Sneak Cinema: The Hateful Eight

Last night, The Crest Theater in Westwood hosted a press screening of The Weinstein Company and Quentin Tarantino's latest opus, The Hateful Eight. In attendance were several movie critic types from internet, TV and OG Leonard Maltin himself. Much has been made about the production of Eight that was shot on 70mm film to harken back to the good ol' days in the 60's where going to the movies was an event. People dressed up, received programs and the films included beginning overtures as well as an intermission. If I remember correctly, the ultra wide scope was an effort to draw audiences to the theater instead of watching programs on their rinky dink televisions at home. The road show angle faded and 70mm became obsolete as the cinematic landscape changed as it always does. Last year, noted film fan Christopher Nolan unveiled his space epic Interstellar at less a dozen theaters still equipped with 70mm projection equipment. Tarantino and The Weinstein's are upping the ante by outfitting 100 plus theaters with 70mm projection. To make it more of a special event, shows in 70 include extra footage too boot.

From the opening credits last night, something was amiss. The bold font of OVERTURE was fine but underneath it, a silhouette of a horse and carriage kept throbbing in and out of focus. People murmured and complained to the PR staff who had no explanation. Generally a tech run happens during the day to make sure the picture and sound are up to par. Nolan personally checked out several theaters to make sure Interstellar was being presented the way he intended while Michael Mann did the same at The Egyptian for a repertory screening of The Last of the Mohicans, heck, Dolph Lundgren did a tech check when they hosted the Skin Trade premiere. Why this didn't happen on this night for this movie, who knows. Apparently some viewers were more upset than others and berated the PR staff leading to a swap to a Digital Print after the intermission. The result? The Hateful Eight looked a lot cleaner and more detailed. While the picture was crisper, I felt the sound lost a bit of impact though. After the film, the crowd exited still grumbling about the technical issues while I made an effort to thank the PR and theater staff because at the end of the day, shit happens, it's just a movie after all.

Now on the one hand, the evening could be seen as a disaster. After all this is a press screening meant to promote a throwback experiment turned event. This was the night meant to build an ally of armies to take back a piece of the business and show what film could do for future generations. Tarantino is a huge proponent of film and runs The New Beverly basically to preserve the medium. But if you can't even get it to work at a "special" event for a special event, what chance does the film have for general viewings multiple times a day? At a screening in New York recently, the projector broke down leading to a 60 minute impromptu Q&A with attending stars Kurt Russell, Walton Goggins and crew while a gear was replaced. Looks like dusting off a buried for 40 years technology for one film and one filmmaker needed more time to work out the kinks.

On the other hand, watching the film in a room full of critics made me realize something, I love movies but hate critics. I've always been vocal about critics being parasites who wouldn't exist without someone else's work. If there's no movie, they have nothing to talk/complain about, simple logic. They see everything early and for free yet they're ungrateful and demanding. It's not like they're creating something or putting themselves out there to be "judged". What was that quote from Theodore Roosevelt about the man in the arena? Something about giving him credit for striving to do the deeds while critics point out stumbles without knowing victory or defeat themselves? Or in this case they're jockeying for Facebook Likes and covering the same mainstream, Marvel movie news that a million other folks are. It's kind of like a barnacle that hitch hikes on a whale then complains there isn't enough plankton around. Go find your own plankton on your own steam then, pal.

There was no energy in the room, dead as dodos. I can only imagine how many times an opening night crowd of actual movie lovers would break out into applause during Hateful Eight's 3 hour run time. A person behind me even complained that the film had an intermission! Apparently they'd never seen a film that included one and basically missed the point of how Eight was being presented entirely. While it seemed like plenty of people were upset, even pissed off, I didn't notice anyone leaving. The moral? It's easier to blah blah blah than to do.

Fall Flicks: The Martian

It's a busy week full of movies here with three in the can and another three on the horizon this weekend. Last night it was an impromptu screening of new Ridley Scott flick The Martian starring Matt Damon. Based on a self published novel (on a blog, no less) turned Amazon best seller by Andy Weir and adapted by Drew Goddard, The Martian has been building buzz for quite some time after the well received trailers. Matt Damon averted P.R. nightmares after a few quotes about diversity and openly homosexual actors were taken the wrong way. But in today's climate, what isn't taken the wrong way? It reminds me of Van Damme saying you could sue him for using the F word and be "mentally abused"...Man I'm not cut out for this world...Anywho, the flick opened to a boffo $55 million last week giving Damon a nice career boost and delivering Ridley Scott's first bonafide hit in years. All in The Martian is a good time at the movies, it's light, funny, slightly terrifying and incredibly well made even if it all unfolds in a pretty straight forward and ho-hum fashion.

Up on Mars, the crew of mission Ares III are hit by a severe storm where astronaut botanist Mark Watney (Damon) is struck by debris, separated from the party, presumed dead and the remaining members evacuate the planet. Of course he's not and must now figure out a way to survive on the uninhabitable planet and signal NASA. On Earth, directors, media, engineers and others carefully plan how they're going to explain Watney not dying and how they can rescue him without jeopardizing more astronauts along with their public standing. Eventually the Ares III crew is informed that Watney is alive and must decide if they'd be willing to risk their lives and careers to go back for him. Like I said, The Martian is a good time. It highlights science, problem solving, team work and humanity in a light tone. Kind of like how the last Twilight movie was an X-Men flick for non-comic book readers, The Martian is an intelligent science movie for people who conjure up images of hippies and nerds with pocket protectors when they think of free thought or space exploration. It's a very human story that that doesn't get too cerebral or technical while packing lots of laughs and a few breathe stopping sequences of Mars and space set destruction.

The cast is huge, starting with Damon and includes Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Pena, Sean Bean, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan, Chiwetel Ejifor and Donald Glover. It's been highlighted that Mackenzie Davis' small role of a NASA satellite analyst was originally written as an Asian woman in the book. As if the film didn't have enough white folks running around including two central redheaded female characters. I wonder if this came from Scott, the casting department or Fox as it's a pretty nothing role so why even take the time to change the ethnicity from the book? But this is Fox who you know, white washed the entire county of Orange for TV and kicked Jubilee to the curb in favor of a lame ass Rogue in X-Men. Oh well, Scott did make Black Rain which cast lots of great Asian actors while decapitating Andy Garcia. Not like he pulls a Seth McFarlane and continually uses Asian characters as the butt of jokes and stereotypes.

Inevitable comparisons to last year's space epic Interstellar have been rightfully avoided as they're two different types of films. Although Damon and Chastain are in both, The Martian is a breezy good time with a classic rock soundtrack while Interstellar was an emotional experience that dealt with big ideas like the end of the world and alternate dimensions. I appreciated Chris Nolan's ambition and use of emotion which will make it stand out in my memory more so than The Martian. I'd see it again though. 3D is ok, some storm sequences make good use of it but never felt like I was there.

Science Screen: Interstellar IMAX

Home of the space shuttle Endeavor, a Pompeii exhibit and much more, the California Science Center is a beautifully modern piece of architecture in the middle of a rundown part of town.  Housed across from the main hall is the $8 million dollar IMAX theater opened in 1998, complete with full snack bar offering candy, nachos, Coke and Icee's.  Ironic that the actual theater has no cup holders.  Remember when IMAX was for educational films to give you a giant, up close look at space, animals and nature?  Now it's hocked at every theater to give you a more immersive experience while ripping you the BLEEP off.  A true IMAX theater is uncomfortable.  The seats are far from the padded, reclining lounge chairs of stadium cinemas and the aisles are usually quite narrow.  The screen is so large that sitting in the front row would mean missing part of the picture.  AMC touts the IMAX experience, converting existing theaters with improved sound and picture quality.  The real IMAX screen at CSC is something like 90' wide and 70' tall.  Around town, the giant screen in the Arclight Cinerama Dome is 85' x 32' so you just know some 1990's built AMC ain't coming close to that.  In fact, a typical large auditorium screen runs 40' x 20' or not even half a real IMAX yet you're paying an upcharge.  While IMAX quickly points out that it's not just about screen size, let's be honest, it kind of is.  The huge image and sound is the point.  Then again, movies need to be shot in the format to really take advantage otherwise you're just getting to see imperfections on the flick like I did on Iron Man III where some fuzzy something or other kept popping up.

Since Christopher Nolan is a huge supporter of film, he decided to shoot space opera Interstellar on 70mm and partially in IMAX.  Nolan had already shot portions of The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX which require a huge camera and less movement from actors and the scene.  Watching Interstellar, the picture would go from rectangle a la widescreen for dialog scenes to square a la IMAX for outdoor, space or flying segments.  Seeing the corn fields, water planet, space vistas, station destruction and the ice planet on the big, big screen was amazing.  The lack of sound in various dramatic scenes works incredibly well as does the use of the organ on Hans Zimmer's score that hits you in the heart.  I know everybody is aiming for this immersive experience thing but I wasn't sitting dead center and could still see people around me.  Guess they'll just have to perfect that Oculus Rift thing sooner or later to really put people into the action.

I enjoyed Interstellar upon first viewing, harkening it more as an experience than a movie.  There's some very ambitious ideas regarding mankind, science, technology and exploration as well as excellent performances from the cast including Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway and the voice actors playing the helpful robots.  There's been a lot of jabs thrown at Interstellar since it's release, picking apart the science, it's theme of love and an ending that goes a little bonkers with extra dimensions and future, future living.  Then there was the whole sound issue when people complained they couldn't understand what McConaughey was saying in a dream during a turbulent flight or when a character is mumbling on their death bed.  When I first saw it, I figured it was done on purpose as the dialog had no bearing on the story, you didn't miss anything and someone clarifies it later.  Do we really need to be able to hear every little thing or have it broken down in childlike terms?  I say no.  For a near 3 hour flick, Interstellar kept me engaged, even on a repeat viewing with it's mix of exploration, science, space and human drama.  While steeped in real science, Nolan and company had to create a film.  Interstellar isn't touted as a documentary so I'm not sure why it's being treated as such.  Just because you had fun watching Guardians of the Galaxy means you overlook glaring plot holes where thousands of innocents are killed off screen, the comedy negates any type of drama and that there are no risks taken, at all.  I appreciate Nolan and company telling a story that asks it's characters to yearn for more as individuals and a community even at great cost.  It's a firm reminder to the viewer to look up and keep reaching.