Oscar, schmoscar

The 2008 Oscar nominations are in, and as per usual, there are a few surprises and disappointing oversights. The following are the nominations for all the categories bar the short film ones.

The film names in Bold are my predictions (not necessarily my personal favourites, though).

Film Of The Year
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

No real surprises here, although many were predicting that Atonement would be snubbed, despite its huge haul of BAFTA nominations. Its acclaim isn't really deserved if you ask me. Meanwhile, people continue to be blind to the awfulness of Michael Clayton - my worst film of the year is nominated for Best Picture! No Country is probably the frontrunner, but I'm desperate to see There Will Be Blood, which isn't out yet in the UK.

Best Director
Julian Schnabel -The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Jason Reitman -Juno
Tony Gilroy -Michael Clayton
Joel and Ethan Coen - No Country for Old Men
Paul Thomas Anderson - There Will Be Blood

For a director of a foreign language film, Schnabel did well to receive a nomination. Otherwise, the only real shocker is again the nomination of Gilroy for Michael Clayton. Some will be sad to see Sean Penn (Into the Wild) and Andrew Dominik (The Assassination of Jesse James) miss out, for me those films were a slight letdown.

Best Actor
George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd
Tommy Lee Jones - In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises

Depp is excellent in Todd, as is Mortensen in the subpar Eastern Promises. Again, I need to see There Will Be Blood.

Best Supporting Actor
Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton

A very strong category overall. Affleck, Bardem, Hoffman are all worthy; my preference, and prediction, is Bardem.

Best Actress
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie - Away from Her
Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney - The Savages
Ellen Page - Juno

Many derided the Elizabeth sequel, so the Blanchett nom here is slightly surprising. Keira Knightley will presumably be upset for no Atonement recognition, but I don't rate her.

Best Supporting Actress
Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There
Ruby Dee - American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan - Atonement
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton

Blanchett is much more likely to win here than Best Actress.

Adapted Screenplay
Atonement, Screenplay by Christopher Hampton
Away from Her, Written by Sarah Polley
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Screenplay by Ronald Harwood
No Country for Old Men, Written for the screen by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
There Will Be Blood, Written for the screen by Paul Thomas Anderson

Polley is maybe surprising, as the likes of Aaron Sorkin for Charlie Wilson's War missed out.

Original Screenplay
Juno, Written by Diablo Cody
Lars and the Real Girl, Written by Nancy Oliver
Michael Clayton, Written by Tony Gilroy
Ratatouille, Screenplay by Brad Bird; Story by Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco, Brad Bird
The Savages, Written by Tamara Jenkin

Nice to see Ratatouille show up in a category outside Best Animation, even though I don't quite understand all of its adoration.

Best Animated Feature
Persepolis
Ratatouille
Surf's Up

Surf's Up is a pleasant surprise - it wasn't brilliant, but certainly superior to Shrek the Third or The Simpsons Movie.

Achievement in Art Direction
American Gangster
Atonement
The Golden Compass
Sweeney Todd
There Will Be Blood

All very nice looking films. Sweeney Todd stands out.

Achievement In Cinematography
The Assassination of Jesse James
Atonement
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

Roger Deakins looks to be competing against himself here - he lensed both Jesse James and No Country. Either would be worthy. As would any of them, truth be told.

Achievement In Costume Design
Across the Universe
Atonement
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
La Vie en Rose
Sweeney Todd

As expected. Maybe Hairspray could've snuck in.

Best Documentary Feature
No End in Sight
Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience
Sicko
Taxi to the Dark Side
War/Dance

All I can say is that the ingoring of In The Shadow Of The Moon is criminal.

Achievement In Film Editing
The Bourne Ultimatum
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Into the Wild
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

At last, the deserving Bourne gets a look-in. Surprised not to see more of the blockbusters in this category, but not necessarily disappointed.

Best Foreign Language Film
Beaufort (Israel)
The Counterfeiters (Austria)
Katyn (Poland)
Mongol (Kazakhstan)
12 (Russia)

Well done to them.

Achievement In Make-Up
La Vie en Rose
Norbit
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Holy crap, Norbit is an Oscar-nominated film.

Original Score
Atonement
The Kite Runner
Michael Clayton
Ratatouille
3:10 to Yuma

I didn't even notice much of a score in Michael Clayton. Atonement will probably get it, with an outside chance for Ratatouille.

Original Song
Falling Slowly - Once
Happy Working Song - Enchanted
Raise It Up - August Rush
So Close - Enchanted
That's How You Know - Enchanted

Just like last year (when Dreamgirls did it), one film gets three Original Song nominations. If last year is anything to go by, it won't win. My money's on Once.

Achievement In Sound Editing
The Bourne Ultimatum
No Country for Old Men
Ratatouille
There Will Be Blood
Transformers

Well, they did have sound, I'll admit that. Clueless otherwise.

Achievement In Sound Mixing
The Bourne Ultimatum
No Country for Old Men
Ratatouille
3:10 to Yuma
Transformers

See above.


Achievement In Visual Effects
The Golden Compass
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Transformers

Compass may have missed out here, but the effects were definitely good. Transformers is the clear winner for me.



Overall, pretty predictable. The overlooking of Zodiac is tragic but entirely expected - its March release basically sealed its fate. Conversely, Michael Clayton in no way deserves the acclaim it has received. No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood lead with 8 nominations apiece. The next thing to confirm is whether the ceremony will actually take place, given the continuing writers' strike. Anyway, it's always an entertaining period in the film calendar. Bring on February 24th.

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.