Christopher Walken versus Mike Myers = Carnage

Note: Here's our weekly head to head column for you - it's a slow movie week but at least both of the guys matched up are sufficiently crazy। So who does Cargill have winning? The right guy of course! Read on and prosper.

Once again, it's a weekend battle of head-to-head stars. And this week is a real battle of the juggernauts! In this corner, wearing the silk robe pajamas we have sultan of cool, the "Continental" himself, Christopher Walken. And in this corner, wearing a jumpsuit and a spray painted Captain Kirk mask, we have noted psychopath Michael Myers. You know the rules. Let's drop the cage. Two men enter! One man leaves!

In the box office this weekend: Winner = Myers
People love comedies, but this movie has too big a name and too large a curiosity factor to be passed up. With Rob Zombie directing this re-imagining of one of the most well known boogiemen of all-time (and the one who kicked off the slasher film era), audiences around the world are waiting with baited breath to see how this Halloween pans out. Walken on the other hand is starring in the film all my friends are rolling their eyes about. I've been having to say "Come on, Patton Oswalt is in this!" just to retain any cred for wanting to see it.

In the critical arena: Winner = Walken
Christopher Walken is critic proof. The man was in Gigli for the love of all that's holy, and critics still said, "Well, at least Christopher Walken showed up for five minutes." He can be forgiven for anything. Michael Myers seems to be critic proof in that nothing seems to be able to stop him, not bullets, explosives or negative reviews. They just seem to keep pumping out sequels. But the critics are ready to pounce on Zombie and Myers for any number of reasons, while they are all ready to talk about Walken being the best part of whatever Balls of Fury turns out to be.

In their careers: Winner = Walken
Myers may be an immortal boogeyman, but he had to kill like 100 people to achieve that. Walken just had to ask for more cowbell (on Saturday Night Live).

In a contest of who is creepier: Winner = Walken
Myers has a mask and I think I could spend five minutes alone in a room with him. Walken on the other hand scares me. A lot.

In a fight: Winner = Myers
Okay, so Walken can dance, he can act and he's funny as all get out. But Myers could carve him up like a butterball and serve him stuffed. Sorry, Chris. This one goes to the big man. The REALLY big man.

Winner = Walken
He may not be the spirit of evil or have killed dozens upon dozens or even win the weekend. But he's Christopher Freaking Walken. And we love him.

C. Robert Cargill - - - Email Me

Are the Films the Studios Won't Show to Critics Always Lousy? Pretty Much, Yeah.

The Weinstein Company

Note: Sometimes Eric D। Snider gets sad about the movies not screened for critics. Why? Because he's doing it for you, the audience! In this column he breaks down the prospects for quality when the studios ignore him (and those of his ilk).

I like to call them Hollywood's shameful secrets: movies that are so bad, the studios won't screen them for critics before they open.

There's been an epidemic of this the last couple of years. It used to be an exception to the rule, happening with maybe five or six wide releases a year. Now it's common: 16 so far in 2007.

The reason behind it, of course, is that if they show the movie, there's a chance -- a very good chance, it seems -- that the critics will write negative reviews. By not screening it at all, they prevent those reviews, or at least delay them. That gives the studio a chance to make some money on opening weekend, before word gets around how stinky the movie is.

By now savvy moviegoers know the routine, and they proceed with caution when something wasn't screened. (Lucky for the studios, most moviegoers are un-savvy.) Not screening a movie automatically brands it with the reputation of being lousy.

But I got to wondering: Is that fair? Is not screening a film for critics ALWAYS a bad sign?

So I looked at the list from the last couple years. My findings?

Um, yeah, pretty much.

In 2006, "Hollywood's Shameful Secrets" included Grandma's Boy, BloodRayne, Doogal, Ultraviolet, Stay Alive, Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector, Silent Hill, Zoom, Pulse, Material Girls, The Marine, Saw III, and Let's Go to Prison. There's some varying quality on that list, but they definitely all trend downward.

So far in 2007, the dishonor roll includes Primeval, Dead Silence, Kickin' It Old Skool, Delta Farce, Hostel II, Captivity, Who's Your Caddy, Skinwalkers, and The Last Legion. There's not even any variety on that list: Those are all bad movies.

There have been exceptions. Snakes on a Plane was famously not screened for critics last August, as part of New Line's plan to make the movie a truly fan-oriented, grassroots event. And... the movie flopped. And guess what? Most of the critics who reviewed it liked it. (It stands at 69% on RottenTomatoes.com.) If they'd screened it in advance, those positive reviews would have filled the papers and the websites on opening day instead of being delayed. Who knows, they might have boosted the film's box office numbers.

What's shocking is when you look at the list of movies that WERE screened for critics. Are We Done Yet?, Norbit, Daddy Day Camp, Bratz, License to Wed, Because I Said So: not only is that the shortlist of Worst Movie of 2007 candidates, but they were all pre-screened, too.

What makes a studio say, "You know, this Delta Farce is a complete piece of crap, so we should probably hide it from critics. But Bratz! That's bound to get plenty of good press!"?

The only conclusion I can draw is that the people who make these decisions -- the non-creative types, the suit-wearers, the bean counters -- honestly don't know the difference between a good movie and a bad one. When they watch it, their brains don't register things like "this is funny" or "this is stupid." They think only in terms of whether the product will sell. So when it comes to quality, they have to guess wildly and hope for the best. For this they are paid millions of dollars a year, so obviously the system is working.

* * * * *
Eric D. Snider (website) wasn't screened for critics, either.

Weekend Preview: The '70s Are Back, But Not in Style

Go to the beach. Go to a barbecue. Go to the mall and shop the Labor Day sales. Whatever you do, don't go to the movies. Unless you're planning to see something that's been playing for a while. Just trust me on this.

The widest opening this week, playing at nearly 3,500 locations, is Rob Zombie's remake of John Carpenter's Halloween. Why would Rob Zombie do this? Who the heck knows? This one was not screened for critics, so it's purely a guess on my part, but I'm figuring Zombie thought he could get away with being a whole helluva lot more graphic in today's cinematic environment than Carpenter was. Whether he can be both pornographic and actually intriguing is another question. His last film, 2005's The Devil's Rejects, was a stylish wonder, if an empty one. That one was shown to critics, though...

Balls of Fury opened on Wednesday. It's exactly what you think it is. If you're into crotch injuries as comedy and Christopher Walken embarrassing himself, go for it. Supposedly it's a ping-pong version of the '70s kung-fu classic Enter the Dragon, but I'm not seeing it.

Kevin Bacon as a modern day Bronson-style vigilante? Eh, not so much. The studio held Death Sentence from critics till the very last minute, and I saw it last night at 9:30, which meant I didn't get home till nearly 1 am. But hey, I could have slept through most of the movie and awakened for the hilarious final 20 minutes, which is, at least, like a parody of '70s vigilante flicks.

What is it with the '70s stuff this weekend?

What's expanding? Good stuff, good stuff. Adding screens are Death at a Funeral, the funniest movie this year (after Hot Fuzz); the Irish musical Once, which I still haven't seen (and I'm still kicking myself over); Leonardo DiCaprio's The 11th Hour, a powerful eco-doc about how we're destroying the planet; and The Ten, ten short films about the Ten Commandments. I haven't seen that one yet either, but a fellow critic told me three of the ten are really good. I bet those are the ones about adultery and coveting, and that fun stuff...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
MaryAnn Johanson (email me)
reviews, reviews, reviews! at FlickFilosopher.com