FilmRoar

Curious to know how much any film director’s movies have earned? Well take a look at the
alphabetical director index at www.the-numbers.com. The spread is wide and there are some surprises.

For the last decade I have been boycotting the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences Awards (commonly known as the Oscars). With boycott I don’t just mean that I have not watched the Oscars but that I have actively avoided and encouraged others to ignore the whole Oscar hoopla. My dislike for the Oscars has been based primarily on the selection of titles for award nomination which are based more on who is popular with who in Hollywood and have for at least the last fifteen years had very little to do with actual acting or movie making talent, an effect I refer to in polite company as ‘Hollywood patting itself on the back’ and when I am really riled as ‘Hollywood giving itself a blow job’. I mean really, Gladiator (2000) as best picture best picture for 2000>? Titanic (1997) as best picture for 1997? Give me a god dammed break! Not only where there dozens, nay hundreds of much better movies released each of those years but both of these flicks sucked! Yeah, Gladiator was entertaining but it was a fluff popcorn flick. Titanic was barely worth the time it took to watch it. Keep going back and you will find crap like this specked among the truly worthy movies going back well before the 80s.

This year however, I believe the time may have finally come to stop turning my nose up at the award and give them some credit. Now don’t get me wrong, I still believe that the Academy is more about a bunch of self-gratifying egotistical entertainers than it is about culture, art and great filmmaking but this year’s list of nominees reaches a bit beyond the money makers at the megaplex and calls out some movies with true worth. I am a bit surprised that the third installment of Lord of the Rings came up for one last run at Oscar gold and still did not generate any acting nominations, specially since the epic special effects extravaganza enjoys the popularity that seems requisite to be present in the wondering minds of Academy members. Other more pleasant surprises like Finding Nemo (2003) going up for Best Writing (original screenplay) or Lost in Translation (2003) going up for Best Picture, Writing, Leading actor (Bill Murray) and Directing (Sofia Coppola) do give me hope though. The list of nominations for 2003 are still not what I would have chosen but they at least show some attention to talent above popularity.

I have mixed feelings about an article that appeared in The Seattle Times complaining about the increasingly long credits that accompany new movies. According to the article the classic Nosferatu (1922) listed 11 names in the credits, while Star Wars (1977) listed 143 people, The Matrix (1999) lists 551, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, (2002) lists 559, Finding Nemo (2003) lists 642 and The Matrix Revolutions (2003) had 701. One the one hand it is hard to argue that the nearly ten minute long credit creep (The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) was clocked at 9 minutes and 33 seconds) seems a bit excessive and goes beyond identifying the people who made a film what it is, on the other hand screen credit is often the only compensation an individual may receive for contributing to a production.
Read the rest of this entry »

Last week my friend David asked me what Author I thought had most of his work adapted to movies. It was an interesting question and an interesting discussion. We tossed back and forth a few likely names like Isaac Asimov, Phillip K Dick and Michael Crichton but concluded that the most likely suspect for this honor would be the King himself: Stephen King. I just did some quick searching on the IMDB and found this out:

Philip K. Dick: 11 writing credits.

John Grisham: 13 writing credits.

Isaac Asimov: 21 writing credits.

Michael Crichton: 25 writing credits.

Stephen King: 81 writing credits!

Can anyone think of other authors that might rival these guys?

The Next Superhero

There is a saying in Hollywood “why waste time coming up with an original idea when you can steal someone else’s”. Well, maybe there isn’t such a saying, but there should be. Hollywood operates on the principle of pack mentality. If one studio works on a movie about a giant meteor that is about to wipe out humanity when it hits the earth, then every studio needs a giant meteor movie. If one studio starts to work on an animated movie about ants then their competition needs an animated ant movie. If one studio looks like it will be making money on a dad and son switch places movie then the studio across town needs to start it’s own dad and son switch places flick.

This originality-is-risky mentality can be a blessing as well as a curse. After a streak of failed super-hero movies (Captain America (1991), Punisher, The (1989), Judge Dredd (1995), Howard the Duck (1986)), Hollywood decided to try again.
Read the rest of this entry »

There is a very funny Review of the Trailer for The Matrix Reloaded up at BBspot.com. Go check it out. Here is a sample:

Computers control your mind. Keanu Reeves is your only hope.
Geez, with that synopsis it sounds more like a horror movie.

Over the weekend I presented at an interesting panel entitled ‘Cult Movies and Their Fans’ while at the Norwescon science-fiction convention. The panel presented a rather interesting topic and had great participation, both from the panelists and the people attending. We discussed what makes a cult movie and came up with some good ideas on criteria:

· A cult movie must have a cult following.

· Cult followings will watch the movie over and over, often on a regular schedule (like once a month or once a year) and often as part of some ritual (like making a party around it.)

· Any movie that gets a regular midnight show at a local theater gets instant cult status.

· Any movie where people come to a showing (private or in a theater) dressed up as characters or having memorized lines is a cult movie.

· Cult movies often don’t rely on current trends of events to make their point, giving them a timeless quality.

· Cult movies are watched years after they should have been forgotten.

· Cult movies can have a lifespan. This is illustrated by movies like ‘Reservoir Dogs’ which enjoyed cult status for a while but by now seem to be forgotten. There are also some cult movies like ‘Repo Man’, which may only be truly understood by the generation they were created for.

· Cult movies are often ‘flukes’, that is to say movies that were made without the intent or belief that they would ‘make it big’ but become popular because of some inherit quality of the movie.

· Some directors have cult status. Their specific movies may not be considered cult movies, but the director’s work is watched over and over by devoted fans in much the same way a cult movie is.

· Big production, or worse, advertising budgets deprive a movie of cult status. It is the word-of-mouth following that a movie can develop that grant’s it it’s cult following. [Note - This begs the question, are Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001) or Star Wars (1977) allowed an honorary Cult Movie status?]

· The most important quality for a cult film is that it be innovative. There must be something about the story, the filming technique, the acting or more commonly the style of the film that has not been seen before. Movies that gain cult status are often imitated but tend to be the creative innovators.

Dozens of movie titles were tossed out as movies that seem to enjoy this ‘cult’ status. Here are some titles that I remember from the panel and others I have thought of since then. If you can think of other titles please post them as comments to this article.
Read the rest of this entry »