Why is Hollywood talking to me as if I'm stupid?

The other day I wrote about how there is a flood of low brow comedies coming out in theaters weekly. Today I want to expand on that and go into how film makers in Hollywood feel that they have to explain everything to us. Just because a particular item or theme in the film is important doesn't mean you have to beat us over the head with it. Give us some credit. We'll figure it out. There are so many examples but these are just a few.

Academy Award winning picture "Crash." A film about racism in our society. I loved the acting but thought that the message was forced. Every example painted each character strongly biased towards one ethnicity or another. I would have prefered and thought that the film would have succeeded more to show the shades of grey and different degrees of racism. It would have been more realistic to portray the elements from the subtle to the blatant.

"The Spanish Prisoner" by David Mamet. A few of my friends love this movie. Hey, I'm a fan of Mamet as well but I just thought it was ok. There is a scene when the main character, Joe, is standing on line and pondering the mystery that has unfolded over the past hour of my time. In the background a woman is scolding her child about a book. "Look what you did to your BOOK! You ripped your BOOK! Why did you do this to your BOOK?!?!!" All of a sudden Joe has an epiphany. It's the BOOK that's the key!! Why didn't I think of it before?! Is the woman referring to her child's book 5 or 6 times really necessary? Couldn't I have figured out that it was that important when you had multiple shots of THE BOOK earlier in the film?

"Invictus" is Clint Eastwood's most recent release about Nelson Mandela and his South African rugby team inspiring his nation to unify. Over all the story telling was decent but it was full of gimmiks to tug on our heartstrings meaning to inspire us. Jeez Clint, you are a great FILM director not a music video director. You don't need some country band singing over a particular moment of the film to inspire. Over use of slow motion as well. Is this the same person that made "Letters Of Iwo Jima" and "Unforgiven?" Both almost perfect films. Come on Clint! Let the story tell itself.

Hasn't the success of such films as "The Sixth Sense," "The Prestige," "The Usual Suspects" and more recently "No Country For Old Men" proven that subtly goes a long way? They may not be perfect but at least they make us, the audience, use our brains. Not everything has to be explained. Then if we haven't figured it out right away we'll come back for a second or third viewing to help process the storytelling. I love watching an intelligent movie over and over and seeing something new or different each time. That's what smart film-making is all about. Not talking down to us. Give us the benefit of the doubt. At least challenge us to figure it out.

Disney Taking Bids For The Miramax Library

In todays Hollywood Reporter there is an article talking about Disney finally letting go of something they should never have bought. What was Miramax Films film library. I guess the feeling in 1993 at the Mouse House was to round out their film library not only with top notch animation but Academy Award winners and contenders? Since the Weinstein Brothers left to start The Weinstein Company in 2005 Disney has been struggling to figure out what to do with the once independent giant. After letting 70% of Miramax's workforce go in October Disney made it official last month closing the doors in the NY and LA offices. Now they're selling off the Miramax library trying to pay for their latest acquisition. Marvel Entertainment Inc. Can the Weinstein Brothers pull together the cash to buy back the films they worked so hard to create? We'll see? Enjoy.

Miramax offers due Friday
More than a dozen expected for Disney's shuttered division
By Carl DiOrio

More than a dozen nonbinding offers are expected Friday in an informal auction Disney is conducting for its recently shuttered Miramax.

Contrary to some reports, Disney's $700 million price tag on Miramax, which comes with a 700-film library, might not prove a problem. But that will take a while to sort out, as first-round bidding is nonbinding and Disney has facilitated almost no due diligence by Miramax suitors.

One estimate put annual cash flow from the Miramax library at $150 million, meaning Disney would need to find a buyer willing to pay a multiple of four to five times cash flow. That's considered doable, though everything depends on bidders confirming the studio's cash flow claims when due diligence finally is allowed.

Disney is running the Miramax auction internally, with its finance execs fielding phone calls and holding occasional meetings with prospective suitors.

Minimajor Lionsgate is among those kicking tires on Miramax, and several majors also are expected to make expressions of interest. Summit Entertainment had been in the mix of suitors but pulled out at the eleventh hour prior to the bidding deadline.

Former Miramax co-toppers Harvey and Bob Weinstein also are interested in reclaiming rights to their once-mighty indie, which they founded in 1979 and named for their parents Miriam and Max Weinstein. But it's not clear how the recently cash-strapped brothers would fund a Miramax purchase.

Is the Hollywood Comedy Dead?

There was a time when a Farrelly Brother's-esque comedy would punctuate with low-brow fare once or twice a year. Now it seems to be the norm. Vince Vaughn and Judd Apatow are king. I love to laugh. But finding a truly funny comedy lately is becoming a rarity. I'm no elitist. I think that "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" is hysterical. "Blazing Saddles, never get tired of it. Ever since the success of "There's Something About Mary" Hollywood is grinding out potty humor like there's no tomorrow. With each film trying to best (or worse as the cast may be) the last big hit. How low can you go is the new motto. Is there something wrong with me? Why are my friends who see "Wedding Crashers" and "Knocked Up" touting them as the funniest films they've seen in years? I found "Wedding Crashers" forced and "Knocked Up" just drawn out and boring. My brother told me I should watch the movie "Old School." He couldn't believe that I hadn't watched it yet. After seeing it, I understood why I waited so long? He then told me that it gets funnier after the 6th or 7th viewing!! I didn't like it the first time, why the hell would I watch it again?!? I turned the big 4-0 in October, maybe that's it? Growing up on a diet of Abbott and Costello and the Marx Brothers may say something? Classic, fast talking, physical comedy. I understand that Hollywood is trying to get teenagers and twenty somethings in for repeat viewings. When I was a teenager we had such John Hughes staples as "The Breakfast Club" and "Sixteen Candles" to give us a taste of teenage life. Not "American Pie." How many kids do you know who want to experience sex for the first time turn to their mom's apple pie?

The funniest films I've seen in recent years were all barely a blip on anyone's radar. "Lars And The Real Girl," what's that? "Everything Is Illuminated," I've never heard of it? These were small independent films that had little or no money behind them for advertising. The only people that believed in them were the film crew and the actors working on them. The studios that distributed them released them but either in limited cities or direct to DVD. They put there money behind films like "40 Year Old Virgin" and "Meet The Parents" becoming the biggest hits the year the were released. There has to be a happy medium. But I guess while audiences continue to buy tickets for the potty humor train Hollywood will continue pushing them into our face. If I may, keep an eye out of those little films that you've never heard of. Look for small films that receive good reviews and add them to your Netlix list or write them down. You might be surprised how good they are? (and without the laxative humor)

2009 Performances by Actresses up for Oscar

I've been sitting here for about 10 minutes trying to figure out which subject to talk about? I have a couple of ideas. Then I realize, just start typing, you'll have the opportunity to write about each of them.

Today I'm going into judging an actresses performance. I have a couple of friends at work who are into film as well. We're always talking (sometimes heatedly) about what each of us has seen recently and what we thought about the acting, writing and/or directing. One of those friends in particular (I'll call him Joe) is a fanatic for Meryl Streep. She can do no wrong. He believes that she IS the greatest actress that has EVER graced the screen. Don't get me wrong. Meryl Streep is the greatest living screen actress we have still working today. But even she admits that her track record can be over-rated. ("She-Devil," "Music Of The Heart" (which she receive an Oscar nomination) and "River Wild?") Every time she comes out with a new film "Joe" starts raving, "This is it!! She's going to be nominated again this year!" Well, this year Ms. Streep did put out two fine performances. My favorite being from "Julie & Julia" giving her an unprecedented 16th nomination. She did do a great job portraying Julia Childs. So this year "Joe" I'll grant that Ms. Streep's nomination is warranted. But was it THE best?

Meryl's greatest threat for bringing home the Oscar for best actress though this year, Sandra Bullock from the film "The Blind Side." I enjoyed this film very much. A nice, inspiring film. Do I think that Sandra Bullock gave one of her better performances as an actress, yes. Do I think that she took a chance and pushed herself someplace completely out of character and deserves to win, no. I think what makes "The Blind Side" succeed is the whole package. The writing, directing and acting. The director, John Lee Hancock, did his job and reigned Ms. Bullock in from her usual mugging for the camera performances to fit the needs of the film. So my admiration doesn't go to Ms. Bullock as much as it goes to Mr. Hancock.

The same could be said for Lee Daniels, the director of the film "Precious" and his actresses. I finally had the opportunity to see the film recently and WOW, what a movie!! I realize that Mo'Nique is only up for a supporting award but she gave (what I thought) was the finest performance by ANY actress this year. But "Joe" thinks that it's a joke that she's even nominated. Have you seen this film?? I didn't even recognize her in the opening minutes of the movie. Here is an actress that has up until now played goofy, slapstick comedy. Now she finds a director that redirects her energy and pushes her to a place that I don't think that she even realized she could go as a performer. What a difference!

For me, it all comes down to expectations. If you're Meryl Streep, I expect you to bring your "A" game. You're Meryl Streep. Most likely the film is being made because you're Meryl Streep. Sandra Bullock, great job. Think about taking some cues from Mo'Nique. Find a part that pushes you outside the safety of your warm, fuzzy, comedic box. You're a big enough star that your career can handle the change. Mo'Nique, I'll be pulling for your on Oscar night. Your performance left me with my mouth wide open. Truly remarkable. "Joe," it's your kind of thinking that's been holding the Academy Awards back for a long time now. That's why they have the lifetime achievement award. No edge. (unless it's in the screenplay category.) But that's the subject for another time.

A New Version Of "Metropolis!!!"

Ok, ok I realize that I'm cheating with posting a Hollywood Reporter article as my first post but I am JUICED about this news. (Besides, it won't be my last in posting other's articles in film news.) I find this type of thing fascinating. "Lost footage" and "Undiscovered copy found!!" etc, etc. Kids of theater owners who stumble onto a box of old film cans in their parents closets or basement. Rumors of lost footage and films and the people who are driven to find these bits of treasure. I am looking forward to this being released here in the states. I would love to see this baby on the big screen!!

New version of 'Metropolis' screening at Berlin
By Scott Roxborough

It started with a rumor.

Fernando Martin Pena, director of the film department at Argentina's Museum of Latin American Art, was talking to the manager of a cinema club when the manager mentioned a screening of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" he had attended years ago.

Pena normally wouldn't have paid it much mind: "Metropolis" is a silent film classic and, around the world, standard movie club fare. But the manager complained about how long the screening was -- 2 1/2 hours.

Which was strange because the longest version of "Metropolis" then in existence came in at slightly more than two hours. Sure, Lang's original cut was longer, but after "Metropolis" flopped at its 1927 premiere in Berlin, it got chopped. Before its U.S. release, Paramount butchered the film, tossing out characters and scenes, simplifying the plot and bringing the runtime down by about 25 minutes. After an initial five-month run in Berlin, German studio UFA did the same. The missing scenes were lost forever. Unless ...

It was a crazy thought. The original version of "Metropolis" is the holy grail of director's cuts. Everyone knew no copy existed. The idea that a copy of was lying in the musty back rooms of the Museo del Cine (Cinema Museum) in Buenos Aires was absurd.

Pena spent 15 years chasing the rumor. He traced things back to Adolfo Z. Wilson, former head of Argentine film distributor Terra. In 1928, Wilson had ordered a copy of the original version of "Metropolis" to be sent to Buenos Aires. The copy was passed to a film critic, Manuel Pena Rodriguez, who kept it as part of his private collection before selling the reels to Argentina's National Art Fund in the 1960s. In 1992, a copy of these reels was left to the Museo del Cine.

That's where Pena ran into a wall. The Museo del Cine refused to give him access to its archives. It wasn't until 2008, when his ex-wife, Paula Felix-Didier, became the museum's curator, that Pena finally got to look.

In July of that year, Felix-Didier came to Berlin with a DVD copy and screened it for a select group in Berlin.

"The room got very quiet," says Martin Koerber, head of film archives at Berlin's Deutsche Kinematek film museum. "We were all waiting to see if it was really true."

Koerber knew what to expect: He had headed the team that restored "Metropolis" in 2001.

" 'Metropolis' was the most expensive German film of its time and it is incredibly well-documented," he says. "We have the original script and we have the huge number of secondary sources, including the original musical score by (composer) Gottfried Huppertz."

Huppertz's score was key because it provided both a timeline and blueprint for the reconstruction. Scores for silent films of that era included annotations for the conductor -- notes of what was on the screen so the conductor could follow the action and keep the music in sync. By following the notes, Koerber and conductor Frank Strobel put "Metropolis" back together again. Where they didn't have images, they left gaps, with title cards describing the action that, according to Thea von Harbou's script, had to be there.

"Now we had a complete copy, we could see if we'd got it right," Koerber says. "The DVD started and we watched. And it fit. It all fit. Whereas before, we had just descriptions, we now had real scenes."

Then the real work began.

The Murnau Foundation, which holds the rights to "Metropolis," reached a deal with Museo del Cine, secured financing from broadcasters ZDF and ARTE, and then set out to clean up the 80-year-old images.

"It was a mess; it was in really horrible condition," says Anke Wilkening of the Murnau Foundation, describing the Argentine copy of "Metropolis." "It was a 16mm copy of the original 32mm print, which itself had been screened repeatedly and was worn down. It wasn't a wetgate scan (a scan that applies perchloroethylene to film that helps to fill in scratches on the surface and wash away dust) but a dry copy, so all the original flaws were transferred to the dub. We had every flaw you can imagine. It was less a matter of restoration than damage control."

Film tech specialists Arri helped digitize the print. Specially designed software from Alpha & Omega, another German firm, removed the worst effects. The missing scenes were slotted into the 2001 restoration.

It isn't perfect. Wilkening notes Argentine censors cut out some material -- including a short nude scene -- meaning that a truly complete "Metropolis" remains tantalizingly out of reach. But whatever its minor flaws, this "Metropolis," which premieres in Berlin, will transform our image of a great cinematic classic.

"For the first time in 83 years," says Nina Gossler, who oversaw the restoration for ZDF, "we can see 'Metropolis' with new eyes."