Get Smart tops the charts. More from the New York Times.
Hollywood special-effects kingpin Stan Winston passes away at 62.
Who in his or her right mind would watch a nearly five-hour movie about Che Guevara? This will bomb worse than Oliver Stone's movie about Bush!
With early reports of the failure of Kimberly Peirce’s anti-Bush screed Stop-Loss at the US box office, here’s hoping that Hollywood has finally gotten the we-hate-Dubya sentiment out of its system.
These “Bush sucks” movies (Lions for Lambs, Redacted, Rendition, In the Valley of Elah, etc.) will be remembered as a Hollywood fad, like the body-switching movies of the late-‘80s and the “erotic thrillers” of the late-’80s and early-‘90s. The only anti-Bush movie that had any real success at the box office was Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11—and that film’s success had a lot to do with Moore’s status as the Rush Limbaugh of the left.
Why have most of these anti-Bush movies failed? It’s not because there is still a reservoir of pro-Bush sentiment in this country: after all, most conservatives can’t even stand the man these days because of his lack of conservatism on issues such as illegal immigration. Rather, these films are tanking due to their predictability.
Most Americans know that Hollywood is filled with self-described “progressives” who loathe Bush and anything connected to conservatism, the Republican Party or “traditional American values.” They recognize that whenever Hollywood makes a movie about Bush or the Iraq War, the film will not contain anything that goes against the liberal template.
If Hollywood made one movie—just one movie—about the Iraq War that presented a “right-wing” or “pro-victory” take on the conflict, I guarantee that it would gross in excess of $100 million. Americans would see such a film not because they would necessarily agree with the film’s conservative politics, but because it would finally represent something different. (It can be argued that a significant portion of the money The Passion of the Christ made in 2004 came not from people who were particularly religious, but from people who liked the film because it was unlike ninety percent of Hollywood’s usual product.)
However, Hollywood would never make a non-liberal film about Iraq or Bush because the industry would regard such as film as fundamentally immoral. The industry is so narrow-minded that it cannot countenance a view of Iraq or Bush that is not negative.
Years ago, Limbaugh argued that the modern-day left, which grew up loathing Vietnam and Nixon, now regards Iraq as the new Vietnam and Bush as the new Nixon. However, it is logically impossible to compare Iraq to Vietnam, or Bush to Nixon. Iraq has not been as financially perilous or as casualty-filled as Vietnam was; in addition, we do not have a draft to force unwilling participants into Iraq, as we did during the Vietnam era. As for Bush, he has never done anything in office that even remotely compares to the crimes Nixon committed; using intelligence that later turned out to be faulty to build a case for war is not the same as obstructing justice. Bush cannot be rationally viewed as the same social menace Nixon was perceived to be: whereas Nixon was caught on tape disparaging people of color, Bush has appointed more people of color to high positions than any previous President--including the first black President.
Hollywood is full of folks who came of age during the late-‘60s and early-‘70s, and who now view Iraq and Bush the same way they viewed Vietnam and Nixon. They are wedded to the past, with no knowledge of how to seek a divorce. They cannot comprehend that there are intelligent Americans who don’t think of Iraq as an unnecessary quagmire, and who don’t regard Bush as a Mephistophelean figure. They have their issues with the war and with Bush, but they are not filled with contempt for the conflict and the Commander-in-Chief leading it.
Hollywood has embarrassed itself with these over-the-top Bush-bashing films. How many people like politics in their movies anyway? The last truly successful non-documentary film dealing with political issues was Mike Nichols’ The Birdcage, which came out in the middle of the Clinton era, during a time of relative calm in the culture wars. Even hardcore anti-Dubya types won’t run out to see these Bush-bashing films, because the pictures tell progressives something they already know. These movies are fundamentally pointless—so why are they even being made?
One can only assume the producers of these films simply want to “make a statement”—even if that statement comes at a temporary financial cost. The men and women behind these pictures want to tell the rest of the world that they share the international opinion of Bush and the war. Even if these films bomb, they can be offset by future successes: whatever grief Paramount Pictures feels as a result of Stop-Loss’ failure will be alleviated by the joy of the profits generated by such summer releases as Iron Man and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. From Hollywood’s perspective, it’s no harm, no foul. From America’s perspective, it’s no class, no respect.
Actor Richard Widmark passes away at 93.
Oscar-winning director Anthony Minghella passes away at 54.
A record December debut for I Am Legend. More from Leonard Klady.
The Golden Compass opens at #1. More from the New York Times.
Bee Movie tops the charts. Also, Lions for Lambs becomes the third straight Bush-bashing movie to fail at the box office. More from Power Line.
It’s surely an example of how quickly time flies that next month marks the 15th anniversary of the release of Spike Lee’s Malcolm X.
I remember the controversy surrounding the film as though it occurred earlier this year: Lee feuding with Warner Bros. Pictures over the film’s budget (and having to ask celebrities to donate money in order to finish the film), Lee encouraging kids to skip school to see his film, arguing that they would receive more education from his movie than they would in class, Lee complaining when Home Alone 2 beat his film at the box office.
I was not one of the folks who cut class to see Malcolm X; I thought Lee was profoundly wrong to tell kids to neglect education in favor of entertainment (couldn’t those kids just wait for the weekend to see the film?). In fact, I didn’t see the film until the summer of 1993, on home video. I thought it was an excellent film, far superior to Lee’s Do the Right Thing, which I found over-the-top and cartoonish when I first saw it two years after its original release.
Looking back, it’s amazing to think how controversial things were culturally in this country at the time of Malcolm X’s release. The nation had been galvanized by the Rodney King riots earlier in the year; liberals saw the riots as proof of America’s broken promises to people of color, while conservatives were disgusted by left-wing assertions that Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were somehow responsible for the riots (I wasn’t a close follower of politics at the time, but I agreed that it was foolish to blame Reagan and Bush for the problems in South Central Los Angeles). Just days before the film’s release, Bill Clinton defeated Bush and Ross Perot in an election that became a mini-culture war at times. Violence and indecency in Hollywood were hot topics, thanks to albums from Madonna, Tupac Shakur and Ice Cube, as well as films such as Basic Instinct. Thus, Malcolm X hit theatres at the perfect cultural moment.
While I disagree with Spike Lee’s politics, I’ve never disputed his talent as a filmmaker; indeed, Malcolm X was the first great film of the 1990s. It is an engrossing, intellectually profound work featuring magnificent performances by Denzel Washington and Angela Bassett. The film truly captures what made Malcolm X such an indelible figure on the world stage; the only biopic I’ve seen since X that comes anywhere close to the excellence of that film is Michael Mann’s 2001 Ali.
There was a palpable sense of outrage among Lee’s fans when Malcolm X failed to receive Oscar nominations for Best Picture and Best Director (Washington was nominated, but lost to Scent of a Woman star Al Pacino). The oversight should not have come as a surprise; Lee had obviously burned many bridges in Hollywood because of his fight with Warner Bros., not to mention his outspokenness about injustice in the film industry. (How ironic is it that, although Lee hates Republicans, there are people in Hollywood who hate Lee and Republicans with equal fervor?) With all due respect to Best Director winner Clint Eastwood (who received the award for Unforgiven), Lee should have been nominated for that Oscar—and he should have won it.
Malcolm X was not a huge box-office hit (although it was, prior to the release of 2006’s Inside Man, Lee’s highest-grossing film), but it has stood the test of time. There’s no question that the film’s iconic status encouraged Hollywood to make other similar biopics in the hope that those newer films would also be considered classics; Ali and Taylor Hackford’s Ray are indebted to Malcolm X’s legacy. The film confirmed that Lee was a director of significance, and proved that Washington deserved to be placed alongside Hollywood’s modern legends.
It’s long been assumed that Lee peaked with Malcolm X, but that’s not the case: 2002’s The 25th Hour is every bit as stupendous as the film he directed ten years before. However, it is Malcolm X that defines Lee as a director—and it defines him well.
Even if you loathe Lee’s vision of the world, you can’t deny his impact on Hollywood and on history. If you believe in hard work and succeeding in the face of obstacles, you have to respect Lee for refusing to let the multiple obstacles associated with making Malcolm X stop him from realizing his vision. Lee did it his way—in fact, you can say he did it by any means necessary.
Superbad remains on top. More from Leonard Klady.
Superbad tops the charts. More from Leonard Klady.
The Boston Globe on some of the left-wing themes in Charlton Heston's old films. It's odd that the Globe doesn't acknowledge what's obvious to the rest of us: that Heston broke with the left when he felt that progressives were becoming too extreme in their views.
Rush Hour 3 tops the charts. More from Leonard Klady.
The Bourne Ultimatum tops the charts. More from Leonard Klady.
The Simpsons Movie opens at #1. More from Gitesh Pandya.
Transformers tops the charts. More from the New York Times.
Evan Almighty debuts on top. More from Leonard Klady.
(It’s hard to believe that today is the 25th anniversary of the initial release of Steven Spielberg's beloved film E. T. The Extra-Terrestrial. Below is my March 23, 2002 review of the film's "Special Edition" re-release.)
There’s a cynical part of me that cannot help wondering whether Universal Studios’ decision to re-release “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial” is just another attempt to make a few extra bucks from Steven Spielberg’s brilliant 1982 film. After all, it was given a theatrical re-release in the summer of 1985, followed by a video release in the fall of 1988, not to mention a CBS television broadcast on Thanksgiving Night 1991. I mean, how many times can Universal ride this horse?
But there’s also an idealistic part of me that welcomes “E.T.” ‘s 20th anniversary re-release as an antidote to the mediocre product that’s currently out there. There is no question that “E.T.” embarrasses its current competition; it’s a throwback to the days when a film could reach the highest standards of quality while drawing a mass audience. (I can only think of two films in the past five years that can also make that claim -- “The Sixth Sense” and “Cast Away.” Note that the producer of “The Sixth Sense” and the director of “Cast Away” are both protégés of Steven Spielberg.)
This new version of “E.T.” -- the tale of a peaceful alien, separated from his spaceship while on a mission to study Earth’s plant life, who befriends a California boy (Henry Thomas) and his siblings (Drew Barrymore, Robert MacNaughton) -- features a few digital alterations to E.T.’s face (the hydraulic puppet used in the original film wasn’t capable of a wide range of facial expressions) and the removal of guns from the hands of federal agents in a scene near the climax (in a 1994 interview, Spielberg claimed that he always felt ill at ease about the idea of the feds pointing guns at kids; thus, the removal of the guns is an example of pre-Columbine political correctness, as opposed to an example of post-Columbine P.C. as originally reported). The digital alterations do not call attention to themselves; still, Spielberg would have been wise to heed the advice of Robert Altman, who claimed that altering films after they have been released is like “performing plastic surgery on a baby.”
For some reason, the theme of government paranoia is more obvious this time around. Maybe it’s because of events like the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas and the Elian Gonzales case, but the scenes in which mysterious government agents prowl around the house where E.T. is being hidden by his human hosts seem more disturbing than they ever did before. The scene in which agents in astronaut gear invade the house to seize E.T. (violating any number of constitutional provisions in the process; after all, they come in without a warrant!) is absolutely horrifying to watch, as you realize how powerful -- and how destructive -- the government can be. Clearly, the Spielberg of 1982 had a deep suspicion of government power -- a suspicion that has presumably abated in recent years (considering how much money he donated to the Clinton Administration, one gets the sense that Spielberg’s fear of the government hinges on which person is in charge of the government). Except for a sympathetic character portrayed by Peter Coyote, the government agents are all arrogant heels, ignoring the cries of concerned children as they poke and probe at this alien life form. The film’s political undertones are fascinating: these government agents are the “jack-booted thugs” that modern-day militia leaders always talk about.
Thomas, Barrymore, MacNaughton, and Dee Wallace (as the children’s mother, a woman still dealing with her husband’s recent abandonment of their family), all deliver excellent work. Wallace is completely credible as a working mother trying to stay afloat; compare her performance to, say, Helen Hunt’s performance in “Pay It Forward,” a self-conscious and patently phony depiction of working motherhood. Barrymore steals the film from Thomas and MacNaughton, emerging as the film’s most lovable character (although Thomas remains the most sympathetic character). Thomas’s emotional range is so great that at times, the quality of his performance rivals that of Haley Joel Osment’s work in “Forward” and “A.I. Artificial Intelligence.” MacNaughton takes a stereotypical role -- the overbearing older brother -- and adds much-needed depth and heart to it. Coyote also acquits himself well in what amounts to an extended cameo role.
Although there are a few minor plot holes in Melissa Mathison’s script (for example, how is E.T.. able to breathe our oxygen?), and the screenplay does have the Wallace character behave illogically at times, these flaws do not materially affect the quality of the film; the gaps in logic aren’t nearly as huge as the holes in Spielberg’s “A.I. Artificial Intelligence” script. Mathison’s screenplay is filled with hilarious lines and witty touches (note the subtle references to “Star Wars” at various points in the film).
Spielberg simply does no wrong in his direction of this film: the pacing is fine, the emotional transitions are handled delicately, and we never lose interest in the proceedings. The magical moments in this film are too numerous to count, and those moments are accented by gorgeous cinematography from Allen Daviau and a terrific score from John Williams.
There’s no denying the profit motive for this film’s return to theaters. There’s also no denying the fact that this is a film whose wonder and magic will never be duplicated (watching this movie, you realize how far films like “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” fall short in terms of creating a true sense of awe in the minds and souls of audiences). Does “E.T.” still hold up after twenty years? Of course. This picture is immortal.
Ocean's Thirteen tops the charts. More from the New York Times.
If one wanted to compile a list of films that should have been financial failures but turned out to be successes, Save the Last Dance would have to be at or near the top.
Dance--a teen romantic drama about a white teenager (Julia Stiles) from the Midwest who's forced to move to inner-city Chicago, whereupon she falls in love with an ambitious black classmate (Sean Patrick Thomas)--was not a particularly well-written film: the script was filled to the brim with stock characters and tired subplots involving teenage pregnancy and gang violence. While Stiles, Thomas, and Kerry Washington (as Thomas' sister) delivered solid performances, the film is excessively long and at times unforgivably dull. Nevertheless, it resonated with its target audience, grossing $91 million in the United States--an impressive achievement for a film that was originally supposed to be "dumped" into theaters in August 2000 before being released over the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday in January 2001.
So why was Dance so successful?
The film was flawlessly marketed by Paramount Pictures and MTV Films: Paramount released a compelling trailer in the fall of 2000 that made the film seem like a must-see event for teenage girls, and followed up with several weeks of similarly well-produced commercials (one of which featured a hip-hop song that used a sample from Gary Numan's 1979 hit "Cars.") Stiles and Thomas were both well-known to teenage audiences, the former from her performance in 1999's 10 Things I Hate About You and the latter from his role as Selma Blair's would-be love interest in 1999's Cruel Intentions. In addition, much like 1990's Ghost, Dance is one of those films that, even if it's not great, has a certain ambiance that makes one want to watch it repeatedly.
Was Dance successful because of its interracial-romance theme? I don't think so: the film probably would have been just as successful had the Thomas character been white. The interracial theme was interesting only because Hollywood doesn't make a lot of films featuring mixed-race couples. (After the film's $27 million opening weekend, Us Weekly claimed Dance's success represented the destruction of another racial barrier in Hollywood. I thought that was a manifestly dubious claim: I could understand the argument if a movie featuring, say, Denzel Washington and Julia Roberts as lovers became a huge hit, but Dance was geared to teenagers, who arguably have the fewest racial hang-ups of any age group in American society, so where was the supposed triumph?)
I'm not sure if the filmmakers realized how popular Dance would be with teenage girls: presumably, they thought the film would be somewhat successful, but they could not have imagined that it would gross nearly $100 million. It's impossible to duplicate the film's success: Usher tried, and failed, with the nearly unwatchable 2005 film In the Mix. Dance is now one of those films that keeps gaining new fans as a result of repeated cable-TV airings; perhaps in 2021, people will mark the twentieth anniversary of the film's release the way they now mark the twentieth anniversary of Dirty Dancing's release. In fact, both films share the same legacy--they were more successful than they had any right to be.
Spider-Man 3 sets a new box office record. More from the New York Times.
Seventeen years after the original became a sleeper hit, the fourth Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film tops the charts.
Now that Martin Scorsese has finally received an Oscar, look for members of the print, broadcast and online entertainment media to launch their next major crusade: an all-out effort to secure a Best Director award for Spike Lee.
With Scorsese's victory, Lee now becomes the new Man Who Hasn't Received His Just Due. Just as it was once considered a moral outrage for the director of Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas not to be recognized with an Oscar, so it will now be viewed as a miscarriage of justice that the filmmaker who gave us Do the Right Thing and Malcolm X lacks a gold trophy.
It will be difficult to dismiss the upcoming give-Spike-an-Oscar push as mere political correctness. His influence on Hollywood is impossible to ignore: he helped Denzel Washington, Wesley Snipes and Samuel L. Jackson rise to the A-list, gave critical breaks to Halle Berry, Adrien Brody,