When looking at Clint Eastwood's cinematic pedigree, one sees a bit of a recurring character. The Dirty Harry, take-no-prisoners, out for vengeance character. Which, to be honest, was what I was expecting coming into "Gran Torino". Interestingly enough, this character, while on the surface appeared to be similar to all those other characters, was much more subtle than all those movies that came before this. If you're looking for "Gran Torino" to be in the same vein as those other movies, you will almost certainly be disappointed. But if you can keep an open mind about what you're witnessing, then the movie can be a thought-provoking film with dynamic characters in its own right.
The movie follows Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) as he moves on from the death of his wife shortly before the movie begins. He is completely disconnected from his two boys and their families, a family that comes across as spoiled and ungrateful, despite Walt's overtly bitter attitude towards life in general. In the meantime, a Hmong family moves in next door and the young son Thao (Bee Vang) is recruited by the local Hmong gang to steal Walt's titular Gran Torino.
Walt does not take too kindly to this behavior and also happens to be one of the most racist men I have ever seen on film. Yet Eastwood plays it with such humor and lightheartedness that it becomes difficult to be offended. He seems to make it clear that he's less racist and more concerned about hating everybody. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see a Youtube video at some point that is a compilation of all of his derogatory terms as he runs the gamut of every racist word for an Asian one could think of.
In the meantime, Walt is pursued by Father Janovich (Christopher Carley) who made a promise to Walt's passed wife that he would get Walt to go to confession, something Walt has absolutely no interest in doing. Yet confession does not seem to be what Walt needs and as he comes to realize what his life currently is, what he has, and the reality of the world around him, he begins to transform into something else. Only in the final surprising minutes do we see what that specifically is.
Eastwood again turns in a solid directorial effort that keeps the movie moving at a brisk pace. The way he conveys the different aspects of Walt's life and his inability to change with the times is nothing short of engaging. And Eastwood is clearly the most competent actor out of the entire bunch. With the exception of Walt's immediate and extended family, the acting was little more than mediocre and sometimes downright atrocious. Countless times I was taken out of the movie by an odd line delivery or the perception that the actor was just reading from a script instead of truly feeling his or her lines. The worst offenders are Father Janovich and Thao's sister, Sue (Ahney Her). I'm sure that it's very difficult to stay in the same league as someone of Eastwood's calibur but their quality was certainly not up to par.
Also surprisingly, the movie was absolutely hilarious. Walt's "I don't care" attitude led to some very funny and often times rather poignant moments and it's possible that without that humor, the movie would have suffered quite a bit. It made him more than a grumpy old man and more of a man a person could relate to.
I must be clear again: this is no Dirty Harry. In fact, one could argue that it is in fact the opposite of Dirty Harry. But even so, it exists as an excellent film that is a huge leap back to form for Eastwood whose "Changeling" from this past fall had the tendency to linger and seemed to have difficulty presenting a nuanced portrait of that story. This is a thought-provoking movie that has the power to stay with you well after you leave the theatre whose only real fault was a lack of quality acting.
And the fact that Clint Eastwood sings a song over the credits. Why he thought that was a good idea is anyone's guess.
Grade: B
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Day The Earth Stood Still Review
Remakes aren't all bad. Sometimes they have the ability to expand on an original concept, or approach a particular topic from a different perspective to bring about a new viewpoint. Yet many times, "Why bother?" is an appropriate response, especially for a film so revered as the original "The Day the Earth Stood Still." And unfortunately, this 2008 version with Keanu Reeves and Jennifer Connelly does absolutely nothing to contribute to the legacy of the original.
While I have never seen the original version, the reading I have done about the movie suggests that it is a classic that did not need to be remade; that the movie stood on its own as a piece of art. Unfortunately, this did not stop 20th Century Fox, resulting in an interesting visual piece but very little in the way of story and even less in character.
For those who aren't familiar, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is about an alien, Klaatu (Reeves) who is sent to Earth in an attempt to save the planet. And the only person in the world who seems willing to even listen to him is scientist Helen Benson (Connelly) who is also busy tending to a greiving stepson (Jaden Smith). Meanwhile, the military acts in standard movie-military mode, led by the Secretary of Defense (Kathy Bates), trying to sequester the alien and force him to reveal his ultimate plan through force, despite clear indications that there is nothing they can do to contain any threat, perceived or otherwise.
Director Scott Derrickson was clearly trying to approach the film in a culturally relevant way in an effort to make a social statement about society. There are references to many current events and actual world leaders are shown on televisions in an effort to ground this movie in a present day reality. The problem is that the screenplay by David Scarpa draws one-dimensional characters whose motivations are driven by plot instead of actual development or growth. Characters who seem absolutely set in their ways do a complete 180 as a result of simple, almost inconsequential, events. This would not even be as terrible if the characters were set up in a realistic manner but most act in a one-note fashion that seems to exist solely to antagonize the aliens, especially the military.
The military throws logic completely out the window as they seem content to take on an alien civilization with sheer brute force, despite the fact that their abilities are shown to be near impervious to human weapons and are able to disable them at will. So instead of at least attempting to form some sort of dialogue with the aliens, they continue to act antagonistically by pushing the aliens into a corner when clearly nothing physical can be done to stop them. This attitude is also inexplicably echoed in Jacob (Jaden Smith) who seems to believe that his deceased Army Engineer father would have attempted to kill the aliens were he alive. The attempt is made to make Jacob the conduit for change in this movie but the complete lack of subtlety and the bludgeoning of the audience over the head with simplistic themes undermines any attempt at getting across a coherent message.
This wasn't an unmitigated disaster though. On a visual level, the film was sufficiently engaging and there were some truly interesting effects. Strangely, there was a curiosity to find out what would happen next, although there was no concern for any of the characters and often times a mild annoyance at their actions. This is not a slight at the actors though, since all of them, including Keanu Reeves, deliver as convincing performances as they could given the material they had at their disposal. Reeves is believable as an alien, as his often times wooden delivery would suggest anyway. Connelly is always a bright spot in any movie (although would it kill somebody to put her in a comedy? Why is she always playing such sad characters?) and she and the rest of the cast probably prevented this from being the unwatchable film it could have been.
As it stands, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is instead just another unnecessary remake that would appear to add absolutely nothing to the original. With a different screenplay, this could have been an insightful commentary on the direction of humanity and that is really the biggest disappointment of all.
GRADE: C-
While I have never seen the original version, the reading I have done about the movie suggests that it is a classic that did not need to be remade; that the movie stood on its own as a piece of art. Unfortunately, this did not stop 20th Century Fox, resulting in an interesting visual piece but very little in the way of story and even less in character.
For those who aren't familiar, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is about an alien, Klaatu (Reeves) who is sent to Earth in an attempt to save the planet. And the only person in the world who seems willing to even listen to him is scientist Helen Benson (Connelly) who is also busy tending to a greiving stepson (Jaden Smith). Meanwhile, the military acts in standard movie-military mode, led by the Secretary of Defense (Kathy Bates), trying to sequester the alien and force him to reveal his ultimate plan through force, despite clear indications that there is nothing they can do to contain any threat, perceived or otherwise.
Director Scott Derrickson was clearly trying to approach the film in a culturally relevant way in an effort to make a social statement about society. There are references to many current events and actual world leaders are shown on televisions in an effort to ground this movie in a present day reality. The problem is that the screenplay by David Scarpa draws one-dimensional characters whose motivations are driven by plot instead of actual development or growth. Characters who seem absolutely set in their ways do a complete 180 as a result of simple, almost inconsequential, events. This would not even be as terrible if the characters were set up in a realistic manner but most act in a one-note fashion that seems to exist solely to antagonize the aliens, especially the military.
The military throws logic completely out the window as they seem content to take on an alien civilization with sheer brute force, despite the fact that their abilities are shown to be near impervious to human weapons and are able to disable them at will. So instead of at least attempting to form some sort of dialogue with the aliens, they continue to act antagonistically by pushing the aliens into a corner when clearly nothing physical can be done to stop them. This attitude is also inexplicably echoed in Jacob (Jaden Smith) who seems to believe that his deceased Army Engineer father would have attempted to kill the aliens were he alive. The attempt is made to make Jacob the conduit for change in this movie but the complete lack of subtlety and the bludgeoning of the audience over the head with simplistic themes undermines any attempt at getting across a coherent message.
This wasn't an unmitigated disaster though. On a visual level, the film was sufficiently engaging and there were some truly interesting effects. Strangely, there was a curiosity to find out what would happen next, although there was no concern for any of the characters and often times a mild annoyance at their actions. This is not a slight at the actors though, since all of them, including Keanu Reeves, deliver as convincing performances as they could given the material they had at their disposal. Reeves is believable as an alien, as his often times wooden delivery would suggest anyway. Connelly is always a bright spot in any movie (although would it kill somebody to put her in a comedy? Why is she always playing such sad characters?) and she and the rest of the cast probably prevented this from being the unwatchable film it could have been.
As it stands, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is instead just another unnecessary remake that would appear to add absolutely nothing to the original. With a different screenplay, this could have been an insightful commentary on the direction of humanity and that is really the biggest disappointment of all.
GRADE: C-
Friday, November 14, 2008
Quantum of Solace Review
Discussing the newest James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, is almost impossible without discussing that which came before it. The fact that this movie picks up literally moments after the first one ended makes it less a sequel and more an extension of the first movie, an extended coda that follows Bond's path in an attempt to exact revenge on those that were responsible for the events of the first movie. As a result, this is less of a movie that stands on its own and more of one that must be watched in conjunction with "Casino Royale" to fully understand its complexities.
Unlike "Casino Royale", "Quantum of Solace" is less layered and more straightforward from a character perspective. Instead of watching Bond slowly learn to love, only to have it all stripped away from him, his demeanor changes very little throughout the course of this movie. The plot on the other hand is just as involved as the first, alluding to the way corporations can control things by obtaining natural resources as opposed to with powerful violence. I think the story wants to be a little more political than it actually is, but it was nice to see Bond being brought into the 21st century and given 21st century villains.
Given that I've only seen a few Bonds prior to Casino Royale, I'm less inclined to concern myself with who or what Bond is supposed to be, but there was a little hesitance over the way Bond was portrayed in this movie. As I'm sure the comparison is being beaten to death already, I won't go much further than to say Bond has a lot in common with Jason Bourne, only with more style and a little more support. That's not to say this is a bad thing; on the contrary, the fight scenes were extravagant and exciting and there was nary a dull moment throughout the entire 110 minute run time. But there is a certain style about Bond that I believe he should have that, while not completely missing from the film, seemed to be somewhat lacking a bit.
The dynamic between Bond and M, though, was probably the most central relationship throughout. Judi Dench plays M with a very specific concern about Bond and trusts him almost implicitly, even though she disagrees with many of his methods and understands that sometimes she has to make hard decisions that are counter to what Bond is trying to accomplish. There was much more of a connection between these two characters than there was between Bond and either one of the more conventional female companions he had. Granted, the fact that he was still so concentrated on Vesper made it almost impossible for him to connect on any level with another female, so this did make sense from a character standpoint.
On the other hand, the character of Camille (Olga Kurylenko) had a story that sufficiently dovetailed Bond's but I never felt a real connection with her beyond her physical appearance. The performance was good and she was written well enough, but there just seemed to be something lacking overall despite the fact that her presence does mirror Bond's in such a way that it enhances his story somewhat.
Director Marc Forster crafts an intense action movie that truly shows his versatility in what he's able to accomplish. Some complaints have been made about the length of the movie in that it's much too short, but while I would have enjoyed seeing a few more character moments, the movie keeps moving along at a brisk pace with exposition scenes punctuated by exciting action scenes that come together to form a well-balanced, coherent whole.
While the movie is certainly entertaining in its own right, I'd go so far to say that if you haven't watched Casino Royale, preferably recently, then so much of the connection will be lost on you. There's a feeling that this is all one giant movie, split into two parts. As it stands, there is certainly a closure that happens with Quantum of Solace that allows the character of Bond to be explored in new, exciting ways in future installments.
GRADE: B+
Unlike "Casino Royale", "Quantum of Solace" is less layered and more straightforward from a character perspective. Instead of watching Bond slowly learn to love, only to have it all stripped away from him, his demeanor changes very little throughout the course of this movie. The plot on the other hand is just as involved as the first, alluding to the way corporations can control things by obtaining natural resources as opposed to with powerful violence. I think the story wants to be a little more political than it actually is, but it was nice to see Bond being brought into the 21st century and given 21st century villains.
Given that I've only seen a few Bonds prior to Casino Royale, I'm less inclined to concern myself with who or what Bond is supposed to be, but there was a little hesitance over the way Bond was portrayed in this movie. As I'm sure the comparison is being beaten to death already, I won't go much further than to say Bond has a lot in common with Jason Bourne, only with more style and a little more support. That's not to say this is a bad thing; on the contrary, the fight scenes were extravagant and exciting and there was nary a dull moment throughout the entire 110 minute run time. But there is a certain style about Bond that I believe he should have that, while not completely missing from the film, seemed to be somewhat lacking a bit.
The dynamic between Bond and M, though, was probably the most central relationship throughout. Judi Dench plays M with a very specific concern about Bond and trusts him almost implicitly, even though she disagrees with many of his methods and understands that sometimes she has to make hard decisions that are counter to what Bond is trying to accomplish. There was much more of a connection between these two characters than there was between Bond and either one of the more conventional female companions he had. Granted, the fact that he was still so concentrated on Vesper made it almost impossible for him to connect on any level with another female, so this did make sense from a character standpoint.
On the other hand, the character of Camille (Olga Kurylenko) had a story that sufficiently dovetailed Bond's but I never felt a real connection with her beyond her physical appearance. The performance was good and she was written well enough, but there just seemed to be something lacking overall despite the fact that her presence does mirror Bond's in such a way that it enhances his story somewhat.
Director Marc Forster crafts an intense action movie that truly shows his versatility in what he's able to accomplish. Some complaints have been made about the length of the movie in that it's much too short, but while I would have enjoyed seeing a few more character moments, the movie keeps moving along at a brisk pace with exposition scenes punctuated by exciting action scenes that come together to form a well-balanced, coherent whole.
While the movie is certainly entertaining in its own right, I'd go so far to say that if you haven't watched Casino Royale, preferably recently, then so much of the connection will be lost on you. There's a feeling that this is all one giant movie, split into two parts. As it stands, there is certainly a closure that happens with Quantum of Solace that allows the character of Bond to be explored in new, exciting ways in future installments.
GRADE: B+
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Zack and Miri Make a Porno Review
Despite the fervent cult following that Kevin Smith has acquired in his 15 years of movie-making, financial blockbuster success has seemed to truly elude him. But the possibility exists that with "Zack and Miri" he can attain a level that he has not seen before, if only on the goodwill of Seth Rogen fans. This is not to say that the movie is substandard; on the contrary, the movie is a very funny, interesting look at two life-long friends who enter into a venture that will change the dynamic of their relationship forever.
Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) are two high school friends who live together in Philidelphia. Their problem is that they never seem to have enough money to pay their bills, yet they have no problem purchasing amenities for themselves on their credit cards. After running into a male porn star (Justin Long) at their 10-year high school reunion, and after having the electricity and water shut off in their apartment, the two decide on a plan to make and market a porno movie and distribute it to pay their bills.
The result is one of Kevin Smith's best films to date, but ultimately does not achieve true greatness. The jokes are funny and the cast is top notch (including a hilarious Craig Robinson from the "Office") but it doesn't really do anything new with the genre that hasn't been done before. Yet what it does do it does well. The core of the film is the central relationship between Zack and Miri and what this situation means for them and for their cohabitation.
For the most part, this relationship played out pretty naturally throughout the duration of the movie, but one moment in particular that was used as a turning point in the relationship seemed to have a character act in such a way that is counter to his or her goals. This moment was introduced strictly as a way to create conflict and unfortunately it really knocked the movie down a little for me, if only because at this point it entered into the standard romantic-comedy formula.
Secondly, Zack and Miri are essentially losers who have done nothing with their lives over the last 10 years. Clearly not idiots, they just choose to be lazy and make horrible financial choices. I've seen other references elsewhere about how this is happening because of the financial state of the country, but it seems clear to me that for the majority of their lives they've just made zero effort. This in turn makes it somewhat difficult to sympathise with their situation at the beginning but it's something that's easily gotten over by the end. Overall, petty complaints that are surrounded by an otherwise solid story.
And all of Smith's trademark gross-out jokes are here, including one that I never thought I would see in a movie like this, and probably one of the reasons the NC-17 rating was initially placed on the movie. I believe I can honestly say I've never seen more of a gross-out moment in a mainstream movie than I did in this one.
Fortunately though, it wasn't all disgusting dick-and-fart jokes and much of the humor stems from the characters and who they are with fewer jokes for jokes sake. The laughter is pretty consistant, although it wasn't constant. There were plenty of funny movies this year and the fact that this movie is even able to be on par with some of those other ones is a testament to its quality. The actors really sell their characters, including surprising turns from real-life porn star Katie Morgan who has a few scenes of actual acting that she pulls off rather well that help to propel the story forward.
On my personal list, I'd rank this movie slightly better than Clerks II and just below Chasing Amy in terms of my favorite Kevin Smith movies. These past few years he's really injected a lot more heart into his films, and I believe that it shows. Hopefully others will see it too this weekend so that he finally achieves a true financial success.
GRADE: B
Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) are two high school friends who live together in Philidelphia. Their problem is that they never seem to have enough money to pay their bills, yet they have no problem purchasing amenities for themselves on their credit cards. After running into a male porn star (Justin Long) at their 10-year high school reunion, and after having the electricity and water shut off in their apartment, the two decide on a plan to make and market a porno movie and distribute it to pay their bills.
The result is one of Kevin Smith's best films to date, but ultimately does not achieve true greatness. The jokes are funny and the cast is top notch (including a hilarious Craig Robinson from the "Office") but it doesn't really do anything new with the genre that hasn't been done before. Yet what it does do it does well. The core of the film is the central relationship between Zack and Miri and what this situation means for them and for their cohabitation.
For the most part, this relationship played out pretty naturally throughout the duration of the movie, but one moment in particular that was used as a turning point in the relationship seemed to have a character act in such a way that is counter to his or her goals. This moment was introduced strictly as a way to create conflict and unfortunately it really knocked the movie down a little for me, if only because at this point it entered into the standard romantic-comedy formula.
Secondly, Zack and Miri are essentially losers who have done nothing with their lives over the last 10 years. Clearly not idiots, they just choose to be lazy and make horrible financial choices. I've seen other references elsewhere about how this is happening because of the financial state of the country, but it seems clear to me that for the majority of their lives they've just made zero effort. This in turn makes it somewhat difficult to sympathise with their situation at the beginning but it's something that's easily gotten over by the end. Overall, petty complaints that are surrounded by an otherwise solid story.
And all of Smith's trademark gross-out jokes are here, including one that I never thought I would see in a movie like this, and probably one of the reasons the NC-17 rating was initially placed on the movie. I believe I can honestly say I've never seen more of a gross-out moment in a mainstream movie than I did in this one.
Fortunately though, it wasn't all disgusting dick-and-fart jokes and much of the humor stems from the characters and who they are with fewer jokes for jokes sake. The laughter is pretty consistant, although it wasn't constant. There were plenty of funny movies this year and the fact that this movie is even able to be on par with some of those other ones is a testament to its quality. The actors really sell their characters, including surprising turns from real-life porn star Katie Morgan who has a few scenes of actual acting that she pulls off rather well that help to propel the story forward.
On my personal list, I'd rank this movie slightly better than Clerks II and just below Chasing Amy in terms of my favorite Kevin Smith movies. These past few years he's really injected a lot more heart into his films, and I believe that it shows. Hopefully others will see it too this weekend so that he finally achieves a true financial success.
GRADE: B
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sex Drive Review
No question about it, comedies have come back in full force this year. There have been so many excellent comedies that finding laughter and a solid story is ridiculously easy. That's not to say that there haven't been poor comedies lately. In fact, seeing "How To Lose Friends and Alienate People" shortly after viewing "Sex Drive" made me realize just how bad some comedies can be.
The premise of "Sex Drive" is a relatively simple one, yet the movie is done with such heart that it comes across as rather fresh. Ian (Josh Zuckerman) is a recent high school graduate who can't seem to get rid of his perceived virginity stigma. He's your stereotypical nice guy, always a friend, never anything more. He bends over backwards to help girls, and he gets stepped on. His best friend Lance (Clark Duke) wouldn't seem from his chubby, spectacled exterior to be a ladies man, yet somehow he pulls it off with relative ease. Despite Lance's efforts to help Ian out, Ian just cannot seem to follow through.
In the meantime, Ian has been chatting up "Ms_Tasty" (30 Rock's Katrina Bowden), an online companion to whom he has been presenting himself as a college football player and practicing being a jerk. So after she claims that she'll have sex with him if he drives from Chicago to Knoxville, TN, he packs up his bags and attempts to hit the road with Lance. As it always is in movies such as this, things don't go quite as planned.
What really works is that at the center of this movie, the story is overwhelmingly solid. Sure there are plenty of unbelievable moments, but the characters all react in ways that make sense and are internally consistent. At the same time, the wacky situations are tempered by corresponding sweetness that allows you to be pulled further into the story. The actors especially really work to drive it home, especially Ian's brother Rex, played by the hilarious James Marsden. Marsden hasn't really been in many comedies over the years, normally playing the brooding, serious guy who gets his girlfriend stolen from someone else. But here, he really uses everything that he's given and highlights the film anytime he is on screen. Others, such as Ian's best friend Felicia (Amanda Crew), really help to ground the movie by not allowing all the male stuff to get too out of hand.
The movie follows all the road movie touchstones, including a run-in with a rather knowledgable Amish man named Ezekiel (Seth Green) who helps them along their journey when they run into car trouble. Overall, there are a few elements of predictability that you can see coming from the get-go, which can be seen as a negative. But fortunately the humor quotient is so high that it renders these issues rather pointless.
What is certainly great to see though is story-based comedy that doesn't have gags for the sake of gags but the humor develops from the story. This is the type of teen comedy that will hopefully last for a while and not be the forgettable movie a lot of people are expecting it to be. And if nothing else, see it for the giant donut costume. I sometimes I wish I had one of those. (Okay, all the time.)
GRADE: B
The premise of "Sex Drive" is a relatively simple one, yet the movie is done with such heart that it comes across as rather fresh. Ian (Josh Zuckerman) is a recent high school graduate who can't seem to get rid of his perceived virginity stigma. He's your stereotypical nice guy, always a friend, never anything more. He bends over backwards to help girls, and he gets stepped on. His best friend Lance (Clark Duke) wouldn't seem from his chubby, spectacled exterior to be a ladies man, yet somehow he pulls it off with relative ease. Despite Lance's efforts to help Ian out, Ian just cannot seem to follow through.
In the meantime, Ian has been chatting up "Ms_Tasty" (30 Rock's Katrina Bowden), an online companion to whom he has been presenting himself as a college football player and practicing being a jerk. So after she claims that she'll have sex with him if he drives from Chicago to Knoxville, TN, he packs up his bags and attempts to hit the road with Lance. As it always is in movies such as this, things don't go quite as planned.
What really works is that at the center of this movie, the story is overwhelmingly solid. Sure there are plenty of unbelievable moments, but the characters all react in ways that make sense and are internally consistent. At the same time, the wacky situations are tempered by corresponding sweetness that allows you to be pulled further into the story. The actors especially really work to drive it home, especially Ian's brother Rex, played by the hilarious James Marsden. Marsden hasn't really been in many comedies over the years, normally playing the brooding, serious guy who gets his girlfriend stolen from someone else. But here, he really uses everything that he's given and highlights the film anytime he is on screen. Others, such as Ian's best friend Felicia (Amanda Crew), really help to ground the movie by not allowing all the male stuff to get too out of hand.
The movie follows all the road movie touchstones, including a run-in with a rather knowledgable Amish man named Ezekiel (Seth Green) who helps them along their journey when they run into car trouble. Overall, there are a few elements of predictability that you can see coming from the get-go, which can be seen as a negative. But fortunately the humor quotient is so high that it renders these issues rather pointless.
What is certainly great to see though is story-based comedy that doesn't have gags for the sake of gags but the humor develops from the story. This is the type of teen comedy that will hopefully last for a while and not be the forgettable movie a lot of people are expecting it to be. And if nothing else, see it for the giant donut costume. I sometimes I wish I had one of those. (Okay, all the time.)
GRADE: B
Friday, September 26, 2008
"HOW much?!"
Ah, the glory of working at a movie theater. Nothing sticks out in my mind more than the rare times that I would be asked to work at the box office. And inevitably, the question would come up with every few people, "Did the prices go up?" or "This is ridiculous. Way too much." (As they'd hand over their card, as well.) Sometimes the prices had, sometimes they hadn't. Yet, they continued to purchase tickets.
Eventually, though, people stop. Despite the perceived quality of movies being better in 2008 in comparison to 2007, movie attendance is still down 5% according to the Associated Press. But ticket prices continue to rise. What seems to be happening is studios, and by extension individual theaters, are raising prices, and knocking more people out of the ability to see movies. Revenues are similar year-to-year, but attendance is down. Could it be that these rising prices are pricing people out of movies in general? Could it be possible that by keeping prices relatively static, that you would in effect have MORE people coming to see movies? I don't know the answer to that, but if it were me, and I was running the studio, I'd probably want more people to see my movie and have more potential from that customer in the long term, than to get them the one time they go out.
Arguments made when the complaint of expensive movie tickets are brought up over how much more of a value going to the movies is as opposed to going to a sporting event or a concert. Well, yeah, obviously. When you go to a sporting event, whether basketball or baseball or football, whatever, every game is going to be unique. There will never be two games that will be played out in exactly the same way. They are playing live in front of your face. This is an experience that cannot be replicated. Therefore, the barrier to entry is going to be much more expensive.
Movies on the other hand are unique in their own right. They can inspire, elicit emotional reactions, excite, entertain, all of that. But you can replay those effects over and over again. A movie, while often times a dynamic experience, is a static form of entertainment. No matter how many times you go see The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader will always admit to being Luke's father. So of course movies need to be much cheaper. The great thing is that it allows you to see movies again and again. There's always something new to be seen.
And let's not forget the potential of having a ruined experience. Loud patrons, kids running around, poor presentation can all bring something a feeling of rushed excitement to a screeching halt. All things that need to be looked at in the future.
Sure, home theaters, surround sound systems, and high definition televisions are getting closer to recreating that silver screen adventure, but they aren't quite there yet and probably never will be. Nothing compares to having your entire vision engulfed to the point where you find yourself fully immersed in this world placed in front of you.
While movies will probably still continue to go up, along with their delicious counterparts at the concession stand, I hold out hope that one day they will slow up their expedient rises and bring people back to the theater where they can best experience a movie.
Eventually, though, people stop. Despite the perceived quality of movies being better in 2008 in comparison to 2007, movie attendance is still down 5% according to the Associated Press. But ticket prices continue to rise. What seems to be happening is studios, and by extension individual theaters, are raising prices, and knocking more people out of the ability to see movies. Revenues are similar year-to-year, but attendance is down. Could it be that these rising prices are pricing people out of movies in general? Could it be possible that by keeping prices relatively static, that you would in effect have MORE people coming to see movies? I don't know the answer to that, but if it were me, and I was running the studio, I'd probably want more people to see my movie and have more potential from that customer in the long term, than to get them the one time they go out.
Arguments made when the complaint of expensive movie tickets are brought up over how much more of a value going to the movies is as opposed to going to a sporting event or a concert. Well, yeah, obviously. When you go to a sporting event, whether basketball or baseball or football, whatever, every game is going to be unique. There will never be two games that will be played out in exactly the same way. They are playing live in front of your face. This is an experience that cannot be replicated. Therefore, the barrier to entry is going to be much more expensive.
Movies on the other hand are unique in their own right. They can inspire, elicit emotional reactions, excite, entertain, all of that. But you can replay those effects over and over again. A movie, while often times a dynamic experience, is a static form of entertainment. No matter how many times you go see The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader will always admit to being Luke's father. So of course movies need to be much cheaper. The great thing is that it allows you to see movies again and again. There's always something new to be seen.
And let's not forget the potential of having a ruined experience. Loud patrons, kids running around, poor presentation can all bring something a feeling of rushed excitement to a screeching halt. All things that need to be looked at in the future.
Sure, home theaters, surround sound systems, and high definition televisions are getting closer to recreating that silver screen adventure, but they aren't quite there yet and probably never will be. Nothing compares to having your entire vision engulfed to the point where you find yourself fully immersed in this world placed in front of you.
While movies will probably still continue to go up, along with their delicious counterparts at the concession stand, I hold out hope that one day they will slow up their expedient rises and bring people back to the theater where they can best experience a movie.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Eww! Gross!
What fascinates me these days is the obsession with box office that so many of the mainstream media and followers of film have. The most recent obsession seems to be with people wanting "The Dark Knight" to take down "Titanic" in US grosses. Except it won't. And even if it surpasses that $600 million mark, that means nothing. Since, according to Box Office Mojo, when adjusted for inflation, "The Dark Knight" would currently only be hovering around $340 million in 1997 dollars, and Titanic itself is only number 6 on that list.
The problem with the way film measures success is that the benchmark continuously changes. A platinum selling record is one that sells a million copies. A smash hit television show is in the 10s of millions of viewers. The benchmarks in most other industries is one in units. How many units of this item were sold? And through that, one can figure out a long-term success pattern. But this is not the case for movies. In the many years I've been involved with movies, I have never once seen an amount of tickets sold number. When I have searched them out, I can usually find them, but never are they reported.
But people get so attached to these numbers. Dark Knight breaks the Spider-Man record. Great. So what? Does this inherently mean that one is better than the other? Absolutely not. They are completely different movies. I can think of plenty of movies that made very little at the box office that were still incredibly successful overall. The most prescient example that comes to mind is "The Shawshank Redemption." Currently at or near the top of most "Best Ever" lists, it grossed only $28 million total when it was released in 1994.
I believe that film fans all around should begin to put these numbers behind us, and pay less attention to them. The only reason I want films to make lots of money is so that other films like it will continue to be made. I'm glad The Dark Knight has made so much money, because it secures the franchise in the minds of most executives and they will continue making more Batman films. Beyond that, there is no care for me. I was certainly disappointed to see Speed Racer make so little money overall, as I would have enjoyed seeing sequels to that movie, but its comparitive success or failure has little bearing on whether or not I enjoyed that movie on its own merits. My appreciation for that movie would not be vindicated by a higher box office gross or massive DVD sales because I continue to love it regardless.
And then you have situations like the upcoming "Watchmen." Frankly, it's irrelevant whether or not that movie makes $1 or $1 billion. The movie is made, it cannot be a franchise, and it's done. If it's a good movie (which I expect it will be) then I will certainly be happy to see it succeed if it does. But if it doesn't, and I still enjoy it, it will make little difference to me.
All I want is for studios to continue to make good movies or focus on quality again (I'm looking at you, 20th Century Fox). And maybe, somewhere down the road, we can focus on benchmarking through admissions instead of inflated box office numbers.
The problem with the way film measures success is that the benchmark continuously changes. A platinum selling record is one that sells a million copies. A smash hit television show is in the 10s of millions of viewers. The benchmarks in most other industries is one in units. How many units of this item were sold? And through that, one can figure out a long-term success pattern. But this is not the case for movies. In the many years I've been involved with movies, I have never once seen an amount of tickets sold number. When I have searched them out, I can usually find them, but never are they reported.
But people get so attached to these numbers. Dark Knight breaks the Spider-Man record. Great. So what? Does this inherently mean that one is better than the other? Absolutely not. They are completely different movies. I can think of plenty of movies that made very little at the box office that were still incredibly successful overall. The most prescient example that comes to mind is "The Shawshank Redemption." Currently at or near the top of most "Best Ever" lists, it grossed only $28 million total when it was released in 1994.
I believe that film fans all around should begin to put these numbers behind us, and pay less attention to them. The only reason I want films to make lots of money is so that other films like it will continue to be made. I'm glad The Dark Knight has made so much money, because it secures the franchise in the minds of most executives and they will continue making more Batman films. Beyond that, there is no care for me. I was certainly disappointed to see Speed Racer make so little money overall, as I would have enjoyed seeing sequels to that movie, but its comparitive success or failure has little bearing on whether or not I enjoyed that movie on its own merits. My appreciation for that movie would not be vindicated by a higher box office gross or massive DVD sales because I continue to love it regardless.
And then you have situations like the upcoming "Watchmen." Frankly, it's irrelevant whether or not that movie makes $1 or $1 billion. The movie is made, it cannot be a franchise, and it's done. If it's a good movie (which I expect it will be) then I will certainly be happy to see it succeed if it does. But if it doesn't, and I still enjoy it, it will make little difference to me.
All I want is for studios to continue to make good movies or focus on quality again (I'm looking at you, 20th Century Fox). And maybe, somewhere down the road, we can focus on benchmarking through admissions instead of inflated box office numbers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)