November 2004 Movie Preview
11/5 Releases:
THE INCREDIBLES
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Family of superheroes gets called out of a witness protection program to save the world.
WILL IT SUCK?
This is Pixar, folks. They’re 5 and 0. Not only that, but they’ve teamed up with Brad Bird, who wrote and directed the criminally underseen "Iron Giant." Rumor has it that Brad came over to Pixar from WB because of their mishandling of his feature debut. That also means this is one of the few Pixar outings to not be either written or directed by Andrew Stanton, but if I’d trust anyone with their product besides him, it’d be Bird.
The voice talent is impressive. I’m particularly looking forward to Sam Jackson and Jason Lee joining the Pixar family. Pixar regular John Ratzenberger is back for another round. His Abominable Snowman in "Monsters, Inc." is still one of my all time favorite movie cameos.
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
They’re 5 and 0 on that count, too. However, the following week "The Polar Express" will present a serious challenge. Apparently Bird’s old company isn’t scared off by "Incredibles’" release date. They’re going to
have to split the pot. $184mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Will take on "Shrek 2," which drops on DVD the same day, for Best Animated Flick.
——————————
BIRTH
(They changed the release date on this at the last minute, so it’s already out,
but play along.)
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Remember last month when Laura Linney fell for a guy who looked like her dead
high school sweetheart? Well, this month Nicole Kidman falls for a little boy
who looks like the reincarnation of her dead husband. Next month, Maura Tierney
will fall for a goldfish who looks like this guy she saw on a subway once.
WILL IT SUCK?
All right. Let’s just put this right out there. Nicole Kidman does something
shocking in this film. Just about every preview is talking about it. She does,
in fact, wear a short haircut throughout the entire film. Oh, and she full-mouth
kisses a little boy. But the hair is something we’re all just going to have
to accept.
That having been said, the creep-out factor may be mitigated by the wealth
of writing/directing talent they’ve thrown at this one. The director of "Sexy
Beast" and writers from "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie"
and "Monster’s Ball." Regardless, reviews are pretty bad. Must be
the hair.
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
I’d say this is a clever case of counter-programming, but even folks who’d be
up for watching Nicole make out with little Timmy are gonna be more interested
in "The Incredibles." That’s the power of Pixar; their films appeal
to every-frickin’-body. You just don’t open anything against them. You wait
until next weekend when "Seed of Chucky" comes out. Nicole Kidman
kissing a kid won’t seem nearly as sketchy next to Jennifer Tilly getting impregnated
by a doll. $6mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
It’s Nicole Kidman. I think they’re required to by law.
——————————
ALFIE
(Held over from October to prevent this month from being Jude-less.)
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Jude Law (THREE! No, FOUR! Oh, fuck, now my count is off!) reprises the role
Michael Caine made famous in…Wait. What do you mean you’ve never heard
of "Alfie"? It was nominated for five Academy Awards people! Yeah,
I never saw it, either.
WILL IT SUCK?
By rep, "Alfie" is a movie with a whole lotta fuckin’. It’s about
a guy who sleeps around and damn the consequences (which in the original include
not one, but two pregnancies, one of which ends in an abortion). It centers
on a pitiful, self-loathing, dark character for whom we feel sympathy, but not
the warm, cuddly kind.
So why is the writer/director of the "Father of the Bride" remake
up in here?
Maybe it’s because he also did a remake of "The Parent Trap." Maybe
that’s why the trailer comes off looking like "Alfie McBeal."
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
I think a lot of people would like to see "Alfie McBeal," or at least
Jude Law fucking a lot. If Paramount had released it when they were going to
originally, this might have benefited from that. As it is, it’ll have to settle
for couples who couldn’t get into "The Incredibles." $26mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Jude might have a shot here, but I think one of his other, less sit-commy performances
will get more attention. Maybe "Closer."
——————————
11/12
THE POLAR EXPRESS
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Santa Claus. No Martians. Lots of animation.
WILL IT SUCK?
The good news is Robert Zemeckis is directing. He’s an ace with new technology
films (e.g. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"). Here, motion capture CGI
lends credibility (or creepiness, depending on your tastes) to the digital versions
of Tom Hanks and the other actors. The bad news is Robert Zemeckis is also writing,
and one of his last scripts was "Bordello of Blood," which was great,
but not in a "good film" kind of way. He’s co-writing with William
Broyles, Jr. who penned Zemeckis’ "Cast Away" and also "Apollo
13" (does this guy like Hanks or vice-versa?), so that should even it out
a bit.
Speaking of Hanks, his collaborations with Zemeckis are pretty solid. But the
most important thing to remember about this film, besides the fact that it’s
the last performance of the late, great Michael Jeter, is that it finally reunites
Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari, whom you might know better as "Bosom Buddies."
I can only hope they’ll dress in drag and say "who is it?" in that
high pitched falsetto before the movie ends.
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
I have to admit, it’s pretty damn ballsy to open this one week after "The
Incredibles." However, there’s a reason they’re not opening it the following
week. (It rhymes with "GrungeMob PearDance"). This’ll do well, however,
pretty much any time you release it, so Castle Rock (c/o Warner Bros.) shouldn’t
be concerned.
Based on an award-winning children’s book (from the guy who wrote "Jumanji")
and hence already bringing a following, the film also has the history of Zemeckis/Hanks
blockbusters behind it. The pair has yet to make a film that grosses less than
$200mil. Of course, they’ve only made two together ("Forrest Gump"
and "Cast Away"), but still. $262mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
And the nominees for Best Animated Feature are, "Shrek 2," "The
Incredibles," "The Polar Express,"and "Some Japanese Film,
maybe Ghost in the Shell 2." And the winner is…
——————————
SEED OF CHUCKY
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
In a meta-twist worthy of the "Scream" trilogy, Chucky and his new
belle Tiffany (voiced by Jennifer Tilly) are resurrected by their son and somehow
end up stalking the real Jennifer Tilly, who, of course, is shooting a Chucky-like
film. John Waters does some stuff, too.
WILL IT SUCK?
Don Mancini, who wrote all of the Chucky films, finally gets to direct one,
so if you liked the other Chucky films (yes, I see two or three of you in the
back) you’ll be getting the writer’s full vision here. And his full vision includes
Chucky running Britney Spears off the road. So it can’t be all bad.
It’s no coincidence Waters has a bit part as "Sleazy Reporter" as
this is the only film this year that promises to be raunchier than his own "A
Dirty Shame." If you don’t believe me, check out the trailer. Or just look
closely at the teaser poster. The eye has sperm in it. The iris is kind of an
egg. Cute, no?
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
This is pretty unchallenged for the horror audience this month. Although I’m
thinking of this more as "American Pie" than "American Werewolf
in London." In any case, there’s surprisingly little crossover between
this and "Polar Express," so this should claim a decent niche. $32mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
No, but there should be some sort of Best Achievement in Post-Modernism Award.
——————————
AFTER THE SUNSET
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
"The Thomas Caribbean Affair"
WILL IT SUCK?
The only reason I’m at all curious about this film is Don Cheadle. He plays
the crime boss who tries to sucker retired thief Pierce Brosnan into another
big score. I’m not interested in seeing Pierce play another posh thief pursued
by another fed (this time it’s Woody Harrelson) who doesn’t think he’s retired.
Director Brett Ratner will, I’m sure, do as competent a job with this as he
did with the "Rush Hour" films, but this feels more like a good way
to spend a Saturday afternoon on cable than in the multiplex.
One of the screenwriters, incidentally, used to write for "Weakest Link,"
so look out for lots of great trivia. Or perhaps dominatrixes.
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Arguably, this is nicely placed. Whoever doesn’t go see "Polar Express"
or "Seed of Chucky" just might be in the mood for this. And the following
week, "National Treasure" looks to fill the "dumb" action
movie slot whereas this will probably angle for the "smart" action
movie slot. Still, I don’t think this will generate enough buzz for anyone to
really give a damn. $15mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Don deserves so many back-Oscar noms, I don’t even know where to begin. But
nothing for this.
——————————
FINDING NEVERLAND
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
J.M. Barrie (Johnny Depp) meets a tragedy-stricken family and then writes "Peter
Pan."
WILL IT SUCK?
Extremely positive buzz from critics and audiences alike. Depp is supposedly
superb, and the look and feel of the film should be really cool, with fantasy
sequences entering the mind of the playwright. Probably doesn’t hurt to have
Dustin Hoffman in a supporting role and "Monster’s Ball" director
Marc Forster at the helm, given his skill with portraying troubled family lives.
And the scene where Depp goes undercover to bust that teen chop shop is supposed
to be awesome. (Sorry. "21 Jump Street" just came out on DVD.)
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
This has all the hallmarks of an indie crossover hit. It’s got a major star
in a "prestige" flick with strong word of mouth. Look for it to platform
but then quickly expand to a theater near you. $48mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Count on it. We could see director, screenplay, even film, and maybe another
shot at Best Actor for Depp.
——————————
KINSEY
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Liam Neeson plays the historic sex researcher Alfred Kinsey. Who better to confess
your dirty little secrets to than Qui-Gon with an even goofier haircut?
WILL IT SUCK?
This comes from "Gods & Monsters" writer/director Bill Condon.
Left to his own devices (that is, when he’s not directing something he didn’t
write, like "Candyman II: Farewell to the Flesh") he tends to do good
work. Having Liam, Laura Linney, Peter Sarsgaard, Tim Curry, Dylan Baker, Timothy
Hutton, Oliver Platt, John Lithgow, and Gore Vidal (!?!) on board probably doesn’t
hurt. Early buzz is very strong, but more on that in a minute.
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
A lot better if it weren’t opening against "Finding Neverland," one
of the few indies with stronger buzz this month. Still, the advertising push
for "Kinsey" has been more prolific. But "Neverland" will
draw a more family friendly crowd, especially after the controversy gets some
press. What controversy? Well, the real Kinsey was accused of all sorts of things,
not the least of which was aiding and abetting pedophiles. The jury’s still
out on a lot of these allegations, even after fifty years, but the upshot for
the film will be free press on top of Fox Searchlight’s strong ability to market.
$14mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
This could be looking at some acting noms, especially for Linney and perhaps
for some supporting players like Sarsgaard. We’ll see how the controversy plays
out. Polanski got an Oscar and there was much less ambiguity about his guilt.
Condon has already won a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar ("Gods and Monsters")
and got a nom for "Chicago" so another adaptation nom isn’t out of
the question. Don’t think a directing nod is in the making, though.
——————————
11/19
NATIONAL TREASURE
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
A while back, Dave Barry did a parody of "The Da Vinci Code" in which
a secret map was encoded on the back of The US Constitution. That would be too
far fetched for a non-parody, so here it’s The Declaration of Independence.
WILL IT SUCK?
Guess how many writers it took to concoct this. More. Stop when you get to nine.
One more and they get a free entrée. Now among those writers are some
of the creative minds behind "Shrek," "Aladdin," and "Pirates
of the Carribean," as well as Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel, who wrote
some of the funnier films of the eighties and nineties, including "City
Slickers" and "Gung Ho" (admit it, it was funny).
But these were merely the doctors and first-drafters. The final screenwriting
credit goes to Marianne and Cormac Wibberley, the husband/wife writing team
who brought us "I Spy," "The Sixth Day," and, their most
highly rated film on the IMDB, "Bad Boys II."
The closest the director, John Turtletaub, has come to helming an actioner
is "3 Ninjas." (His most highly rated film on the IMDB is, btw, "While
You Were Sleeping.")
But hey, it has Nicholas Cage!
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
This weekend is going to be a free-for-all, with three key demographics – kids,
young males, and women – all being given specific outlets. So really it’s just
a matter of how many of each actually go to the movies. This will do pretty
well with males. Especially if they’re drunk. $150mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
No, but I’ll give it the "Really?" award for Most Unbelievable Premise.
——————————
BRIDGET JONES: THE EDGE OF REASON
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Bridget sees the other side of the happily-ever-after ending she thought she
had in the original. It involves, naturally, a Thai prison.
WILL IT SUCK?
Hard to believe that a film with four screenwriters would be the film with the
least credited scribes opening wide this week. At least they’ve brought back
the original writers (including novelist Helen Fielding), though they added
the guy who wrote "Wimbledon" for some reason. They got a new director
who’s most famous work (to Yanks anyway) is "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything,
Julie Newmar," so that’s a big "huh"?
Renee Zellweger, Colin Firth, Hugh Grant, and Jim Broadbent are all back. They’ve
also added that chick from "Real World: London," if you keep up with
that sort of thing. I couldn’t make it through "Real World: Philadelphia,"
and I freakin’ live there.
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Should handily pick up the female audience and hold onto it (losing a few to
fans of the other Colin in "Alexander" the following week). $72mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Unless your movie has the words "God" and "Father" in the
title, getting an acting nom for a sequel is a long shot, especially for the
same role twice.
——————————
BAD EDUCATION
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
There’s actually a lot of nuance and subplot going on here, but the only thing
anyone is going to remember is that a priest sexually abuses a boy.
WILL IT SUCK?
The two names to keep in mind here are Almodovar and Bernal. Pedro Almodovar
is a virtually can’t-miss director, and this is considered one of his best.
Early buzz is extremely strong from critics and audiences alike, and it’s already
picked up two European Film Awards (that’s what they’re actually called) for
Best Director and Best Actor.
Which brings us to Gael Garcia Bernal, who’s quickly becoming THE Mexican actor
of the decade. Since 2000, he’s managed to be there for most of the watershed
moments in Latin American film, including "Amores Perros," "Y
Tu Mama Tambien," "El Crimen de Padre Amaro," and "The Motorcycle
Diaries." Leads in all. A guy worth keeping your eye on and, by most accounts,
this is a good place to do it.
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
If it weren’t for "Kinsey" and "Finding Neverland" from
the previous week, this would pretty much run the indie table. However, this
is a very limited release to get the Oscar word out followed by a larger release
in December, which is when the real bucks should roll in. Almodovar has been
doing much better on this front since his films started to garner BAFTA/Oscar
attention. "All About My Mother" made nearly 8 times as much as "Live
Flesh," before "Talk to Her" made even more. $10mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Count on it. Probably a nod for Bernal, almost definitely one for Almodovar.
Just don’t expect any actual awards this time.
——————————
11/26
ALEXANDER
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Colin Farrell looks a lot like Treat Williams if you give him long blonde hair.
That’s not what the movie’s about, but that’s all I remember from the trailer.
WILL IT SUCK?
Well, how do you feel about Oliver Stone? Was "Platoon" too preachy?
"JFK" too loose with history? "Nixon" too damn long? "U-Turn"
too…well, "U-Turn" just sucked. At heart, I’m a Stone fan. At
the very least his work is interesting, and most of the time it’s fascinating
with terrific performances. So the direction doesn’t concern me here.
The writing on the other hand… Stone took some story credit but the screen
credit goes to a guy who did "K-19" (not bad, maybe even underrated)
and a woman who used to write for "Birds of Prey" (Oh, dear God!)
That’s not the worst part. The worst part is that’s somehow qualified her for
the "Wonder Woman" script.
I have confidence in the acting ability of everyone involved and I’m sure it’ll
look sumptuous but the end result will likely be an incoherent mess.
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Not as well as you might expect. I think the second frame of "National
Treasure" is gonna pose a greater threat than anticipated. Sword and sandal
epics are not sure money, as "Troy" proved earlier this year (with
bigger stars). The best friend this flick has is the Thanksgiving weekend, but
that’s more of a family affair and this is an "R" (a hard "R"
if Stone shoots par). I’m not saying it’s gonna tank or anything, but this is
not "Gladiator." $101mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
Epic battles? Check. One lone man, preferably in a loincloth (or kilt) leading
a great army? Check. Takes place long, long ago in a galaxy on the other side
of the Atlantic (a galaxy populated by – or at least portrayed by – mostly white
folk)? Check. Sounds Gladiatorheartariffic to me! Noms for Picture, Director,
Actor, Screenplay and lots of technical shit.
——————————
CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
The Kranks, known for their holiday cheer, decide to skip all that when they
learn that their daughter will not be home for the holidays. At the last minute,
they find out she will be around and so they try to put on a last minute celebration.
From legal thriller novelist John Grisham. I’m not kidding.
WILL IT SUCK?
I hate Revolution Studios sooooooo much! And this is being helmed by their fearless
leader, Joe Roth. It’s written by "Home Alone" helmer Chris Columbus.
{Interesting aside: Guess who’s writing the film version of "Rent."
That’s right. Chris Columbus. The guy who wrote "The Goonies." Now,
I give out mad love for "The Goonies," but I don’t want the leads
in "Rent" singing about how "It’s our time. Down here."}
Anyway, he’s doing the adaptation here of the best-selling John Grisham novel
"Skipping Christmas." To put it delicately, John Grisham novels don’t
always make the best movies. He has about as much luck with adaptation as Michael
Crichton.
But put that aside for a minute. Even put aside the trailer that can only be
described as…is "sucknificent" a word? And even grant that Columbus
might pull another "Gremlins" (or better yet, "Gremlins 2")
out of his hat. And that Joe Roth can incorporate the few parts of "America’s
Sweethearts" (which he also helmed) that didn’t suck. Even assume that
the presence of Felicity Huffman and celebrated character actor M. Emmet Walsh
will somehow elevate the material instead of them being dragged down into some
"I really needed the money" abyss of mediocrity. Assume all of that.
At the end of the day, it’s still a Revolution studios film and they can make
anything suck.
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
As much as I hate to admit it, the pundits, who say this film has everything
going for it, are mostly right. It does have Tim Allen in a key demographic-pleasing
genre for him (think "The Santa Clause") and Jamie Lee Curtis who’s
synonymous with family-friendly comedy now ("Freaky Friday") and a
trailer that, much as it traumatized me, made the family behind me guffaw like
it was early Eddie Murphy. And most importantly it has the Thanksgiving "Grinch"
slot that’s a money tree for family fare. I can see the Variety headline now.
"Kranks Konquer Alexander" $145mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
That’s my one consolation.
——————————
NOTRE MUSIQUE
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Concept movie from Jean-Luc Godard (go figure). Part one takes place in Hell
(i.e. a bunch of war footage), part two in Purgatory (Sarajevo), and three in
Paradise (a beach guarded by marines). Each part is a different musical movement
as well.
WILL IT SUCK?
Much better received by critics than audiences. Supposedly an interesting mediation
on war and cinema. I already like it more than "Christmas with the Kranks."
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
The foreign film event this weekend will be "A Very Long Engagement."
And the following week, "House of Flying Daggers." $500,000.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
If France or Switzerland, who both lay claim to this film, had submitted it,
probably. But they didn’t.
——————————
PURPLE BUTTERFLY
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
You know how sometimes you run into an ex and you find out that they now work
for the government organization that you’ve sworn on your life to destroy? Awk-waaard!
WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz not so good. This in spite of a Palme D’Or nod at Cannes, which is
why Palm Pictures (no relation) probably decided to pick it up. That, and it
stars Zhang Ziyi.
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
The big Zhang Ziyi event will happen next week, when "House of Flying Daggers"
opens. $70,000.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
"Daggers" steals that crown, too. It was China’s selection for submission
to the Academy.
——————————
A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT
WHAT’S THE PITCH?
A woman ("Amelie’s" Audrey Tatou) goes off in search of her fiancé,
a captured World War I deserter left to die in no man’s land (the quaint name
given to that space between trenches).
WILL IT SUCK?
Probably not. Jean Pierre Jeunet, besides having about the Frenchest name in
director history, is also one of the best. "Amelie" represents some
of the most imaginative filmmaking I’ve seen in a while. The rest of his work
has a similar rep. And remember, he didn’t write "Alien: Resurrection."
He did, however, write this flick with long-time collaborator Guillaume Laurant,
another plus. The early buzz is very, very good. And he’s working again with
Audrey Tatou who in "Amelie" and "Dirty Pretty Things" alone
has shown almost peerless range and talent.
HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
The subject matter is a bit darker than "Amelie" (okay, a LOT darker)
so there won’t be quite as big an audience. However, it’s not nearly as dark
as "Bad Education" and may have an audience that can compete with
the slightly different demographic for "Daggers" the following week.
This has a pretty good shot if Warner Independent gives it a big enough push,
which they probably will (see below). $16mil.
WILL ANYBODY REMEMBER IT AT OSCAR TIME?
That’s the plan. Due to some weird changes in Oscar rules, this film is ineligible
for submission for Best Foreign. Warner had the chance to release it in such
a way as to accommodate those new rules, but has decided, apparently, to push
for a Best Picture nod instead. It’s not inconceivable. And it’d be really neat
to see a doc and a foreign film taking up two of the five slots. And with a
year looking as Academically anemic as this one, it’s possible (though still
unlikely). Also, I’d love to see Tatou get the nod she was woefully denied for
"Amelie". Jeunet as well.
Next month, all the real hard-core Oscar contenders come out to play. None of
which look nearly as interesting as "Ocean’s Twelve" or "Blade:
Trinity." Did I mention the Oscar race sucks this year? Dave Thomas
http://travelindave.blogspot.com
Wake me up when they’ve made a sequel to “Captain Ron.”