The Revolution of "Reds"

If you dig deep enough into world cinema, it's inevitable that you're going to run across films depicting the rise of various socialist movements across the globe, from France's "Grin Without a Cat," to Argentina's "Hour of the Furnaces," to those early masterpieces of Soviet cinema, "Battleship Potempkin" and "October." Here in the West, where socialism is still met with knee-jerk rejection, it can be difficult to remember that in the early days, The Revolution was once viewed in a very positive light by a broad base of passionate supporters, who believed it could change the world for the better. And so it was very surprising to come across Warren Beatty's "Reds," a biopic of the American journalist and radical "red" activist John Reed, best known for writing the book that "October" was based on, Ten Days that Shook the World. Despite being made in the early 1980s, during the highly conservative Reagan era, the film is deeply sympathetic to Reed, and offers a fascinating look at a long forgotten historical figure and American social and political movement.

"Reds" is usually billed first as an epic love story, using the relationship between Reed (Warren Beatty) and fellow journalist Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton) as its main throughline. The two meet in Oregon in 1912, and Bryant follows Reed to New York, where she becomes swept up in a community of freethinking artists and intellectuals and bohemians, including playwright Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson) and anarchist Emma Goldman (Maureen Stapleton). The relationship between Bryant and Reed is a rocky one, as Bryant is fiercely independent and finds it difficult to work in Reed's shadow. They attempt to have an open relationship, which proves to be disastrous. Many eventful years later, they travel to Russia to cover the events of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 together, which becomes a major turning point for Reed, radicalizing and politicizing him. It's Reed's involvement with the American communist and socialist movements, and his ties to the Bolsheviks, that eventually threaten to separate him from Bryant for good.

I admit that I had "Reds" in the back of the queue for a long time, simply because of its length. A three hour film based on such obscure subject matter didn't sound appealing. However, I failed to appreciate that "Reds" belongs to that class of old-fashioned historical epics that does such a marvelous job of immersing the viewer in a particular place and time and milieu, and pairing that experience with first rate character drama. The scope and the detail of the recreations of Greenwich Village and revolutionary Petrograd are stunning. The cast is great, lead by Beatty and Keaton are at the top of their game. They're so good as a pair of magnetic young artists in love, who can't help but be drawn together again and again, even though they frequently make each other miserable. Their fight scenes are particularly effective, full of politics, philosophy, and the kind of deeply personal invective that only really clever people who know each other very well are in a position to deliver. But more than the intellect, it's the way that the actors capture the zeal of their characters for their cause and their work that makes it so easy to get invested in their lives, even if we know that Reed and Bryant ultimately end up on the wrong side of history.

And that history is never forgotten for a moment. Beatty, who directed, produced, and starred in the film, and shares writing credits with Trevor Griffiths, went to considerable lengths for historical accuracy. "Reds" has a strong documentary element, as the dramatized narrative is interspersed with several snippets of interviews from real people who knew Reed and Bryant, or were otherwise involved in the events depicted in the film. Many were involved with the American Socialist party and other political movements of the day. Credited as "witnesses," the elderly interviewees provide firsthand accounts of their experiences during the era. Some speak to social conditions, some repeat gossip, and the various claims occasionally contradict each other. This serves to bolster the film's portrayal of Reed and Bryant, and remind viewers that their lives weren't so far removed from our own. It's a wonderful technique, one I'm surprised we don't see used more often.

Though Beatty clearly wants the audience to examine its own preconceptions, I think it's important that he never pushes too far. It never feels like he's stumping for Socialism at any point. He plays John Reed as an admirable true believer, but one with plenty of faults and hypocrisies who made some major mistakes, particularly toward the end of his life. As a romance and a biopic, I found "Reds" extremely satisfying. And as a passion project, this is one of those rare beasts where the sky high ambitions of its creator are fully matched by stellar technical and storytelling skill. In fact, this may be the best American epic film I've ever seen.
---

Read More

The Future of the "Iron Man" Movies?

A couple of minor spoilers for "Iron Man 3" ahead.

It was announced a few days ago that Robert Downey Jr. had signed on to reprise the role of Iron Man in the upcoming "Avengers 2" and "Avengers 3." There was no mention of an "Iron Man 4," though that doesn't rule out the possibility that deals for more sequels may happen later. I know that the ending of "Iron Man 3" looked pretty definitive, and if I had my way it would be the last "Iron Man" movie for a long time, but we are talking about a film that has so far made $1.2 billion dollars in ticket sales alone. Disney and Marvel will be make as many more "Iron Man" movies as they can get away with.

But what if Downey doesn't sign on for any more "Iron Man" installments? Well, right now what this new deal means practically, is that Downey is going still to be Tony Stark through at least 2018, when "Avengers 3" is most likely to hit the big screen. My guess is that "Avengers 3" may be Downey's last appearance as the cinematic Iron Man, even if there is an "Iron Man 4." I don't know if Joss Whedon is going to still be involved at that point, but I expect that we're going to see him permanently retired in some manner (I doubt Disney would allow him to be killed off in traditional Whedon fashion) that sends him off with a bang. At that point Downey will be 53 years old - not too old for another few rounds as a superhero, but old enough that Disney and Marvel should be seriously entertaining the notion of rebooting "Iron Man." There was a five year gap between the two "Spider-Man" movie franchises, and assuming that window keeps shrinking, I don't think it's unlikely that we'll get a new actor playing Tony Stark as early as 2022, four years after "Avengers 3" and fourteen years after the first "Iron Man" movie.

The more important question for audiences is whether this is a good thing. Do we want more Iron Man? And is "Avengers 2," "Avengers 3," and a possible fourth and even fifth "Iron Man" movie how we want him? Well, looking at the four appearances of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark onscreen so far (not counting cameos), I have serious doubts. If you treat the existing "Iron Man" trilogy as a finished series, it's pretty mediocre. Great first film, lackluster second film, and an okay third film. Both the second and third film offer some character development, where Tony has to pull himself out of existential funks, but he doesn't make any major advances, and the status quo is unchanged until the very, very end of "Iron Man 3," where the ending isn't convincing. We already know Tony's going to be back for another "Avengers." Also, the sequels have been relentlessly safe, avoiding the hard partying reprobate Tony we were first introduced to, and staying far, far away from the comic book version who battled alcoholism and other personal demons. It's no secret that Shane Black wanted to adapt the "Demon in a Bottle" arc, but Disney nixed the idea as too dark and kid-unfriendly.

I'm not saying that we need "Iron Man" to get R-rated, but it's been depressing to see a character with so much potential wasted in so many disposable, lukewarm adventures. If we get an "Iron Man 4" and "Iron Man 5," it's only going to get worse, the way that the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies have progressively declined. I'd actually prefer seeing an "Iron Man" prequel without the superhero elements, because we would actually be able to see more of the major milestones in his life - Tony meeting Pepper, Tony becoming friends with Rhodey, and maybe even Tony having to deal with the aftermath of his father's early demise. These are the kinds of things that I can't help feeling that the "Iron Man" films should have made time to explore by now, but they haven't. "Iron Man 2" was a particularly egregious example of the franchise treading water and shamelessly taking advantage of the audience's goodwill.

I find I'm more interested in the next "Thor" and "Captain America" movies. "Thor: The Dark World" is at least getting a good villain in Loki, and Thor's long-distance relationship with Jane Foster will be a focal point. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" moves storylines with Black Widow and Bucky Barnes forward, and we should see more of Cap's fish-out-of-water experiences living in the modern day world. I can buy that these superheroes still have a lot of major battles ahead of them that could support big films. I'm sure an "Iron Man 4" could drum up some dire new threat for Tony Stark to tackle, but by nixing most of his usual personality flaws It feels like all of his biggest challenges have already been met. He got the girl. He's faced the demons of his past multiple times. The bad boy was tamed, though mostly offscreen. He's become a better person and has his happy ending.

Too bad Marvel and Disney aren't going to be able to leave well enough alone.
---

Read More

"Hannibal," Year One

Spoilers for the first season ahead.

I've had such a love hate relationship with this show. On the one hand it's one of the most visually interesting crime dramas on television, thanks to the efforts of Bryan Fuller and crew. The cast is also to die for, with Mads Mikkelsen as an irresistible new version of Dr. Hannibal Lecter, and good supporting work from Lawrence Fishburne, Caroline Dhavernas, and Gillian Anderson. Hugh Dancy is still not quite up to par, but his performance grew on me eventually. I like that the corpses of the week often make me physical recoil in a way that I hadn't since the weirder episodes of "The X-files." I like that the case-of-the-week format is largely abandoned by the second half of the season to focus on the interactions of the main cast and the fallout of a single case that had been solved in the first episode. And even when it is tracking down guest star murderers, it doesn't play by the rules, paying far less attention to working out the weekly mystery than exploring what the new mystery means for the increasingly tenuous mental state of Will Graham.

On the other hand, "Hannibal" is often a slog, featuring long, long dialogue scenes of Will in psychoanalysis and puzzling his way through the various motives of the murders. The show's cental conflict between the FBI and Hannibal is sometimes wonderfully tense and thrilling to watch, and sometimes feels like they are going around in endless circles, dragging things out. It doesn't help that nobody in this show talks like a normal person, not the agents, not the lab tech comic relief, and not even the teenage girls. Instead, it's reams of obsessive exposition, often in the form of repetitive arguments and interrogations. Aside from Hannibal, everyone seems eager to recite what they're feeling at any particular moment with hardly any cueing. This is necessary for a show that is so concerned with the inner workings of Will's mind and tracking Hannibal's manipulations, but sometimes they lay it on way too thick. Alana and Will's romance predictably goes nowhere because within a few seconds of making her attraction clear, Alana is reciting all the reasons why the pair wouldn't work together, providing a very professional self-diagnosis of all her neuroses.

More troubling are the constant logic leaps the audience is expected to swallow - Jack insisting that Abigail Hobbs should be investigated as an accomplice to murder with hardly any evidence, Will failing to get a second opinion after the mysterious death of his physician, and the remarkably rushed introduction and dispatching of Abigail's best friend who coincidentally looks almost exactly like she does. Lord Dark Helmet once declared that "evil will always triumph, because good is dumb," but this was pushing things. I'm usually pretty forgiving of genre shows, but I do expect the basic plotting to be more solid, especially when we're talking about a show where all the main cast members are highly intelligent FBI agents or doctors or both. I really dislike how Jack Crawford is too often about as perceptive as a brick. If I were to suggest any improvements for next season, it would be to ease up on the "Shining" references and pay more attention to ensuring that the characters' actions make sense.

Last night's finale episode was one of the strongest of the season, though, and provided some very satisfactory payoff to weeks of escalating tensions. I expect I'd like "Hannibal" better if I watched multiple episodes in one sitting, giving the febrile atmosphere more of a chance to work its way into my skull. I may have my reservations about the overly analytical dialogue, but it does fit this heightened, stylized world that "Hannibal" exists in, where the most horrific crimes are often rendered exquisite through Hannibal's dinners and the artfully arranged crime scenes. The show evokes the creeps on very visceral level, but often understated or intellectualized in a way that makes them much more effective. No other horror series I've seen, not even the more graphic "Dexter" and "American Horror Story," has been more consistently disturbing. And as often as it's dull, it can be very clever. I loved the final scene of last night's episode, with that wonderful reversal on the most famous Hannibal Lecter appearance.

And finally, it was all worth it for Mads Mikkelsen's version of Hannibal Lecter, who is one of the best television characters I've met in some time. I'm glad the show's creators haven't been afraid to depart from their source material and expand on the characters in such delightful ways. "Hannibal" is far darker and more daring that I could have every hoped for, and has turned out to be a very good fit for television. I'm not convinced it's as good as some of its fans insist, but I'm looking forward to next year.
---

Read More

"Carnivàle," Year One

The opening monologue of HBO's "Carnivàle" promises the tale of a clash between two men wielding the powers of good and evil, the latest incarnations of forces that have been battling each other since time immemorial. However, during the entirety of the first twelve-episode season, we don't get to see that clash, though the two men from the story are eventually identified. "Carnivàle" was famously cancelled after two seasons, so I wouldn't be surprised if the pair never get to face off onscreen at all. Instead, it's better to think of "Carnivàle" as the story of two men struggling to survive during the Great Depression, and to understand the influence of supernatural powers on their lives . Ben Hawkins (Nick Stahl) is a young fugitive with strange healing powers who joins up with a travelling carnival, the Carnivàle of the title. Brother Justin (Clancy Brown) is a minister who is guided by strange visions and a strong desire to eradicate sin in the world.

The show primarily stays focused on the carnival storyline, which features the the bulk of the series' regular cast. Samson (Michael J. Anderson) the dwarf runs the show, relaying orders from the unseen owner of Carnivàle, known only as "Management." Jonesy (Tim DeKay) is his right hand man, the chief roustabout with a bum leg. Performers include the blind mentalist Lodz (Patrick Bauchau), Lila the bearded lady (Debra Christofferson), Ruthie the snake charmer (Adrienne Barbeau), Gecko the Lizard man (John Fleck), a pair of conjoined twins (Karyne and Sarah Steben), and the "cootch show" striptease troupe, the Dreifuss family, comprised of father Stumpy (Toby Huss), mother Rita Sue (Cynthia Ettinger), an daughters Libby (Carla Gallo) and Dora Mae (Amanda Aday). Finally, there's Sofie (Clea DuVall), a young tarot card reader, who partners with her mother Apollonia (Diane Salinger) to read people's futures. Apollonia is catatonic and bedridden, but has strong telekinetic and psychic powers, and can speak to Sofie mentally. In Brother Justin's storyline, we also meet his sister Iris (Amy Madigan), and his mentor, Reverend Norman Balthus (Ralph Waite).

"Carnivàle" is a slower paced show, more concerned with building up characters and atmosphere than it is about building up any kind of narrative momentum. There are several very strong self-contained episodes, but largely the series is built on incidental moments and small encounters. It's not until toward the end of the season that the viewer can really appreciate the cumulative weight of all these little moments, and come to realize that all these strange carnival folk are now familiar faces in world that seems to be going terribly wrong. The show's greatest achievement is the recreation of the 1930s, the era of the Dust Bowl and Depression, when an apocalyptic mood hung over America. A feeling of encroaching dread also hangs over Carnivàle, as they're plagued by one calamity after another. It's fitting for a show where our main protagonists, Ben and Brother Justin, are constantly fighting their doubts and fearful of the consequences of taking action.

I understand why the show wasn't more popular, because "Carnivàle" isn't nearly as romantic or nostalgic as it sounds from the premise. There's plenty of mysticism and magic, and there are always some good, picturesque visuals to appreciate, but most episodes also spend a significant amount of time showing us the less glamorous side of life on the road and the extreme poverty of the era. The freaks may all be real and the psychics and mystics actually have special powers, but Samson still regularly has to resort to tricks and cheats in order to keep the show in the black and everyone fed. All the characters have their shades of gray and varying codes of morality. On the one extreme you have Brother Justin and his increasingly disturbing sermons, and on the other you have the Dreifuss family and their unorthodox views on sexuality. Perhaps the only real innocent is Sofie, on the verge of growing up, and surrounded by questionable influences.

However, their world is so wonderfully constructed - not just the way it takes care to get the period details right, but the relationships and the intrigues among the carnival workers, and the way that Ben and Brother Justin gradually learn about their powers. For those who are willing to put aside expectations and take "Carnivàle" on its own terms, the show can become engrossing very quickly. I found the storylines with Ben and Brother Justin weren't nearly as interesting as Sofie's growing pains or the Dreifuss's marriage issues or even Samson's peculiar relationship with Management.

After twelve episodes, I'd be happy to see the bigger storylines start ramping up, or if the show just wants to spend another twelve episodes exploring the dusty Midwest, I'm fine with that too. This is one of those media universes where it's gratifying just to be able to spend some time there and consider the possibilities.
---

Read More

Way, Way, Way Too Much to Watch

Ah, June. The regular television season is over, I'm down to the last couple of obscure foreign movies from 2012 to track down on home media, and there aren't many movies in theaters right now that I'm particularly interested in. I've decided I can wait to see "Man of Steel," for instance, and I have no interest whatsoever in this "Monsters Inc" prequel. You'd think that would mean I'm taking things easy, right? Well, in years past that might have been the case, but in the age of year-round programming slates and web-based media, I've found that I've fallen very, very far behind in serial media.

Dear readers, you are about to get buried in a flood of TV and web series posts, as I'm looking at a mountain of shows that I need to catch up on and work through. I'm just about done with "Veronica Mars," which I've really been enjoying, but it's eaten up a lot of time. I've also finally had a chance to finish off the first season of HBO's "Carnivale," which I've been watching on DVD off and on over the last few months. Meanwhile, the season finales of two shows I've been keeping up with weekly, "Hannibal" and "Mad Men," are both happening in the next couple of days, you can expect write-ups to follow. Yes, I am also going to get to the third season of "Game of Thrones," once I get through the last batch of episodes I'm supposed to be waiting to watch with somebody. I haven't seen "The Rains of Castamere" episode yet, and believe me, I'm really getting sick of the dodging spoilers.

Beyond that, access issues and bad timing have been a factor. My living situation has been in limbo for the past couple of weeks, forcing me to put off resubscribing to Netflix Instant back in May like I had planned. My list of Netflix shows to watch has now grown to ridiculous proportions. In addition to the obvious titles like "House of Cards" and "Arrested Development," I'm also anticipating being able to sink my teeth into the Sundance Channel's "Top of the Lake" with Elizabeth Moss and BBC's "The Fall" with Gillian Anderson. Season 3 of "Louie" should show up in a couple of weeks too, though these things have been harder to keep tabs on since the Netflix API went down. I've also finally started "Downton Abbey," and I fully intend to keep watching, but I'm putting it off until I can really devote some time to it. For anyone who's interested in the show, you'll have to go to Amazon for streaming episodes starting in July, because they're getting the exclusive rights to the series, though the most recent episodes should still be on PBS.org.

And then we have the currently airing series. "Venture Brothers" is back on Adult Swim after a two-and-a-half year hiatus. I've only seen the hour-long premiere episode so far, but it was brilliant. I'm so happy to have these guys back. Also, the last season (until they figure out some way to cheat cancellation again) of "Futurama" is premiering on Comedy Central tonight. The previous season was one of the weaker ones, but I still love the show, and I'm sticking it out until the end. Speaking of Comedy Central, John Oliver has been killing it as the substitute host of "The Daily Show" these past two weeks, though he needs to build up some experience on those interviews. And over on USA, it's the last season of "Burn Notice" too - I can wait for that one to hit streaming, fortunately. However, I don't want to wait to watch the new Stephen King miniseries, "Under the Dome," which starts on Monday night on CBS. Good grief, how long has it been since we've had a decent-looking Stephen King project? Oh, and I'm a couple of weeks behind on SyFy's "Defiance," which continues to be every bit as cheesy and retro as I had hoped

I thought that the last season of "Breaking Bad" was going to start in July, but I was wrong. The premiere date is actually August 4th. Maybe that'll give me time to go catch up on the shows I've been putting off like "Girls," "Veep," and "Dexter," which is also about to go into its final season over on Showtime. I still need to finish the previous season, which just hit DVD. And of course there are all the other shows I've been meaning to start for ages like "Boardwalk Empire," "Once Upon a Time," "The Americans," and "Modern Family." At least I've finally decided to drop "Homeland" from the list. And I know I say this every time, but how long has it been since I've seen "South Park"? That show's still on, right?

Oh hey, that new BBC series "Orphan Black" sounds really cool. Let me pen it in for next October.
---

Read More

Tracking More Delayed Movies

There have been several prominent films pushed back significantly from their original release dates in the last couple of months. Big delays are no longer a rarity, since release dates are set so far in advance, and production and post-production timelines can be unpredictable. If a big delay is announced close to the original release date, this usually signals that these films are in trouble, though not always. Last year the "G.I. Joe" sequel got bumped from last June to this March, which didn't seem to hurt its box office earnings. The sixth "Harry Potter" got bumped from a holiday release to a summer one, solely because Warner Brothers wanted another tentpole for that quarter. However there have been others, like "Jack the Giant Slayer," which made a move from last June to this February, and promptly went down in flames. So what films have been getting pushed around the slate recently? And what does it all mean?

"300: Rise of an Empire," was pushed from August 2, 2013, to March 7, 2014, but they released a teaser trailer roughly around the same time that seems to have been pretty well received. The original "300" was a surprise hit in March, 2007, so it makes sense that Warner Brothers would want to position the follow-up in the same timeframe. It's also facing less competition now for the action crowd than it would have in August. "300: Rise of an Empire" looks to be very effects heavy, I'm guessing that it's post-production issues that caused the delay. I suspect the same is true of "Elysium," which is coming in August, instead of March, where it was originally scheduled. Sony is probably hoping it can follow in the footstep of Neil Blomkamp's previous late summer hit, "District 9." Lately March and August have been about on par with each other for generating hits, so neither of these films seem to be any worse off than they were before.

The same can't be said for "I, Frankenstein" a horror/thriller comic-book adaptation starring Aaron Eckhart that got bounced from February, 2013 to September, 2013 to January 24, 2014. January and February are where the movies expected to be bombs are sent to detonate out of the public eye, so it's probably not wise to expect much from this one. "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" was a similar title that was finally released this January after repeated delays, and managed to break even, but nobody seemed to like it much. Also, things are not looking good for Detroit's favorite cyborg police officer. We were supposed to be getting that "Robo Cop" reboot this year, but Sony Pictures moved it back from August to a chilly weekend early February, 2014.

The long delayed "Sin City: A Dame to Kill For" was scheduled for October, but it's getting pushed back all the way to next August. By the time it's finally released, it will have been a nine year gap since the original. Something apparently has gone very wrong here, but there's no news yet as to exactly what's going on. I want to note that this is one of several recent sequels and prequels that are trying to jump start franchises for older, and more modest hits. These are a little riskier than most franchise films, which is probably why the studios have been quicker to move them around. Another one in the same vein is "Kick Ass 2," which was originally dated for a prime June slot, but got bumped back to August to avoid some stiff competition.

Wondering where that Steve Jobs biopic with Ashton Kutcher went? It was moved from April to August, apparently for more time to work on marketing strategy after a lackluster premiere at this year's Sundance Film Festival. I don't know how much luck it's going to have as late summer counterprogramming. Meanwhile, the Dreamworks animated feature "Mr. Peabody & Sherman" was moved from this November to next March, escaping a crowded holiday slate and filling a hole left by the repeatedly delayed "Me and My Shadow," which was dropped from the schedule entirely and has gone back into development. Dreamworks Animation's ambitious release slate from the end of last year looked too good to be true, and I guess it was.

However, it's important to remember that delays aren't always bad news. "Captain Phillips," starring Tom Hanks as the captain of a ship hijacked by Somali pirates, was pushed from March to October, in order to position it for Oscar contention. True life caper story "Argo" was also released in October last year, before it went on to win the Best Picture statuette. Alfonso Cuaron's "Gravity" comes out around the same time, after a delay of nearly a year, and may also be an awards contender. And then there was the under-the-radar "Now You See Me," which Summit was originally prepared to dump in January. Then it got moved to March, and then late May, where it has quietly become an unexpected summer sleeper hit.

Finally, I continue to keep an eye on "47 Ronin," which was originally set to premiere in November of 2012, and is now set for February of 2014 after significant retooling and reshoots. Who the hell greenlit a samurai epic starring Keanu Reeves in the first place?
---

Read More

"The Hobbit" and Fan Edits

The first trailer for the second "Hobbit" movie was released last week, confirming some of my worst fears. I wasn't too happy with the first installment, "An Unexpected Journey," and now "The Desolation of Smaug" looks like it has many of the same problems. There are going to be appearances by characters who weren't in the book, including Legolas from "Lord of the Rings," and an entirely invented female warrior elf, Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lily. Minor character Radagast the Brown, who was my least favorite part of the last film, is back for another round. This means more subplots and digressions and attention taken away from the once straightforward quest story of Bilbo Baggins and the dwarves. Even the brief appearance of Smaug the Dragon at the end of the trailer wasn't enough to erase my doubts.

I find myself anticipating a day, probably late in 2015 after all the "Hobbit" movies have been released on home media, when some enterprising Tolkein fan will be able to take the trilogy and edit out all the extraneous, invented content, all the fanservice, and all the indulgences, and carve out a tight, lean, faithful adaptation of the "Hobbit" that will only take a fraction of the time to watch. In short, I want a fan edit, defined by Wikipedia as "a version of a film modified by a viewer, that removes, reorders, or adds material in order to create a new interpretation of the source material." Copyright law prevents legal distribution of these creations, of course, but fan edits have become quite popular in recent years, particularly the efforts of several enterprising fans who have tried to improve the notorious "Star Wars" prequels. One of the earliest and most famous fan edits is a trimmed down version of "The Phantom Menace," known as "The Phantom Edit" that was passed around Hollywood in the early 2000s, created by an anonymous editor who was eventually revealed to be Mike J. Nichols. Now there's a thriving community of fan editors, who have produced alternate versions of everything from "Austin Powers" to "Eyes Wide Shut."

With the growing popularity of video editing software and remix activities like vidding and mashup videos, fan edits feel like a logical extension of the same creative impulse. There are so many films out there that cause consternation among films fans, particularly the most impassioned ones who spot all the little errors and mistakes, and can't help but wish that they could just go in themselves and fix things. Or those who disagree with how a beloved media property has been adapted, and want to mitigate what they perceive to be unfortunate damage. Or those who just want to have some fun and see if they can reintegrate all the deleted scenes from their favorite comedy back into the movie. After all, who hasn't wished they could fix the ending to "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" or that there was a version of "Blade Runner" or "Legend" that just gave you all the footage from all the different cuts? The biggest fan editors are professional directors, of course. George Lucas coming back after twenty years to tinker with the original "Star Wars" trilogy provided the example for many of these fan editors to follow.

Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" franchise has already been targeted by fan editors, of course. "The Two Towers" in particular has always had its detractors, who weren't happy with some of the departures Jackson made from the original novel. I never found these differences distracting enough to impact my enjoyment of this movie, but the "Hobbit" film is a different matter. In my review, I pointed out that it felt like we were watching an Extended Edition cut of the film, with all the extra material that would only be of interest to hardcore fans left in. I was sure there was a good version of "The Hobbit" somewhere in there. Since we already had the Extended Edition, I wondered if Jackson might considering doing a more stripped down, faithful cut as an extra on DVD sets. Instead, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: Extended Edition" is going to be released on home media later this year with an extra 20-25 minutes of footage, and I can't imagine how much more of a slog the film is going to be with even more unnecessary material crammed in.

Fan edits haven't really caught on in the mainstream, but I can imagine them getting more traction if we see more situations like "The Hobbit," where these movies are getting padded out to the point where it's seriously affecting their watchability. I really hope I'm wrong abut "The Desolation of Smaug," and the third "Hobbit" film, "There and Back Again." But if I'm not, I can see myself resorting to fan edits in order to revisit these films in the future - as a new way to just skip ahead to the good stuff.
---

Read More