspective. The effects of this strike do not have to be all bad. (For example, if JLA was called off, that may not be the worst development.) It would prevent debacles like Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End from occurring - as mentioned in an earlier blog post, that went into production completely devoid of a script, and the writers were forced to make it up as they went along, which had a profoundly detrimental impact on the eventual film. Now, with no writers allowed to work, no film can be greenlit without a pre-existing script that is at least filmable, if not of particularly great quality.

The unavoidable eventuality if the strike continues is that the number of films released will decrease, but this will most affect the big-budget output, for which scripts tend to be an afterthought. Scripts for lower-budget or independent fare are often refined and shopped around the studios for months or years, and then require relatively few alterations. The Coen brothers are famous for this; once they finish a script, they barely change a word, and even generally prevent the actors from diverting from it at all.

With fewer blockbusters to promote (this summer in particular was overflowing with huge releases, week after week), it could give smaller films a bigger chance at grabbing the spotlight. What's more, the studios will surely be keen for such films to make significant profits so may lavish a higher marketing budget than usual on them. I would argue that a significant reason that blockbusters make the big bucks is simply due to advertising and public awareness rather than content. Give smaller films more attention and their grosses will undoubtedly increase, especially if backed up with critical acclaim.

Hollywood may have more to worry about in a few months' time, however. Then the actors are due to go on strike. I do not intend to suggest that a strike is an ideal situation for anyone, but it could add an extra incentive to enhance the quality of the studios' films as there is more riding on each one. There may be an interesting time ahead.

The New Hollywood = The Genuine Golden Age?

Filmverdict’s creator and resident film geek, Mr Ricardo ‘The Webmaster’ McGlashan, has stated on many occasions how the 1970s seemingly churned out depressing and miserable yarns in an almost conveyor-like manner. Fortunately, he admits the classics of the era still define particular genres even today (Star Wars, anyone?) and as most of you will agree, hours of fun can still be had from watching the vintage works of the era’s movie brats. Indeed, if you fail to acknowledge the everlasting impact on film that Scorsese, Lucas, Spielberg, Coppola etc. have had, you cannot appreciate the art of cinema. Furthermore, one can almost guarantee that in almost any filmgoer’s “Top 100” list the 1970s will be well represented. No matter how much you try and avoid the eternal influence of the decade, one film will always stick out and plop itself into your personally adored films, whether it be The Godfather or Jaws, The Last Picture Show or Apocalypse Now, the New Hollywood has played the part of a permanent marker on A4 – the bold presence of the counterculture-bred, film school-educated, youth-orientated squiggles will never be erased.

Now, it’s still debatable as to what exactly contributes to this magical period of moviemaking. Even though Spielberg and Lucas cancelled out the earlier efforts of their buddies with bigger pictures towards the end of the decade, and consequently marked the beginning of the downhill spiral and frequency of personally energized projects on the smaller scale, they were still made within the actual decade. Inside the confines of our numerous daily filmic discussions, Rich has hinted at how he thinks a shift in tone and structure occurred between the bookends of the era, but for the sake of this blog post and to obey one the greatest authors on the history of the epoch, Peter Biskind, the “1970s” will encompass the films sandwiched between Dennis Hopper’s Easy Rider and Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull. Granted, Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate planted the seeds of the artistic renaissance and One from the Heart and Heaven’s Gate brought the whole movement to a conclusion, but they venture too far from the boundaries of the decade to be included. Easy Rider and Raging Bull simply perfectly encapsulate the post-classical feel the directors and studios came to desire.

The term “The Golden Age” is the regular tag given to that exquisite period of cinema from the late 1920s to late 1950s. I use the term “exquisite” very dexterously. Sure, that particular thirty year period gave us classic films such as Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Citizen Kane and so forth, but the studio system had three times as much opportunity to manufacture hits compared to the New Hollywood age – they even shot themselves in the foot slightly by not welcoming diversity and mostly adhering to the formulaic structures of Westerns, slapstick comedies, musicals, biopics, and occasionally animated features. In fact, the 70s probably served up just as many “classics” in a third of the time. The movie brats even had the cheek to pay respect to their childhood heroes (the directors and stars firmly entrenched in the studio politics of the Golden Age) during their pictures and still mostly surpassed them in terms of quality. Some of you may think I’m not giving the classical period of American film much credit. I realise the technical constraints filmmakers were under back in those days and the factoryesque attitude the moneymen expected these commodities to be contrived with and consequently some sympathies must be expressed. However, unlike certain university lecturers of mine and kiss-ass film critics I’m not willing to bestow kudos upon the usual “classic” films for the integrity of my passion of film criticism or because they are simply old and so therefore “must be good”. Funnily enough though and for the record, I actually like a whole host of films from the aforementioned time, such as Mr Smith Goes to Washington and The Philadelphia Story to name just a few so I by no means detest that era whatsoever, I’m just cautious of hastily using superlatives.

Anyway, enough of that rambling tangent and back on to the matter in hand. The New Hollywood is simply the best period of motion pictures because it encompassed a vast array of genres (gritty realism to psychedelic sci-fi), showcased superb talents (Nicholson and Streep to Spielberg and Scorsese), and compiled a hybrid of irresistible influences to forever effect what constitutes a "motion picture" even today – the talented directors paid homage to international film history (European and Oriental in particular) and developed upon existing techniques and genres in an unprecedented manner. The period contained indies and big blockbuster budgeted hits, the casual flick and the event film, and surpassed the restrictions on sexuality and violence (which is never a bad thing). Films would simply be monotonous, with only the odd blockbuster popping up occasionally, if it had not been for the invaluable movement occurring. A fusion of diverse flair and type make up today's films, a debt owed to the New Hollywood. The Platinum Age has a nice ring to it.

Thanks for reading, take care and be well.

Joel

The Sundance Kid for President?

Robert Redford is likely to attract stacks of attention this autumn with Lions for Lambs. All the President's Men, a film based on the infamous Watergate scandal, epitomises a 'political thriller' but the Californian never had the same amount of Hollywood clout back in 1976 as he does now in his position as an Oscar darling and member of filmdom's almost royal elite. Back in the New Hollywood era he had to share centre stage with the excellent Dustin Hoffman for the adaptation of the real-life event, obey instructions from director Alan J. Pakula, and the landmark was pre-Sundance and consequently before the "Cinematic Legend" label was ever fully utilised. With Lions for Lambs however, it appears as if the actor/director/producer extraordinaire is braced to surpass All the President's Men in terms of political stance and justification.

As if to fire himself up for battle, reports suggest that Redford has tacked columns blasting the Bush administration to a bulletin board in the rented house he turned into a postproduction complex. "A profile in cowardice," reads one headline. "This time, don't say we weren't warned," says another. And on a yellow sticky note, in his own scrawled block letters, are the words "Frustration, Responsibility and Sadness", according to the New York Times. To me, these would appear to be continual team-talks, a reminder, or shorthand for the themes of his impending film. After all, a lot is riding on Redford's directorial foray into the political sphere. The modest budget of some $35 million is the least of his worries. As his namesake Mr De Niro states in this year's Stardust, "reputations take years to build and seconds to destroy." The film, which is set to open on November 9th, is the first starring Tom Cruise since his run of bad press and his ouster from the Paramount lot last summer. It's the first from United Artists since Cruise and his partner, Paula Wagner, took over the storied label last year. Briefly, is it just me or isn't it amazing how Cruise, with his turn here and with the upcoming Valkyrie (telling the story of a Hitler assassination attempt) is leaving his sofa-jumping days behind to concentrate on über-serious matters? Anyway, Lions for Lambs is Redford's first directorial effort since the disappointing and at times plain boring Legend of Bagger Vance seven years ago. If two generational matinee idols with reputations on the line wasn't enough for the pressure vacuum, the Dalai Lama of actresses, Meryl Streep, also puts herself in the firing line. Lions for Lambs will have to live up to the incredible collective billing of its stars and hopefully demonstrate that it warrants the inevitable Oscar gossip surrounding it. A Redford directorial feature hasn't been hyped as much since his debut in the field 27 years ago with Ordinary People, the film which incidentally sabotaged Martin Scorsese's almost certain Best Director gong for Raging Bull.

To top it off the Sundance Kid is concerned that his film is being unfairly lumped in with several war movies coming to the silver screen this winter, though its combat scenes are secondary to the story. "I wanted to say to the studio, 'Don't make this about the war,'" he said in a long interview with the New York Times on a sizzling terrace. "It's not about the war. The war's catalytic, but it's not about that. It's bigger." Does this sound like a man worried about how audiences and critics will welcome his delicate oeuvre? Trying to mess people around with classic excuses/warnings such as "more intrinsic meanings are hidden in there" or "you're not supposed to read the film in that way" crop up all the time when powerful figures get cold feet.

The screenplay, by Matthew Michael Carnahan (who also wrote The Kingdom) loosely ties together three taut confrontations: A rising Republican senator (Cruise) tries to sell a new Afghan war strategy to a cynical Washington reporter (Streep); a university professor (Redford) tries to inspire a talented but political science student (Andrew Garfield); and two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) try to survive a firefight on a snowy Afghan ridge.

Yet again the New York Times comes up with the juice from Redford:
"What attracted me to the film was: What are the subsurface factors that lead us to this same place, over and over again? Do you know that there are patterns of behaviour that have cost us dearly over time, and now are costing us more than at any time I remember? That are costing us every bit of respect we had on the world stage? When I look at the arc of my time, when I look at McCarthyism, when I was about 11 years old, and then Watergate, and Iran-contra, and now this - if you look at all those events, there's a thread running through them. The same sensibility: 'Winning is everything.' Power. And the consequences get greater and greater."

These days, Redford speaks and most people (in the filmgoing world) listen. We can have as many gimmicky special effects films as we want but sometimes good ol' fashioned sit down, shut-up, powerhouse acting on a relevant subject matter is just as, if not more, entertaining. Lions for Lambs is apparently harsh in its judgments of politicians, journalists, media conglomerates, young people - in short, everyone, except those who volunteer to fight for their country. In a few days time we will get to see if Redford and his A-List pals have anything of any merit to say in his feature film message/commentary on the situation in Afghanistan.

Thanks for reading, take care and be well.

Joel

News: Spider-Man 3 European Premiere

Joel at the European Premiere of Spider-Man 3, London
Monday 23rd April 2007

A gloomy afternoon outside the Odeon, Leicester Square was severely brightened with the onslaught of glitz and allure as celebrities ranging from Fearne Cotton to Thomas Haden Church waltzed the red carpet in front of thousands of ear-splitting fans. Prime photographic positions were gained by my fellow correspondents and personal questions were on standby for impromptu interviews as Arsenal and England’s Theo Walcott kicked things off. Certain unrecognisable figures jumped out of a constant convoy of Mercedes and they seemingly disappeared into a sea of red carpet without trace. Snow Patrol, Sugababes and Fearne Cotton continued the stealthy entrances with only the audiences’ steady screams of “Wooooo!” exemplifying the constant anxiety and excitement of the impending main showstoppers. Rosemary Harris, Spidey’s aunt, who I inadvertently kept calling Eva Marie Saint after my confusion with the Superman Returns star, was the anomaly of the fan hostility and she was the precursor to the photo/autograph session. She seemed like a cracking lady and I was therefore very confused as to why she never bothered to compliment my knowledge of her “amazing performance in Hitchcock’s North by Northwest” or “the famous glove scene with Brando in On the Waterfront”. Luckily she never corrected my stupidity à la Julia Roberts’ Notting Hill heroine when she corrects Martin the bookshop worker about his cock-up with Demi Moore, and the photos came out relatively well in the end.

The main event was excellent. Topher Grace just zoomed passed (obviously desperate to see the film in the world famous auditorium!) but James Franco was a tad more hospitable, and, after giving his driver a near-empty bottle of red wine, he was his usual grumpy self, but he still allowed a few snaps. Kirsten Dunst and Tobey Maguire were different class though. I actually managed a small conversation with both in addition to the standard handshake. The highlight with Kirsten was my acclaim towards her great performance in Sofia Coppola’s The Virgin Suicides, to which she stopped signing Spidey merchandise amongst the bustling crowd and said very calmly, “Thank you so much, I love that picture too!” The handshake with Maguire was everything you would expect from a superhero but the magical conversation we shared seems to have escaped memory. The main reason for this was the red carpet inclusion of director Sam Raimi and Michael G. Wilson, producer of the James Bond franchise. With Raimi I had the longest interaction of all, and after the complimentary, “Hi, I’m director Sam Raimi, how are you?” handshake, we got down to magazine interviews, shooting schedules, work commitments involved in creating a blockbuster spectacle, the possibility of a fourth instalment, and much more. Raimi seemed like a real down to earth cinematic legend in the making, if he isn’t seen as such already, and I confirmed this by pointing to him and mouthing the aforementioned word as his son captured the episode on his HandyCam – embarrassing but worth it. Michael G. Wilson – I was the only person who recognised him - rounded off the enjoying couple of hours before I sloped off to produce this report. The Claudia Schiffer missed appearance which happened seconds after my team left is a lifelong regret however. In all, Caprice was stunning, DJ “Master of Ceremonies” Spoony was idiotic and Graham Norton, well, need I say more. In all seriousness though, the actual A-List stars justified their luminous stature and created an awe-inspiring environment for, hopefully, a grand film.

> Rich's Spider-Man 3 review

Why summer?

This summer season has so far been absolutely stuffed with seemingly more big blockbusters than ever before. For the film fan, that's surely a good thing - more stuff to see, right? I'm not certain, though, that it's entirely good for business.

Recently in the US there was a 3-week stretch that saw Die Hard 4, Ratatouille, Transformers and Harry Potter 5 released, one after another. The first two were released two days apart. This cramming of the release schedules means that increasingly the films have to make a big dent in their first few days to have much hope of hanging around in cinemas for long.

Competition is surely a good thing, of course, but I just feel that by releasing such high profile films so close together, the studios are unneccessarily eating into their takings. This summer was tipped to be the biggest of all time (and may still be), mainly due to the three giants released in May, namely Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Unsurprisingly, though, none of these have reached the heights of previous series instalments or come anywhere near $400 million domestic.

My question is, would they have made more money if they had been released further apart? The answer, to me, would appear to be "quite probably". The problem for the studios is that there are only so many weeks in the summer, and they each have to jostle for the best position.

Let me propose a radical notion. How about blockbusters are released all year round? Why do they all have to be splurged out in summer, within weeks of each other? (Or, in the last few years, November/December.) One major advantage of summer is that for much of the time schools are on holiday, meaning more weekday business, but that doesn't explain why May is seen as such a big month for business. Schools are still in session and in the UK at least (I don't know about America), May and June contain the exam period for schools and universities.

Some months of the year are seen as "dump months", in which studios release films they expect will make little money. Such months include September and February, often pretty rubbish months for film releases. Studios don't release their big films in these months because they're seen as months when people don't go to the cinema as much, but perhaps that's just because so few appealing films are released?

Back in 1975, summer was seen as a bad period in which to release films. People prefer to stay outdoors in the nice weather, the logic said. Then Jaws was released. Two years later, Star Wars. This year, 300's $70 million launch proved that March can generate blockbuster grosses. I'd like to see each major film given more room to breathe, with perhaps one or two blockbusters released each month. I don't see why a film that people genuinely want to see would fail if it was released in February. To paraphrase an old adage, "If you film it, they will come".

It would help matters if blockbusters were more consistently good, though.


[The other side of the coin here is that the lack of blockbusters in the "down" months means that they don't suffocate smaller, low-budget fare. I think both could survive, given sufficient quality.]

Front(over)loading

For about 20 years now, major Hollywood blockbusters have been following an increasing trend of having big first weekend grosses and then trailing off sharply from the second weekend onwards. The trend was started properly by Tim Burton's Batman, which opened to a then-record-breaking $40m. It went on to gross over $250m, but it only continued making significant grosses for about six weeks. Compare that to the old pattern of a movie like ET (admittedly an abnormally high-grossing example) which hung around the number 1 spot for months.

The frontloading of the audience seems to be reaching an extreme. At this rate, it can only be so long until movies make virtually all their money in the first week. I don't think it's a good trend to be setting; although first-weekend grosses are getting bigger all the time, overall grosses aren't.

Take the three "threequels" that have so far been released this year in the US: Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third and Pirates: AWE. They've all opened big (a record-breaking $151m for Spidey, an animated film record $121m for Shrek, and a Memorial Day weekend record $114m for Pirates, with $140m over the 4-day span). However, none of them are going to get close to matching the previous highs of their respective franchises.

It's also noteworthy that in the case of Spidey and Pirates, their first day gross has been roughly equivalent to the whole second weekend gross. That's one big fall, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that trend continue with more of the summer's big hitters to come. Ultimately these will result in the opening weekend representing probably 40% or more of the total gross.

There's not much that can be done about it, admittedly. With the current consumer climate and the now-set-in-stone tradition of opening absolutely everywhere at the same time, everyone goes to see the big films in their first weekend, and DVDs come out barely 3 months later now. I'm not trying to suggest that people should deliberately not see a film on its first weekend, though; obviously I pretty much always do that.

There is one way the trend can be somewhat rectified: make the movies good! Almost every franchise film with a big advertising spend can make masses of money in the first weekend whatever standard they are. But only good films (generally) have the legs to carry them to a great total gross in the long run. I don't think it's a coincidence that 2007's threequels have so far had big falls each weekend, because none of them have been very good (I've not seen Shrek the Third yet, but that's the general consensus).

There's a simple flow chart to this.

A film that is actually good
¦
\/
good word of mouth + repeat viewings
¦
\/
BIG MONEY.

The Obligatory Pirates Rant

So I didn't like Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. I really wanted to.

When I first heard about the first Pirates film, I was ecstatic. I love pirates. As a kid I used to write pirate stories (I even wrote a four-part series called Battle On Treasure Island. They were each a page long. I was about 6 years old.) and I played the first two Monkey Island games to the point of being able to recite them. Therefore I was dying to see it even before the buzz about it actually possibly being good began to spread.

The reason I'm saying this is because it provides some sort of evidence that a film about pirates would have to be pretty awful for me to not like it. I'm predisposed to liking them. I felt like At World's End actively worked to make me hate it. It failed at that quest, because I don't hate it; I just think it took the franchise completely in the wrong direction. A big fall this weekend at the box office (only $43m second weekend - ouch) suggests that I'm not the only one.

(Spoilers ahead, probably.)

It seemed to me that with At World's End, and to a lesser extent Dead Man's Chest, the writers (Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio) were more concerned with being unpredicable than actually crafting a compelling story. The Pirates sequels can't be accused of adhering to formula like so many blockbusters, but formula exists for a reason: it works.

I'm not saying that the films should have been formulaic. I'm just saying that sometimes the sequels (again, mostly referring to AWE; I like DMC) made it feel like they were just throwing ideas at a wall and seeing what stuck. A lot didn't.

For example, nobody thought Jack Sparrow would 'die' at the end of the second movie, so they put that in despite the fact they didn't have a logical and appealing way to bring him back (the Davey Jones' Locker sequence just completely defies all credibility). Audiences didn't expect surrealism, so they shoved in a load of weird hallucinations. Nobody would have thought they'd see a kid being hanged in a Disney movie. Another tick. Etcetera, etcetera.

They forgot to make sure that the story they were telling was actually interesting and enjoyable. AWE is convoluted beyond belief and a lot of the stuff is just pointless; you could chop out half of the betrayals and negotiations and the rest of the film wouldn't have been harmed, given a bit of minor alteration. I found it interesting that in an interview on Box Office Mojo here, Elliot and Rossio say at one point in the script they had one character on two ships. That says a lot - if they can't keep track of the characters, how can we?

Another thing that really grinded my gears (to paraphrase Peter Griffin from Family Guy) was that some of the storylines that had been built up in DMC went nowhere. Davey Jones' story had no real conclusion, and Tia Dalma's transformation into a sea goddess and subsequent disappearance was completely irrelevant. The resurrection Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa was never explained sufficiently either, although his presence in the film was generally a high point. On top of all this, Chow Yun Fat joined in the fun in AWE, and his usefulness to the story added up to precisely nil.

I remember when I first saw DMC. I hadn't read any spoilers about the ending, so Barbossa's return came as a big surprise to me. When I first saw the boots coming down the stairs, I was expecting it to be Chow Yun Fat, because I'd heard he was in part 3. If that had been the case it could have been great, if Chow had been let loose to have a bit of fun.

But of course, Barbossa had to be brought back because he was one of the Pirate Lords needed to release Calypso from her human form (Tia Dalma - keeping up?). A friend pointed out to me how illogical that was the other day - Jack Sparrow was captain of the Black Pearl before Barbossa, right? Therefore why would they both be pirate lords?

Aaargh, I could go on all day! What a missed opportunity.

On a side note, I'd still like to see a Pirates 4 (although that's looking less likely with AWE's underwhelming US grosses), as the storyline set up at the end of AWE - Jack and Barbossa's competing quest for the Fountain of Youth - sounds like an opportunity for a lot of fun, and a return to the sheer breezy entertainment of the first film. I can see it now: Pirates vs. Indians in Florida... The potential for Orlando in-jokes alone makes it a no-brainer.

Couldn't Say It Better Myself

Sometimes I see a review or a comment about a film that I've seen and I think, "that's precisely what I thought". Most of the time the viewpoint is expressed more eloquently than I could put it myself.

So, I give you the latest example, regarding Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.

"Thought Pirates 2 was bloated, overplotted and made no sense? You ain't seen nothing yet."
Tim Robey, Daily Telegraph, May 26 2007.

For comparison, read my review here.

Expect me to rant quite a bit about Pirates 3 in the coming days.

Second Time's A Charm

I recently saw 28 Weeks Later, and it pretty much blew me away (review here). For me, it's a big improvement over the original. That got me thinking: how many sequels are there that actually are clearly better than the first instalments in the series? The list is bound to be a short one, but here are some that come to mind.

• The Empire Strikes Back. One of the most obvious ones, perhaps. Empire is easily the best Star Wars film to me, and it's the only one that I regularly feel like returning too. It seems more than just a coincidence that this one had the least imput from a certain Mr. Lucas.
• Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The first Terminator is a classic, but T2 is a prime example of how you can use a bigger budget to craft bigger thrills. It may be a bit sentimental sometimes, but it's one of the best action films of all time if you ask me. And no, Terminator 3 should not have happened. (Don't get me started on Terminator 4 or the Sarah Connor Chronicles...)
  
• X-Men 2. I find that Bryan Singer's comic sequel lessens on repeat viewings, but it's still hard to deny it's a more entertaining beast than the relatively restrained series opener. Singer juggles the various characters with aplomb.
• The Bourne Supremacy. There's not much to choose between the Bournes, really, but a more satisfying ending means that Supremacy pips it for me.
• Spider-Man 2. I waver on this one. At first I thought Spidey 2 was miles better than the first, but I've since rewatched the original a few times and it's grown on me. Still, Spidey 2 has some superb action scenes and better effects.
• From Russia With Love. I'm not sure you can really count any of the 20 subsequent Bond films after Dr. No as proper sequels, but FRWL is the best one if you ask me. In fact, a lot of them are better than Dr. No to be honest.
• Batman Begins. Again, this isn't truly a sequel, because it's a restart. But the fact remains that it's the fifth Batman feature film (the Adam West movie doesn't count) and is the best superhero flick ever.
  

...And that's about everything I can think of. There are other sequels that I don't think are better films but I watch them more than the originals, probably because I've seen the originals in question too many times. Including:

• Back to the Future Part II. BTTF is possibly one of the best-structured screenplays ever. Part II is more convoluted and has the trouble of restarting the story but it does it with apparent ease. It's also ingenious.
• Alien 3. After seeing the workprint cut of Alien 3 in the Alien Quadrilogy box set it instantly shot up in my estimation. I love the set design and atmosphere of the piece. It's not what people expected after Aliens, which is probably why it went down poorly.
• Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. When I first watched DMC, I wasn't hugely impressed. Since then, I've slowly come round to its charms. I watch it regularly and still can't get enough of that waterwheel set-piece. I may even prefer it to the first one now.
  
• Superman II. Superman II does have an unfair advantage in the re-watch stakes as there are now two versions of it, but even if there was only the theatrical I think I'd watch it more than Superman: The Movie. General Zod is an awesome villain, and the "General, would you care to step outside?" moment is a classic - one agonisingly ruined in the Donner Cut.
  

That's all for now, but I'm sure there are more. Of course, there's a good reason sequels tend to be worse than the first instalments: films that get sequels are generally good, and also have the benefit of freshness. Let's see if any more of this year's influx of sequels (after 28 Weeks Later) can manage it.

Pirates 3 Tomorrow!

Tomorrow, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is released. I've been really looking forward to it since last Christmas, when I got the Dead Man's Chest DVD and decided that I did actually like it a lot. But a couple of things have me slightly concerned.

I've mostly avoided reviews of the film, unlike with Spider-Man 3, because I had the ending of that film annoyingly spoiled for me. I have seen a few star ratings and read the odd sentence or two, though. They generally have given it an average grade (3 out of 5) and said that it's too long and muddled; basically what they all said about number 2.

Theoretically, that shouldn't really bother me. As I've said, DMC grew on me considerably with repeated viewings, after being disappointed with it initially. I still have some issues with it, but I think it's generally pretty entertaining, especially the awesome waterwheel swordfight. Fundamentally I now think that it's a solid continuation of the franchise.

What I've heard about AWE, though, is that it's dark, and the humour is not present as much as in the previous ones. If you ask me, humour is key to this franchise's success, and it was DMC's darker edge that put me off. As I said in my first review, I thought they made the same mistake as in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom by going darker when they didn't need to. Fortunately the Indy series was redeemed by The Last Crusade, a return to the feel and excitement of Raiders.

In the case of Pirates, however, it seems that the third one is going to be the darkest yet. Not only that, there looks like there'll be less in the way of tropical island landscapes - an obvious staple of the series - and a more gloomy aesthetic overall (judging by the trailer). Plus it is the longest instalment too at about 160 minutes. I'd love for my concerns to be wrong.

On a related note, where is all the advertising? I remember clearly the advertising blitz for Spider-Man 3 and even wrote about it in an earlier post, but Pirates 3 seems to be going to the other extreme. There's only one trailer (which I must have seen dozens of times by now) and a few posters knocking about, I haven't noticed much. It's all very odd.

Going by that fact, and the film's running time, I'm pretty sure it can't beat Spider-Man 3's opening weekend (although huge opening weekends are getting more and more common these days, with Shrek the Third's surprisingly big 120m+ last weekend). It should last longer than its superhero rival though, since it doesn't have any particularly huge imminent competition and previous instalments have shown decent legs.

Whatever, as always, I'll be there on opening day.

Spider-Man 3 Retrospective

Yes, I know it's a little early for a retrospective, considering the film in question came out 5 days ago. But I just saw Spider-Man 3 for the second time today and it solidified my thoughts a bit more.

Most importantly, the second go-around didn't really change my overall view of the film: that it has got its moments, but is considerably inferior to the other two. However, the bashing that it is receiving in some quarters is completely out of all proportion - it's nowhere near Superman III on the travesty scale, for example.

Warning, for the approximately three people on the planet who haven't seen it yet: SPOILERS.

One thing I kept thinking during my second watch was that I really want to do a re-edit of the film. It couldn't iron out all the flaws, certainly, but I do think the flow could be improved. I don't like how once the black goo has infected the Spidey suit Peter can still take it off easily, and turn back into nice Peter. I think the black suit should've latched itself onto him and stayed on him until he rips it off in the bell tower. With a bit of re-ordering of scenes, that could probably be worked out.

What editing couldn't really solve is the slow start. While the film takes a while to get moving, that's mainly because Spider-Man 2 really came to a nicely resolved conclusion, except with the Harry storyline. It means that at the start of this instalment some time has to be taken to restart the forward momentum of the plot. I would have just liked a fairly basic Spider-Man rescue to open the film, not really related to the rest of the plot but just to get the audience in the mood.

One part of the set-up I might jettison is the first scene where we meet Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), soon to become the Sandman. The scene sets up his relationship with his daughter and estranged wife, but it slows down the beginning too much if you ask me, creating the need for some cumbersome cross-cutting. It does make the character of Marko more sympathetic but I could live without it.

On the subject of Sandman, I didn't really like him as a villain. Church gave an excellent performance, as I'd expected after Sideways. I just didn't feel he really belonged in the Spider-Man movie universe. Somehow, a guy who has four mechanical arms attached to his body (i.e. Doctor Octopus) seems more plausible and less outlandish than a guy who can literally turn into sand. I also didn't think the effects were that great at all. The Sandman 'birth' scene was good but I think a lot of that is down to the music and the performance rather than the believability of the CGI, which was never really top-drawer in my opinion. On top of that, I really didn't like Sandman's ability to turn into a sand cloud and fly around at will, a power which seems to have been made up by the filmmakers.

Moving on to one of the major bones of contention, the dance sequence. Personally I do find it pretty funny but I also think it's a bit too cheesy and goofy to completely work. But it is the only point in the film where Tobey Maguire is really able to have some fun in the role, and he revels in it. Going by the evidence of Spider-Man 3 it really looks like Raimi is dying to make a musical, and I'd prefer that he scratched that itch before making the next Spidey, if he does indeed return.

Now, Venom. For one thing, as I said in my review, in his full form I think he looks amazing. The design of the creature was absolutely nailed. He's not in it enough unfortunately, and even when he is, there are certain aspects that I found really jarring. One, of course, is the really perfunctory "let's team up" scene between him and Sandman. More importantly to me, I don't think he should have talked, or if he did it should have been a really growly, animalistic voice. I also didn't like that Venom's 'mask' kept receding and showing Brock's face underneath, as it really lessened the menace, and Topher Grace is completely ill-suited to that aspect of the character.

Despite the clunkiness of many elements of the film, I still find it highly enjoyable. No sections have bored me either of the times I've seen it. I love the frequent little touches of humour - not the broad goofy stuff like the "Evil Peter" hairdo, mind, but things like the door jamming routine and the cookie girl - which reminded me of the earlier films and showed that Raimi hasn't completely lost touch with them.

The climactic action scene kind of sums Spider-Man 3 up. I like it, but there are certain aspects that really get on my nerves. One such example is the British TV news reporter. Another is the aforementioned moments when Venom speaks. Also Sandman seems to be in the fight just because he's one of the villains and therefore has to be; when he later shows up, rather out of the blue (after having been apparently defeated), he says he was forced into everything, but that doesn't stack up. He may have been trying to get money because his daughter's ill but that doesn't mean he has to help Venom put an innocent civilian (Mary-Jane, again) in peril. Also, his dumb, groaning giant sand creature form reminded me of Mongo, the giant gingerbread man fro Shrek 2, which made him seem kind of laughable. Nevertheless, despite the problems with the sequence, it is still engrossing and fun, and I absolutely love that shot in which Spidey and Venom fall towards the ground, fighting each other all the way down.

Interestingly, the cinema didn't seem very busy today. For the Wednesday after the release of a blockbuster that has broken so many records, that's kind of surprising. It's going to see quite a drop in its second weekend, by the looks of it.

Will Spider-Man Have Legs?

Well, looks like my very first box office prediction of the summer has turned out to be a bit wide of the mark. Great way to start.

According to early estimates, Spider-Man 3 has blasted past the opening weekend record set by Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest last year ($135m), reaping an astounding $148m in North America alone. Include worldwide receipts and it's already made $375m. Wow.

I predicted $125m - I thought it would be a big hit (that would've put it second in all-time weekends) but I personally wasn't hugely hyped for it, so I thought my feelings might be shared by others. I still went to see it on opening day though, and apparently everyone else and their grandmother did too.

Unless it drops like a stone, Spidey 3 looks guaranteed to be the highest grossing film of the series, with the first instalment's $403.7m total to beat. But it may not be a shoe-in, because the general word of mouth hasn't been stellar. Or, at least, the reviews haven't. It's a similar pattern to that of POTC: DMC, because that wasn't particularly well-reviewed but the punters still went in their droves.

If Spidey follows the trend of Pirates, the superhero flick should finish with around $465m (domestic), which surely isn't going to happen. Comic book films tend to be more front-loaded than others, with the most extreme example being last year's X-Men: The Last Stand, which had a surprisingly huge opening weekend of $102m but only made $234m in total. The average big blockbuster these days seems to make about a third of its money in the first weekend, but with Spidey I expect a little more. Add to that the fact that in Spidey's third week Shrek 3 opens in the US, followed by Pirates 3 the following week, and Spider-Man 3 may indeed struggle to top the first film's grosses.

All of which is rather irrelevant, really. More importantly, how good is it? I have to admit, I didn't think it was brilliant. My review spells out my thoughts. Interestingly, despite my underwhelmed-ness, I really want to see it again already. Same thing happened with Dead Man's Chest, and I now like that film a lot.

I have plenty more to say about Spider-Man 3, but I'll keep the numbers to a minimum next time. Honest.

UPDATE: Double wow. Sony underestimated it. The actual total is $151m! It would really have to drop like a stone to not top the first one now.

Summer Predictions

As if you didn't know by now, Spider-Man 3 opens tomorrow in the US and UK and looks certain to kick off the 2007 blockbuster season with a bang. I'm getting tired of writing this now, but this summer has the potential to be the best on record by some distance, so I'm going to take this last opportunity before the juggernaut starts rolling to give my final predictions for the major films' grosses.

Film title - US Opening Weekend/US Total/Worldwide Total
Spider-Man 3 - $125m/$350m/$800m
Shrek the Third - $90m/$380m/$800m
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - $120m/$390m/$1 billion
Ocean's Thirteen - $40m/$130m/$380m
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - $70m/$160m/$340m
Evan Almighty - $55m/$170m/$340m
Ratatouille - $65m/$230m/$500m
Die Hard 4.0/Live Free or Die Hard - $35m/$100m/$300m
Transformers - $60m/$160m/$330m
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - $100m/$260m/$850m
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry - $42m/$120m/$220m
The Simpsons Movie - $60m/$190m/$450m
The Bourne Ultimatum - $55m/$180m/$370m
Rush Hour 3 - $50m/$160m/$260m

And that's your lot, as far as I can see. Knocked Up has good buzz but it lacks star power, and there may be a few others to hit big, but those are the main ones I think. And bear in mind these are just amateur guesses!

Most of these are included and discussed in some detail in my 2007 Summer Blockbuster Preview at Filmverdict. Speaking of which, there's a new review of Next over there.

The Year of The Beef

Shia LaBeouf's been having a good run of luck lately. And his surname is almost the same as the French word for 'the beef' ('le boeuf'). Therefore from henceforth he shall be known as Shia The Beef.

For those unaware, The Beef's latest film, and his first as the proper lead, Disturbia, has just topped the US box office for the third week in a row, which is a rare feat these days. (You can ignore the fact that it was an absolutely terrible weekend where the top film made less than $10 million.)

The film that may confirm 2007 as the Year of The Beef is Transformers. Michael Bay's banking on the young actor to carry the CGI behemoth on his untested shoulders, but the success of the relatively low-profile Disturbia bodes well. I'm still not convinced that Transformers will be that massive (seems like a niche audience to me) but I'll be happy to be proved wrong if the film is good.

Other recent Beef-related news, he's been cast in Indiana Jones 4 - rumoured to be titled Indiana Jones and The City of the Gods, which sounds suitably Indiana Jonesian - by Steven Spielberg, incidentally executive producer of Transformers. All the speculation is that he's playing Indy's son, which sounds logical, if not particularly appealing. Another confirmed cast member is Cate Blanchett, but I'll save my ranting about Indy 4 for another post.

I first saw Mr. The Beef as a young actor in the underrated and underseen Holes, alongside Sigourney Weaver and Jon Voight. Since then he's appeared as a fairly superfluous but tolerable sidekick character in I, Robot, as well as popping up in Constantine (which I haven't seen) and Bobby (which I have, and he was quite entertaining in it).

So he may well be on the path to superstardom. And with a name like that, who'd bet against it?

Suffocation Marketing

Suffocation Marketing - noun. Marketing that is so extensive that you cannot get away from it.

You've heard of saturation marketing? Well I'm attempting to coin a new phrase: suffocation marketing (or as CHUD.com called it, "carpet bombing"). Take a guess which film I'm referring to here.

That's right, Spider-Man 3. If there's anyone in the country who doesn't know it's coming out on Friday, they must be living in a cave. Or Wales. There are posters for it on every street around here (Manchester). That's is not really the point of this post, though. I've got no problem with seeing posters covering every wall, phone box and bus within a 5 mile radius.

What I do have an issue with is the trailers. There have been so many by now (I think four plus a teaser) that I feel like I've seen the whole film, and can certainly take a good guess at how the whole plot pans out. It's inevitably going to take away from the 'wow' factor when I see the film, which is a shame.

The makers were trying to keep Venom's appearance in the film a secret for a while. Now they've just clearly thought 'to hell with it' and chucked in everything and the kitchen sink. It might be the internet's fault - there was endless speculation that Venom was going to be in it - or it might be Kirsten Dunst's fault (she accidentally gave Venom away in an interview). Or maybe they were just planning to spoil the secret anyway.

Think about it: how awesome would it have been if you went in to Spidey 3 not knowing if Venom was going to be in it? His eventual appearance would be brilliant. Now I just have a feeling there are going to be plenty of people complaining he doesn't show up early enough.

I can see why Sony have shown a few glimpses of Venom in the trailers. He's obviously a big selling point. I just wish they'd held back on the trailers a bit and not quite given away so much of the film. Having said that, I've obviously not seen the film yet so they might still be withholding something amazing.

On the other side of the coin, there's Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. I know there's still the best part of a month to wait for that one, but so far there's only been one trailer. Disney will probably step up the advertising once Spidey's out, but at the moment I'm sensing a lack of buzz for it (although it's one of my most anticipated films).

It'll be interesting to see what does best at the box office. Last year, Superman Returns was marketed to high heaven, but that smacked of desperation on WB's part, and resulted in a lacklustre opening. POTC then went and stomped all over it. This year, Pirates has stiffer competition.

So, will people be fed up of Spider-Man before it even comes out? Will Jack Sparrow bust the same blocks as he did last year? Does anyone really care??

I do!

(I know I've been talking about Spider-Man 3 and Superman Returns a lot. Sorry about that. Superhero films are taking up a large part of the film space in my brain at the moment.)

Your Mother Sucks Bears

*Immature chuckle*

See, you can have some fun when researching university assignments.

(This is a real screen grab from La Haine. Give yourself a gold star if you guessed right.)

Dear Bryan Singer

I liked Superman Returns. It wasn't brilliant, but it was better than the film we could have got. Have you seen the designs for the intended Tim Burton/Nicolas Cage version? They're utterly terrible. And Cage as Superman?! Thank the movie gods that it never happened.

Anyhow, Superman Returns, as adequate as it was, still disappointed me in several areas. So here I'm going to list what I didn't like about it and what I would like to see in Superman Returns II/Superman Returns Again/Superman Reborn/Superman VI/Superman: The Man of Steel/whatever it's called. Note inevitable spoilers lie ahead.

1. Have a good villain who is a physical threat to Superman. This is the obvious one that everyone wants to see. Lex Luthor can be a good villain if used correctly, and Kevin Spacey is a great choice to play him, but he's run his course in the Superman films. I'd be happy with him returning as a secondary villain, but Superman needs a nemesis that seems stronger than him. The reason a lot of the proposed scripts for Superman Returns were essentially remakes of Superman II is that General Zod and co were awesome enemies and really made Superman the underdog. The super-powered ruckus in Metropolis could be quite something with today's technology. Having said that, I don't think a simple rehash of the second film is called for, just effective villains would be nice. My personal pick, with a little tweaking from the comics: Doomsday from the Death of Superman comics arc.
2. Ditch the kid. It's not the actor's fault (I thought Tristan Lake Leabu was pretty good for a child of his age) but the idea of giving Superman a son, especially this abruptly, was not a wise one. Still, they can't really just ditch the whole plot strand between movies. I've got two suggestions for this: firstly, it could be revealed that Jason isn't actually Supes' son as it was fairly ambiguous; or secondly, have him killed as soon as possible in the next film. I don't see the latter option happening in a million years as it's way too dark, but I just like the potential for Superman to go nuts from grief.
3. More action scenes. This kind of relates to point 1, but it would just be nice to see Supes doing more heroic-type stuff (obviously the budget is an issue here). Also, and this is probably going to sound weirdly nitpicky, but show Superman taking off more. In Returns you mostly just saw him as Clark, then in the sky as Superman. There was only one costume change shot as well. I loved those bits from the Reeve films.
4. A more light-hearted tone. I liked that the whole Superman mythos was taken seriously, but it didn't mean that the film had to be as cheery as a funeral. Follow Donner's example from the first Superman or Sam Raimi's with the Spider-Man films (I think Raimi has got the seriousness/humour balance pretty spot on so far). More snappy dialogue would help; the script for Superman Returns was bashed out in a few days and it showed.
5. Better flying shots. I'm not talking about effects, because they were generally good in SR. Mainly I'm talking about the positioning of the camera. In the original films a lot of the flying was done with Chris Reeve in close up. It was primarily due to technological restrictions but it worked well, especially with Reeve's stellar acting. In SR most of the time we saw Superman flying he was a small speck on the screen. The most promising part was the flying through the clouds shot at the end.
   
6. Replace Kate Bosworth, or make Lois more likeable. I don't really favour messing with continuity unneccessarily, but Chris Nolan has replaced Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal for Batman: The Dark Knight. Bosworth was a bit bland in SR, not to mention too young. And what was with the costumes and make-up being so unflattering? It seemed they were trying to make Lois look unattractive, and to me they pretty much succeeded. I think Bosworth might be able to pull it off next time, but give her a more interesting and feisty character.
7. Improve the suit. Although this is the seventh point, to me it's one of the most important. The new suit was controversial when it was first revealed, and I'm still not very happy with it. Basically, the colours need to be brighter, especially the reds. The suit worked and did not need changing. I'm OK with some updating - the raised chest symbol is fine, if a little small - but get the colours right next time.

That's all I can think of just now, but if Singer manages to address most or all of these concerns then I'll be a happy man. I saw Superman Returns four times at the cinema, mainly hoping that it would improve on repeat viewings. Hopefully I'll see the next one four times (at least) simply because it's a great film.

Wow, that was a long post.

P.S. I would still definitely prefer a sequel to Superman Returns than a Justice League movie.

Budget, Schmudget

The budgets of the biggest blockbusters have been getting absolutely insane in the last few years, to the extent that studios tend to do their best to hide what a film cost. Gone are the days when a film's poster would boast that it was the most expensive movie ever made like it was a good thing.

There's no real way to know any more just what the most expensive film ever even is. Titanic held the spot for a while, but now its $200 million budget doesn't seem that shocking. Rumours are that Spider-Man 3 cost $300 million, although the producers deny it was that much. Not only is that an unbelievably huge figure, it doesn't make good business sense either.

Budgets have skyrocketed in the last decade or so, exponentially more than inflation. It's mad that Spider-Man 3 is predicted to be one of the most popular films of the year but will probably barely recount its costs with the US gross. I love big budget spectacle, but I'm not convinced that the increased expenditure is worth it.

George Lucas said a few months back that he predicts average movie budgets will fall to less than $30 million in the next few years because they're just not making their money back. I think that prediction is a bit extreme, but it would make sense to see budgets lessen somewhat. In the current climate, a film that makes $200 million can mean financial disappointment, which is just crazy. Generally less than 20 films make even $100 million in any given year.

You may be thinking, what do I care? I don't run or have a stake in a studio. That's true, but I do love movies, and I'm always pleased to see films make money whatever they are (well, with the odd exception). But when an average blockbuster starts to cost more than even the most anticipated ones expect to make back, that's just madness. Madness, I tell ya!

Editorial: The Music Maketh the Movie

I've been thinking of my favourite movies lately, and I've noticed a striking correlation: nearly all of my favourite movies have superb soundtracks. I really think that film music, for me at least, has a considerable bearing on whether I like the film in question, and it is an area of filmmaking that sometimes can be overlooked.

I tend to be partial to orchestral scores but a good compilation of songs can also add to a film considerably. One of the reasons Tarantino is known so well is because of his instantly iconic soundtracks, generally comprising of obscure hits from the 80s or earlier.

Just looking at the last couple of years, I could identify numerous soundtracks that really added to a movie. In some cases they were the difference between a complete dud and an acceptable way to spend a couple of hours, Eragon being a case in point. I was pretty satisfied with Superman Returns mainly because they used John Williams' classic theme. Indeed, the opening credits of that film are the best part of it, and I have put the DVD on just to watch the start several times.

Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette split audiences somewhat, but I'm a big fan. I was curious to see how modern pop music would work in a period context, and the answer was "very well indeed". Of course, the choice of songs was hugely important, and somehow they all suited it so well. Who'd have thought that The Cure would be perfect for a scene of 18th century Versailles? Sofia Coppola, apparently.

Another one that I loved but was not hugely well received generally last year was Miami Vice. Michael Mann's films generally have expertly selected soundtracks and his latest movie was the same. I went and bought Mogwai's Auto Rock on iTunes straight away after seeing the film.

So I see a trend has emerged. I fairly often seem to like films that have been critically panned or poorly received by the public, and in those cases I generally like their soundtracks. Perhaps I value film music so highly that it distorts my perception of a bad film? Or maybe that's precisely film music's job.

Try to imagine Star Wars without the music. See?

EDIT (3 May): I recently watched Danny Boyle's Sunshine for the second time, and there are moments in that which are just a sublime fusion of stunning visuals and excellent music. That's pure cinema, folks.

Don't Split Grindhouse!

Grindhouse, the new collaboration between Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, has been a resounding flop in the states. It's essentially a movie double bill - you get two movies for the price of one! With some made-up comedy trailers in between! Go see it, Americans!

Well, inevitably, its failure has prompted a lot of people to say that it was too long (about 3 hours). Length is always the first thing to be highlighted if a long-ish film flops, but come on. The top two films of all time, which have both been released in the last ten years (Titanic, LOTR: Return of the King) are both well over 3 hours themselves.

Anyway, the latest development is that Momentum have deleted the release date from the film's UK website. It looks likely that the Weinsteins, who financed it, are now going to release the two films which constitute Grindhouse separately. If this happens, it sucks. The main appeal for me with Grindhouse is that it should be a unique cinema experience, with the double-bill aspect adding to it immeasurably.

Put it this way. Rodriguez's Sin City is basically 3 stories, but if you watch those stories separately it's nowhere near as good. It's more than the sum of its parts.

Which brings me back to the title of this post: respect the filmmakers' original intentions, and don't split Grindhouse, please.

Sony Pictures Hate You

I was expecting to be able to see Spider-Man 3 on the IMAX screen next week. There was even a trailer for it before the IMAX showing of 300. But no, apparently Sony aren't sending any IMAX prints at all to the UK. Thanks a lot, corporate cronies.

Anyway, that got me thinking. Of all the big studios, Sony seem to be the most soulless to me. I know Hollywood works just to make money from people, but Sony's output generally seems so bland. I do give them credit for hiring Sam Raimi to direct the Spider-Man series but even those films have too much of a moderated, mass-produced sheen if you ask me. It's also reflected in their DVDs, which tend to have slick but unpersonal extras.

Maybe I'm being too harsh. All the studios are now owned by big multinationals these days. Warner Brothers seem to have the right idea though: they give big-budget films to talented young directors and seem to give them fairly free reign, for better or worse (Batman Begins, Superman Returns, The Matrix) - they make generally satisfying DVDs, and, importantly for me, THEY PUT THEIR FILMS ON IMAX OVER HERE.

Welcome!

Welcome to the Filmverdict Blog, revealing to you the inner thoughts of a film geek. In this blog I will post whatever random film-related things come into my head as a sort of stream of consciousness. And when I say random, I mean random.

I also run an attempt at a 'proper' film website, at www.geocities.com/filmverdict. Sorry for the cheap plug, but this is my blog after all. From time to time I'll probably mention site updates on this blog, so you might want to subscribe to the atom feed and get automatic notification of a new post.

Also, feel free to post comments! Feedback is welcome.