PIXAR is Producing Direct to DVD Movies?

Mention the words "direct-to-video sequels" within earshot of any Disney fan of a certain age, and you're sure to evoke cringes. "Cinderella II," "Bambi II," "Lady and the Tramp II" "The Fox and the Hound II" and "101 Dalmatians II" hitting the retail shelves was a blatant cash grab by Disney, and tarnished the legacy of their animated films. They may have staved off the demise of traditional animation for a few years and kept Disney's animators working, but the sequels were so universally reviled for their sub-par production values and completely extraneous nature, they did more harm than good in the long run.

So upon hearing the news that PIXAR will be spinning off a semi-sequel to "Cars" called "Planes" that is going direct to DVD, my first reaction was apprehension. Is this the first sign that PIXAR - the current reigning champ among the CGI animation studios, with a spotless record of box office successes - is going to make the same mistakes as Disney and start a heartbreaking descent into mediocrity? Two of the next three PIXAR theatrical releases will be sequels: "Monsters Inc 2" and "Cars 2," coming on the heels of this summer's "Toy Story 3." The recent regime change at Disney coincided with reports that the company wants to get more aggressive about building marketable brands. "Cars" may have been the least-liked of the PIXAR films, but it moves a lot of merchandise, while the likes of "Up" and "Ratatouille" have not.

But after giving it some thought, this could be a good move. Disney eased back into the direct-to-DVD market recently with the CGI "Tinker Bell" films, a spin-off series starring the character from the 1953 "Peter Pan," and they've managed to escape the scorn heaped on most of their other sequels. It's not hard to see why. The "Tinker Bell" films are well made and very self-contained in their own little original universe. They have little to do with the original "Peter Pan," aside from sharing the title character. While "Tinker Bell" is just as unnecessary as something like "Return to Never Land," a direct sequel to "Peter Pan" released in theaters in 2002, at least the series isn't so dependent on exploiting our nostalgia for an older classic. Disney has been so successful with the "Fairies" brand it built around "Tinker Bell," a live action film featuring the character was just announced, with Elizabeth Banks up to play Tink.

"Planes" will likewise be a spin-off instead of a direct sequel to the "Cars" movies, and I'm assuming from the title that we're not going to see much of popular characters like Lightning McQueen and Mater the Tow Truck, who have four wheels and no wings. The Disney nerd in me is actually curious to know if they might include cameos from some similar airplane characters like Pedro from "Saludos Amigos." I don't think "Planes" is going to be able to escape the feeling that it's only second-string material. After all, if "Toy Story 2" was upgraded from a direct-to-video project to a theatrical feature based on the strength of its material, then it's easy to draw the conclusion that the opposite is true as well, and "Planes" will be a feature that simply isn't good enough for the big screen.

The major concern is that PIXAR might end up diluting the quality of their work and the strength of their brand if their attention is diverted to these other projects. I've seen some commentators suggest that the direct-to-video films would be an extension of their award-winning shorts, which are used to train up-and-coming talent and test new animation techniques. Also, with the animation industry as healthy as it is right now, it's a good opportunity for the studio to start expanding its operations. PIXAR opened its first satellite studio, PIXAR Canada, back in April. A smaller production like "Planes" would be a great way to keep all those new animators busy and help them work their way up to PIXAR level work. But again, the danger is that they could overextend themselves the way Disney did, when it had half a dozen smaller studios in France, Japan, Australia, and other countries that ended up churning out a lot the direct-to-video and television work.

We all know the money's the thing, and that Disney is itching to parlay PIXAR's golden reputation into more profits. The direct-to-DVD market is a lucrative one and Disney has proven it's possible to create original content based on its existing properties that aren't so obnoxiously derivative. If PIXAR wants to follow suit, I'm sure they'll be successful. I just hope they remember the significant risks and dangers involved in a venture like this, and that there are always hidden costs to cashing in.

One Week to Comic-Con

It's one week to San Diego Comic-Con 2010, my first ever. I've been to other media conventions before, mostly during college in my otaku days, but I've never done *the* Comic-Con. And suddenly all the idle musings about costumes and schedules have turned into furtive searches for old Halloween makeup and drawing up battle plans to cover as much ground as I can over the three days I'll be in attendance. I thought I'd share some pre-descent-into-madness thoughts.

The Basics - Good shoes? Check. Bottled water? Check. Granola bars? Check. Registration E-mails? Check. Plane tickets? Check. Printed schedules? Check. Map of the convention center? Check. Cel phone? Check. Money? Sunglasses? Checkity-check. Geeky enthusiasm for all things genre and fannish and fun? Triple check!

Costumes - I have two different costumes planned, a group costume and an individual backup. They're both very simple, but the amount of drama that went into their creation is amazing. I've never done costuming with a group before and I now understand why some people are so hesitant about it. Fortunately the major battles have been fought, and there's nothing much left to do aside from crossing my fingers that certain pieces will arrive from Amazon in time for the big day. I am loathe to reveal who I'll be dressed as, in case more people (and potential employers) read this blog than I know about, but rejected costuming concepts include Harry Potter, Star Wars, Charlie's Angels, Twilight, and Kill Bill. My hair is now also shorter than it's been in about a decade. The backup costume just needs a little greasepaint it'll be ready to go too. It's my old Halloween standby - and since this is a comic book covention, someone may actually recognize who I'm supposed to be for once.

Cameras - I've been debating with myself over the past couple of days whether I can justifying buying a new camera for the event. I'm one of those poor unfortunate souls who does not have a standard point-and-click digital camera, because I haven't been able to bring myself to drop $100 at the Best Buy or $75 on Craigslist for a used one. Now I'm worried it might be too late. I have a Samsung Rant with a 2MP camera that's pretty decent quality, but it's a pain to use, there's no flash, and I'm not fast enough with it to take pictures quickly, which is going to be a neccessity at an event like this. On the other hand, I've spent a good amount of money on the convention, airfare, and costumes already, and I know I'm going to spend much more on merchandise and food and all the ancillary odds and ends when the time comes. Not to mention unforeseen expenses. There are always unforeseen expenses.

Stargazing - I have to see Ray Bradbury. And I have to see Joss Whedon. And I have to see Guillermo Del Toro. And I have to see the Mythbusters. And I have to see Jackson Publick and Doc Hammer. And I cannot possibly leave Hall H or Ballroom 20 for more than five minutes or I might miss something or lose my seat or be accosted by Wookies or - or - or - *Ahem.* The only thing I have managed to decide so far is that I'm going to have to forego the autograph lines because they're just going to be too time consuming. I've staffed bookstore author events before, and I'm assuming Comic-Con is going to be exponentially more crowded and chaotic. I'll just stick to the panels and presentations, and whatever chance encounters come my way. Besides, as everyone tells me, the best part of these conventions is the fans. And there will be plenty of those to go around.

Updates - I'll be staying with a friend in San Diego for the duration of the convention. She does not have the best internet connection and I don't want to spend the short time I have with her and my other friends frantically typing out blog posts in the evenings. I'm a slow writer and 750-1000 words takes me a solid hour or two that I won't be able to spare. I doubt I'll be in any sort of shape to form coherent thoughts anyway. I'll do daily write-ups that will go up on the blog when I get back, but unless I can find another internet connection at the convention itself, I'll have to suspend daily updates until I get home on Sunday night. And even if I do update earlier, it'll be material I've prepared in advance. Twitter may be a different story, but no promises.

Whew. Bottom line is that I'm just going to go to enjoy myself this year. I'm a newbie and will be totally out of my depth, so I'm not going to attempt anything too ambitious. I'll try to get into the TRON panel and the Marvel films panel, but I honestly don't know how the rest of my schedule is going to work out. I'm actually glad I missed nabbing the four-day passes. I think figuring out how to navigate three days of Comic-Con is going to be more than enough for me.

Battle of the Sexes Set For August 13th?

Back at the beginning of summer, I noted that there were fewer hard action films aimed square at the young-adult male demographic this year, the traditional audience for the summer blockbuster season. Instead, we were seeing a more even spread of films aimed at women and families, which is a nice change of pace from the heavily testosterone-laden landscape of previous years. Female-friendly franchises like "Twilight" are bringing in big profits, and female viewers have played a substantial role in making hits out of films like "The Blind Side" and "Alice in Wonderland." Suddenly the fanboy audience, which has long been the most desired segment of the movie-going population, is finding its position of dominance challenged by screaming "Twilight" fangirls and "Sex and the City" devotees. And some of them are not happy about it.

This summer has not been a good one for the explosion-loving male demographic. "The A-Team" and "Predators" have only pulled in so-so numbers so far. The only big superhero film, "Iron Man 2," made a lot of money, but only made a mediocre impression. Guy-friendly comedies like "Get Him to the Greek," "MacGruber," and "Hot Tub Time Machine" all fell flat. The last hope for box office glory may be "The Expendables," an old-fashioned 80s style action picture about a team of tough guys on a mission. These tough guys include Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Randy Couture, Stone Cold Steve Austin, and Terry Crews. Also pitching in cameos will be Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis, who will share a scene with Stallone, marking the first and perhaps the only time the three great action stars of yesteryear will ever be onscreen together in a major motion picture. It opens August 13th, nationwide.

Alas, horrors! Also opening on the same day will be "Eat, Pray, Love," the film version of the Elizabeth Gilbert memoir that made a splash with readers in 2006. Aimed at the same audience of female viewers who regularly turn out for life-affirming Meryl Streep movies, it could be a late summer sleeper hit. Oprah Winfrey has already given her endorsement to the book, and will almost certainly help promote the film. And if that weren't enough, "Eat, Pray, Love," will feature Julia Roberts in a rare starring role, returning to the romantic comedy genre she once dominated after an absence of nearly ten years (she was part of the ensemble cast of "Valentine's Day" earlier this year, but so briefly it could hardly count as a Julia Roberts picture). You can just hear male moviegoers collectively groaning in dismay at the thought of being roped into attendance by girlfriends and female relations.

Thus, the stage has been set for an old fashioned battle of the sexes. One disgruntled fan has issued a call to arms with this unofficial trailer for "The Expendables," demanding that men get themselves to the theaters on August 13th to help boost the film to box office triumph and defeat the dastardly forces of Julia Roberts and Oprah. Full of passionate exhortations for male solidarity and bitter disdain for sparkly vampires, the fan trailer is an enjoyable watch, but it also leaves a bit of a bad aftertaste like the similarly macho Superbowl ads that raised a few eyebrows earlier this year. The trailer works by drawing on a lot of old gender stereotypes that should have been left behind in the 80s, and it also provides a glimpse into the psyche of an all-too-common fanboy moviegoer - a little misogynistic, deeply threatened, highly competitive, entitled, narrow, insular, and reliant on a model of a segregated cinemascape that is completely outdated - if it ever existed at all.

I find it so strange that it's entirely escaped the trailer creator's notice that a large portion of the potential audience of "The Expendables" is female. In fact, a good portion of all action film audiences are female. And back when Julia Roberts ruled romantic comedies, she used to draw pretty gender-balanced crowds, often with the help of Richard Gere, and she has plenty of male fans. The fact of the matter is that there are very few films that can succeed by playing to one audience alone. As much as marketing executives like demarcating territory, the truth is that women watch films made for men, men watch films made for women, adults watch films made for kids, and the ones that make the most money are the movies that appeal to everybody. The real gargantuans at the theaters this year have been family films, mostly animated, which have learned to straddle that fine line between kid-appropriate and grown-up-friendly to lucrative success.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with being part of a niche audience - movies primarily aimed at women have long been relegated to alternative programming choices and their fans have gotten used to smaller budget productions and a certain amount of neglect from the Hollywood hype machines. And consequently nobody is concerned when they premiere in second or third place at the box office or fail to break any records. A few deluded guys may moan and fret, but a movie aimed solely at men is just as niche as a movie aimed only at women. But I don't think either "The Expendables" or "Eat, Pray, Love," fits those narrow categories. So instead of asking the manly men to simply show up to "The Expendables," the better message would have been to encourage them to bring the wives and girlfriends along to relive the glory days of the action film genre that all of us loved. I went to "Predators" over the weekend with a male compatriot in tow, looking for my summer action fix that "The A-Team " and "Iron Man 2" hadn't delivered. I was not disappointed.

As for "Eat, Pray, Love," I wonder if the male lead, Javier Bardem, can be counted among the "only men that [men] are allowed to love." He won serious badass credentials along with the Oscar after playing Anton Chigurh in "No Country For Old Men." Or are actors only "men" when they're playing parts that involve causing copious mayhem and bloodshed? I don't understand why it seems to be harder for guys to enjoy a good romantic comedy than it is for women to enjoy a good action film, but it's an awful shame. I'll be looking forward to two films on August 13th, but male pride and machismo means the guys only get one.

In that sense, the women are already the winners.

Musings on "The Man Who Would Be King"

I watched John Huston's "The Man Who Would Be King" last night. I wasn't familiar with the Rudyard Kipling short story, so I had the pleasure of going into the story almost blind. All I really knew was that Sean Connery and Michael Caine were the leading men, and that was enough to sell me on its cinematic worth. However, I can see why this one has largely faded out of the mainstream consciousness. It's a fun, old-fashioned adventure movie, but relies on a lot of foreign exoticism that's largely fallen out of favor. Thematically, it comments heavily on the perils of Imperialism, and our heroes behave very badly toward the native peoples they take advantage of throughout most of the story.

I don't want to spend too much time on the particulars of the film itself, but the plot unfolds as follows: Peachey Carnehan (Michael Caine) and Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery) are a pair of rogues who have made a very bad name for themselves in British India, and hatch a plan to journey to Kafiristan to become conquerors and kings. After journeying through the Khyber pass, they use their training as ex-soldiers to train and organize the various villages who are warring against one another. In no time, they have an army and take control of the whole region. Due to coincidence, Dravot is mistaken for a god, giving the Englishmen access to even greater power and riches. Downfall comes when Dravot lets the adoration go to his head, alienating him from Carnehan. Another accident reveals Dravot's lack of divinity to his subjects, and the pair are forced to face up to their crimes.

Could "The Man Who Would Be King" still be made today? Probably not by anyone in Hollywood, and certainly not in the same way. So much of the story is dependent on the unflattering portrayal of the Afghan peoples of the Kafiristan region as superstitious dupes, the film is often an uncomfortable watch for a modern viewer. To be fair, the Connery and Caine con-men characters are certainly no angels and get a richly deserved comeuppance in the end, but the film's biases are obvious. You could probably sell a modern version as a satirical comedy, if the indigenous peoples could be swapped out for more politically correct targets. Or you could use the bare bones of the story for a typical action-adventure picture, but only by studiously avoiding any attempt to address the deeper themes of the material and playing the cross-cultural cultural misunderstandings for laughs. The "Pirates of the Caribbean" is a good example of the second variation, where Captain Jack Sparrow is briefly adopted as the ruler of a cannibal tribe before his subjects predictably get the munchies.

Watching "The Man Who Would Be King," I marveled at how the culture of film production itself has changed so drastically since the 70s. The film was shot on location in Morocco, and most of the extras came from nearby villages. Back then it was still possible for film crews to jet off to some far away locale, and conscript the local population to be a movie's "cast of thousands" without worrying about issues of cultural exploitation and other sensitivities regarding the portrayals of native cultures. Werner Herzog made a career out of dragging Klaus Kinski all over the globe and letting him terrify the locals in "Aguirre: The Wrath of God," "Fitzcarraldo," and "Cobra Verde." I have fond memories of the early Spielberg films like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and the first two "Indiana Jones" installments, where so much was shot on location, and the frame was often crowded with local extras. The High Priest Kafu Selim, a prominent figure in "The Man Who Would be King," was memorably played by a 103-year-old local villager, Karroom Ben Bouih.

But this type of epic filmmaking is a thing of the past. You rarely see big budget films so concerned with realism these days, when the "cast of thousands" can be computer generated and risk-averse filmmakers can recreate just about anything or anywhere on a locked-down soundstage. Sure, films like "Mission Impossible" and "James Bond" will go on location, but the sets are far more controlled, insured and secured against any possible dangers, and unknown variables are frowned upon to protect the studio's bottom line. Western filmmakers that do incorporate more local talent on the fly often run across unforeseen controversies. Consider the well-documented case of the "Slumdog Millionaire" child stars, who became celebrities after the film's success, but were left in abject poverty after parting ways with the production. Or read up on what happened to the Native American tribes that were involved with "Dances With Wolves."

Thirty years ago, when the media wasn't as omnipresent and the lawyers weren't so ruthless, filmmakers could swoop in, play god with the natives, and be on their merry way without worrying about the potential disruptions they left behind. Nowadays if they misbehave, they're held accountable just like dear old Daniel Dravot, as they should be. They just don't make pictures like "The Man Who Would Be King" the way they used to, but that isn't a bad thing. Do I miss films where the villages actually had villagers who looked like they lived there? Yes. But so it goes. The age of imperialism, in all its forms, should be over. If anyone ever remakes this film or revisits the story in any seriousness, I hope they appreciate the irony. Or better yet - I'd like to see it from the Afghan point of view.

Hulk Smashed

I generally don't like commenting on casting decisions before seeing the resulting performances, because there are so many different variables involved in these things that the public is never privy to, and I've been surprised enough times in the past by left-field candidates that I'm usually amenable to the wait-and-see approach. Once in a while, however, you've got situations like "The Last Airbender," which was such an egregious case of whitewashing, it was necessary to cry foul. Or CBS's decision to jettison one female lead from "Criminal Minds" and cut the episodes of the other. And sometimes replacing or dropping actors from projects can indicate how things are shaping up creatively in an upcoming film.

A case in point: Marvel is going to recast the Hulk for its upcoming "Avengers," meaning Edward Norton won't be returning to the role. His agent, among others, is not happy about this. Now Marvel has a lot riding on "The Avengers," which is due to hit theaters in 2012. It will be a crossover of several of their major film properties: "Iron Man," "Thor," and "Captain America," two of which haven't been released yet. "The Incredible Hulk" was assumed to be the fourth, since the title character was part of the Avengers team in the original comics, and the reboot directed by Louis Leterrier got good notices and performed fairly well at the box office.

However, there were rumblings of discontent around the production, mostly involving Edward Norton's uncredited role in shaping the script. Norton has a reputation for being a difficult and demanding actor. He clashed with filmmakers on prior projects, and famously rescripted parts of "The Score" and "Frida," which starred his then-girlfriend Salma Hayek. In a statement to the press regarding the casting decision for "Avengers," Marvel President of Production Kevin Feige indirectly referenced these issues when he expressed a "need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members." It's clear why Marvel would want to avoid the potential complications of working with Norton again, especially since the Hulk will probably be relegated to a supporting part in the new film. However, I'm still disappointed with the decision.

Marvel has already recast the Hulk once, after Ang Lee's 2003 "Hulk" with Eric Bana received tepid a response from audiences and critics. Now turning out Edward Norton for yet another Bruce Banner is only going to further suggest that Marvel doesn't know how to handle the popular character. Having seen both of the recent film adaptations, Norton's performance was easily the better one. He was a very good fit for Bruce Banner, the nerdy, weakling scientist who spent most of "Incredible Hulk" trying to suppress the rage that brought out the Hulk in him. Like Robert Downey Jr, Norton brought some serious credibility to the picture, and he's not going to be easily replaced. Norton was also reportedly eager to reprise the role, talked up the film to generate media buzz over the last few months, and was purportedly deep in negotiations before the announcement was made.

Norton is being gracious about the whole situation, which is winning him a lot of sympathy right now. A note went up on his Facebook page earlier today expressing his disappointment, but also thanking his fans for their support and Marvel for the opportunity to be part of the franchise. The cynic in me thinks this is a brilliant PR move, and the starry-eyed fangirl in me is thinking dark, unhappy thoughts about the Marvel executives who made the decision. The situation could have gotten much uglier if Norton hadn't put a stop to the public bickering going on between the various intermediaries involved, but I think the damage is already done. Norton's coming off as the reasonable one here, which undercuts Marvel's purported reasons for ending their association.

No one knows for sure why Norton was dropped, and creative executives are so tight-lipped we'll probably never find out, but there are shades of the last major Marvel recasting decision that took people by surprise - when Terrence Howard was dropped from the role of War Machine for the second "Iron Man" movie. At the time there were a few rumors of Howard being difficult to work with, but most people were mystified by the decision, including Terrence Howard himself, who had no forewarning that he was being kicked to the curb. Despite lingering suspicions, the furor died down quickly because Marvel already had the highly respected Don Cheadle lined up for the part when the announcement was made.

Norton's case is different because Marvel doesn't have a replacement yet, and the role is much higher profile this time. Hulk's star may have dimmed in the years since Lou Ferrigno made him a cultural icon in the 70s, but he still has plenty of loyal fans. And now that so much press has been generated about the casting tiff, Marvel can't just get any muscle-bound boob to play the Hulk. They'll need someone of Norton's caliber to prove they're serious about delivering a quality film and not trying to cut corners or play it safe. And how many other actors with Norton's Academy-Award kudos, multidisciplinary filmmaking skills, and a proven record of generating Hulk-sized anger are available?

Does anyone have Mel Gibson's number handy?
--

"Predators" - If it Bleeds, We Can Franchise It

"Predators" starts with a man, played by Adrien Brody, waking up in freefall, plummeting down from the sky into unfamiliar jungle terrain. At the last minute a parachute opens from the pack on his back, and he lands without injury, but he's not out of danger. Soon he meets others like him, all unaware of where they are or who brought them there. A few introduce themselves by name, but these are used so sparingly, it's far easier to identify them by their actors: Adrien Brody, Topher Grace, Alice Braga, Danny Trejo, Walton Goggins, Oleg Taktarov, Mahershalalhashbaz Ali, and Louis Ozawa Changchien. All of them are professional killers, some from armed forces and some from organized crime, and most are heavily armed. The only odd one out is Topher Grace's young civilian doctor who appears completely out of his depth.

The humans are not alone in the jungle, and soon discover they are much farther away from home than they initially believed. Since every commercial and trailer for the film has already given away the film's thinly veiled premise, I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to spell it out here: "Predators" is a science-fiction variation on "The Most Dangerous Game," where the eight humans are being stalked by a group of alien hunters for sport. The only way for them to survive is to turn the tables and target their pursuers. The original 1987 "Predator" is not required viewing for "Predators," but the story deliberately builds on concepts from the first film, and contains so many little nods and homages that fans familiar with the franchise will get far more out of it than newcomers.

It's great to see an action film that gets back to basics, sticking its cast in an inhospitable environment, giving them lots of guns and pointy weapons, and pitting them against big, scary monsters with very simple motivations. In the jungle, it's either kill or be killed. You know exactly who you're rooting for, the few big plot twists are telegraphed long in advance, and there's never a question as to who will survive and who won't. If you know the genre at all, you'll probably even be able to work out the order in which the characters will expire. There's nothing new or innovative going on, but that's a plus in this case. Instead of expensive CGI, we see more reliance on stunts and practical effects. The lush real-world scenery adds more atmosphere than a computer program could ever generate. And finally, there are few elaborate action sequences, so the actors actually have more time to establish their characters and play off of each other.

Make no mistake, this is a cheesy action film, and it knows that it's a cheesy action film. The 80s survival-flick formula is followed to the letter, ancient clichés are resurrected without irony, and bad dialogue abounds. Mercifully, there's only one brief attempt to inject anything resembling thoughtful commentary on the events that unfold. The film's only real aim is to deliver thrills and chills, and it succeeds admirably in that regard. Much of this is due to the straightforward, bare-bones plot, strong direction, and a very good cast full of solid character actors. Adrien Brody might not be the first name you consider for the lead of an action film, or the twentieth, but he pulls off the role without a hitch. Alice Braga, the only female member of the cast, easily keeps up with her male co-stars while retaining a sympathetic humanist streak that never reads as soft. Topher Grace, Danny Trejo, and the rest all get their moments, and all come off very well.

There are a few regrettable missteps that take away from the picture's effectiveness. There's a long sequence involving a dead spaceship in the second act, that gives us lots of exposition about previous hunts, the two types of aliens hunters, and hints at some internal conflicts, but also stops the whole movie in its tracks for about fifteen minutes in order to do this, and wastes a very good actor's performance in the process There are character reversals and left-field saves that happen without any sort of set-up, and late in the second half we get two hand-to-hand fights that are conceptually interesting, but look absolutely ridiculous in execution. One involves two aliens grappling with each other like a pair of WWE wrestlers. The other involves Louis Ozawa Changchien wielding a katana in a windswept wheat field.

"Predators" should provide a good kick-start to its franchise, which has endured several bad sequels including two team-ups with the "Alien" Xenomorphs. My hope, however, is that it'll also be a wake-up call to the industry that the lavish, soulless, CGI-heavy action movies that have been so prevalent lately aren't much of an improvement over the old fashioned, down and dirty kind that they made twenty years ago with a fraction of the money and none of these fancy new technological advances. "Predators" uses a few CGI aliens, but mostly it relies on cleaned-up versions of the same effects that the 1987 original did. The movie feels less like a sequel to "Predator" than a successor, as it hews very closely not only to the story, but the filmmaking sensibilities that made the first one so memorable.

I hope the film does well enough to net another sequel or two, because after "Predators," I'd love another trip back to the jungle.

Getting to Know "Withnail & I"

It wasn't until I finished watching "Withnail & I" and was going through the supplemental materials on the DVD that I realized that I'd just watched a comedy. Sure, I had noticed the farcical situations and the often hysterical dialogue, but I had unconsciously categorized the film as one of the better low-budget, coming-of-age, slice-of-life, character pieces that the word "quirky" is used to describe, whether or not anything resembling a quirk is actually involved. "Withnail" has a lot of funny situations and funny people in it, but was it a funny movie? I found it disgusting, exciting, insightful, weird, moving, and wonderful, roughly in that order. Funny too, yes, in a way, but funny alone doesn't really do it justice.

The film is set in the late 60s, in London, where Withnail and the unnamed protagonist (listed in the credits as "...& I") are a pair of young, out-of-work actors who share a filthy flat, and spend much of their time drunk, high, or both at the same time. Richard E. Grant and Paul McGann made their big screen debuts as the doped-up duo, and though both went on to have successful careers, I wouldn't be surprised if these roles turn out to be the ones they're best remembered for. Grant's Withnail is a delightful creation, a mean, tempestuous, cowardly, conceited, and completely charming mess of a man. There's an awful lot of talent somewhere under all the unkempt clothes and drug paraphernalia, and you might almost feel intimidated by his imperious glances and razor-sharp wit, if he wasn't constantly on the verge of keeling over. He's such a great boozer, it's astonishing to learn that Grant is actually allergic to alcohol.

McGann, who gets points just for keeping up, plays Withnail's better half. He's the friend and roommate who has a clearer head, but nonetheless lets Withnail lead him into disastrous situations and ends up scrambling to bail them both out. Yet despite being constantly outraged and frustrated by Withnail's behavior, he never does anything about it. He's not as interesting as Withnail, not as bright, not as witty, and not as daring, but is drawn to those qualities in his friend and thus willing to forgive him just about anything. McGann gives the character a bedraggled, exasperated sincerity, that gets the audience on his side immediately. As he struggles through one calamity after another, it doesn't take long to realize that "I" has a lot more going for him than he thinks he does.

Watching these two reprobates booze around Camden Town would have made for a pretty entertaining movie, but then they get the bright idea to go for a holiday in the country, and this is where the film really takes off. Withnail's uncle Monty (Richard Griffiths) is a rich, garrulous, barely closeted old lech, who is always very generous with the wine. After paying him a visit and avoiding his advances, our heroes borrow the key to his cottage in Cumbria, and then set off to the countryside for the weekend. But what awaits them at the cottage is not what they expected. There's no heat, no food, horrible weather, and lots of mud. Having few survival skills to speak of, the hapless pair are reduced to begging for supplies from the locals and tromping around in improvised boots made of plastic bags. Tempers rise, relations become strained, and the insults get more bitter. And then an unexpected visitor shows up.

"Withnail and I" is one of those indie miracles, a film that had an unknown cast, an unproven director, and all sorts of financing and production troubles, but somehow turned out to be a classic. Bruce Robinson, best known for scripting "The Killing Fields" at the time, wrote and directed "Withnail." He patterned the characters and story off his own experiences as a struggling actor and addict, creating a very, personal, genuine piece of cinema. It captures the odd thrill of life on the brink, where Withnail can be a complete bastard to everyone because he has nothing to lose - or almost nothing. And then the film turns around and shows us - and Withnail - how little that really amounts to. If this is a comedy, it's a dark one, but it's also deeply nostalgic and a little sentimental too. Just a little, when it's not shrieking profanities or putting the poor protagonist in seriously dodgy sexual situations.

The low-end production values are actually an asset, helping to bring out the grunge and the grime of the lifestyle. There's nothing fancy or slick about the film, no distracting devices to take away from the story. The 60s setting is suggested more than recreated, especially with the help of several Jimi Hendrix songs on the soundtrack, a little Procol Harum, and even a rare Beatles song. I'm not surprised I hadn't heard much about "Withnail" before I stumbled across the DVD, because the story is tied so closely to British culture of a particular time and place and mood, watching it as an American viewer felt a little bit like trespassing on someone else's nostalgia landscape. I can't think of an American drug movie memoir that's the equivalent of "Withnail," though. At least, nothing this touching and funny and brutally honest.

It'll be hard not to think of Withnail the next time I get drunk. And it'll be hard not to think of his roommate the next time I get hung over.