AO Scott Looks at 'Diabolique'

One of my favorites.

.

Closer Look

Manohla Dargis and AO Scott take a look at the Harry Potter movies, including how the child actors have matured, the changes in CGI and nature of the stories, and the cool cool British thesps that populate the series. (4 videos, each about 3 minutes)

Direct Access

NYT has coverage of the online movie industry. A.O. Scott looks at the democratizing effect of internet movie content and the possibility of first run movies being made available online.

Manohla Dargis tells about her try at downloading movies at jaman.com. She had quite a few troubles.

I went over to jaman. There's a lot of potential in this approach but the tech side is not up to speed yet. I watched a few minutes of a Kung Fu movie -- the picture was very small and had modest resolution, but the idea of being able to download a movie is still pretty appealing.

The technical difficulties associated with downloading huge files (a 90-minute feature downloaded from jaman.com is about 1.3GB) will be lessened when the quad-core chip becomes available at consumer prices. Add the solid-state drive (SSD. Should be available before the end of the year) and downloads become far easier, with no crashes or freezes.

The last element needed to make movie downloads a mainstream choice is internet connection speed. Right now the max transfer rate is about 1.5 megs/second. (I know your cable company advertises speeds up to 6 megs but that's not a reality. Usually the transfer rate hovers around 400 kb/sec -- that's less than 1/10th the 6 meg/sec rate). At 1.5 mb/sec a movie would take about 1000 seconds to download -- that's pushing 20 minutes (under perfect conditions with no freezes and a hypothetical max transfer rate). At a more realistic transfer rate a movie would take up to 10 times 20 minutes to download -- not very palatable.

There are two possible fixes: Nationwide installation of high-speed optical cable, or, establishing high-speed satellite feeds. Unfortunately, neither of these is on the horizon, but the satellite option seems most realistic to me and 2 mb/sec transfer rate is currently in place.

For aspiring filmmakers the news couldn't be better. In a few years all you'll need to make a movie is a digital camera and a site that will accept your upload and, baddabing, you've got your first feature produced and distributed. The two major differences: You won't need to buy thousands of feet of film (or worry about the costs of processing, and editing), and you won't need a distribution deal to get your movie into theaters.

The online movie download industry may be in its infancy but I think it represents the way people will get their movies in the not-too-distant future. I mean, it wasn't that long ago we listened to music on AM radio and 8-track tapes, and watched movies only at the theater or on TV (until the advent of the VHS tape, that is). Stay tuned...

New Heights Of Irrelevance, Or, Apples And Oranges

Here's Variety's guru Peter Bart on the ongoing and painful marginalization of movie critics:

...In reviewing "300" last week, for example, A.O. (Tony) Scott of the New York Times, said the movie was "as violent as 'Apocalypto' and twice as stupid."

That comment reflected the consensus among critics not only on "300" but also on "Ghost Rider," "Wild Hogs," "Norbit" and the other movie miscreants unleashed on the public since Oscar time.

The situation underscores yet again the disconnect between the cinematic appetites of critics vs. those of the popcorn crowd. The kids who storm their multiplexes to catch the opening of "Night at the Museum" don't give a damn what the critics think ("Museum" has passed $525 million worldwide)...

Have to agree with this. Most kids simply don't care what movie critics have to say (and probably don't read their comments, anyway). 10 seconds into a trailer you know whether you will consider seeing any given movie, and if anyone's comments mean anything to you it will be those of your friends, not of movie critics.

If a critic wants to point out the failings of a movie like "300", fine. But, by all accounts this movie is very violent, has way-cool effects, and is filled to the brim with comic book bravura and bubble gum philosophy -- exactly what the core audience is looking for. To criticize "300" because it has on-the-nose dialogue or lacks complex subtext or theme, or is 'twice as stupid' as another movie, is akin to criticizing an apple because it's not an orange. While it may not be what the critics wished it was (a layered, subtle, compelling war drama that will be remembered as a fine example of cinematic execution) "300" is exactly what it was crafted to be -- big box office eye-candy for kids.

The funny thing is when critics trash these movies it serves as a ringing endorsement for the targeted audience and, as such, rather than dissuade anyone from seeing these romps, a critic's vociferous and articulate thrashing merely functions as free advertising -- they are describing precisely how and to what degree the movie delivers what its producers designed it to.

Mr. Scott calling "300" twice as stupid as "Apocalypto" falls on the cheap side. This is code for "I'm pissed off that I had to sit through this and I'm just going to take shots" -- low-ball, especially coming from a writer for The New York Times. This type of comment only alienates the reader and makes the critic seem tired of his job.

So far "300" has done great business and the DVD action should be stellar. If anything, the poor reviews "300" received only helped it along while making those who issued these reviews look more snobby, disconnected, and irrelevant than ever. It would appear this round has gone to the fluff eye-candy Saturday popcorn matinee effects-driven multiplex special.

Bart wraps his comments by saying, "As for the critics, they should consider a sabbatical until September, when movies aimed at their quadrant magically reappear." Sounds like good advice.