I should say first that I am about to wholeheartedly support the world viewing Be Kind Rewind in the face of what I believe will be a lot of poopooing over this movie (it’s currently “rotten” over at Rotten Tomatoes). I will also say I am not a Michel Gondry fanboy or, even, somebody who could pass for a hipster (that segment of the population making Wes Anderson, Michel Gondry, Spike Jonze and Puma economically viable). I saw Be Kind Rewind at Sundance 2008 thinking it would be a pallet cleanser from long nights of editing interviews and watching the really challenging stuff. But Be Kind Rewind was the most subversive movie at Sundance this year. So much so, I question the programmers even knew it.
The premise is straight from a sub-genre of comedy that has brought us such classics as Ski Patrol and One Crazy Summer (a perfect ball of ice cream for Gondry to hide his medicine in). Two slackers who while away their days in a hole-in-the-wall hangout–owned by a kindly old proprietor–have to raise more cash than they’ve ever seen or the hangout gets the wrecking ball. Antics ensue. The antics are brought to us by Jerry (Jack Black) and Mike (Mos Def) as they remake a library of hit Hollywood movies with a VHS camcorder when Jack Black inadvertently erases all the tapes at their neighborhood video shop (the hangout). The montages of their backyard productions are the stuff people will go to see this movie in droves for, and they are fall-down funny. However, these montages end partway through the story to make room for the proverbial “plot.”
…Read more
On last week’s edition of FilmCouch, I revealed one of my dirtiest secrets: on some level, I’m more interested in bad movies than good ones. You’ll have to listen to the podcast to hear my explanation, but coincidentally, I’ve come across a number of stories over the past few days that revolve around quantifying and qualifying movie badness.
Going into the weekend, FILMMAKER’s Scott Macaulay noticed that the apparently unwatchable (and unscreened for critics) Lindsay Lohan vehicle I Know Who Killed Me was rocking a rating of 0% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. “In our long-tailed world of a million and one tastes, it would seem impossible to make a film that simply nobody likes,” Macaulay wrote. “If you believe the tomato squad, however, it’s been done.” A commenter on that post noted that once a few more reviews started to roll in, its score skyrocketed to 8%; five days later, it has actually dropped to 7%.
Only two of the reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes are positive enough to earn a juicy red tomato; one of them, by the McVoice syndicate’s Jim Ridley, has essentially convinced me that I Know Who Killed Me is a must see. “Watch the mallrats’ jaws drop as they pay to see the same old teen slicer-dicer, only to get this wacko hodgepodge of the Brian De Palma horror filmography and—I swear to God—Kieslowski’s The Double Life of Veronique,” Ridley begins. The critic only has about 200 words to work with, but he manages to call it a “a surreal, disjointed mood piece about teen alienation,” AND commend Lohan for playing “her good-girl/bad-girl role with wit and an air of sly calculation,” AND toss off a reference to Kafka just before the clock runs out. Well played, indeed.
…Read more
Another interesting perspective from our film studies friend Dodd, known as “moviedodd” on Spout.
Friday means different things for different people, from getting out of town to hitting the bars for a long stretch of “unwinding.” For movie-lovers, it’s the ripe time to hit Rotten Tomatoes and check for reviews on the latest weekend releases. Usually everything seems in order, as most of the major releases have been branded positive or negative. However, there is sometimes one major release with nothing next to it. Despite the heavy promotion for weeks–sometimes months–on end, not one major critic has given his or her two cents. Have you ever noticed this?
I’m sure that by now most moviegoers are familiar with the films that are not screened for critics. Sometimes these are flicks that have been shelved for years. Other times they are fresh off the studio lot. It was recently announced that the long-delayed Ghost Rider will not be screened for critics. The action film features Nicholas Cage as a rough-around-the-edges biker with a CGI flaming skull for a head. Not screened for critics? Imagine that.
It seems quite clear why critics are forbidden to see these films. If a release has “disaster” written all over it, then it would be poor publicity to release it upon the masses with stamps of disapproval from the nation’s trusted film experts. However, people are beginning to get what’s behind non-exhibition for the critics. Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper even bestowed The Wagging Finger of Shame upon these films to indicate the foul smell they emanate.
While some may immediately recognize a dud, the tactic is certainly not flawed. Epic Movie recently debuted in the number one spot despite not being screened for critics and blatantly presenting itself in previews as one of the most awful things to hit screens this year. However, the unscreened comedy Let\’s Go to Prison was a monster flop in 2006 (this goes without mentioning possible box office competition).
As a self-proclaimed movie aficionado, I see this restriction as a kiss of death. On rare occasions, some titles are worth the blind venture into the multiplex. You better believe that a critical ban did not stop me from checking out Internet phenomenon Snakes on a Plane. However, it is easy to recognize when a movie studio is so ashamed of a picture that they keep it hidden from the press.
What is your take on the black sheep of the box office? Do you decide to go see if there’s potential in a film not screened for critics, or do you see a toe tag that might as well be marked “Dead on Arrival?”
