Spout

I almost included the issue with the film's truth problem in yesterday's post about "The Social Network" complaints, but it's a big enough criticism to warrant its own address. Anyway it doesn't quite fit with the alleged discrimination and intolerance concerns. It is, however, just as ridiculous and unnecessary. I mean, since when has any movie, even a drama based on a true story, been completely accepted as factual? Most documentaries aren't even dependable as truth. Perhaps it's that Mark Zuckerberg isn't a literal rock star. Maybe the idea of Zuckerberg pining over an old flame is as accurate as Jim Morrison following Pam Courson home and climbing into her window, but at least during the latter we get to hear "Love Street" during the make-believe sequence, right? Not that Oliver Stone's "The Doors" hasn't had its share of criticism regarding its authenticity, but films like that seem to be more excused for their dramatizations.

We knew this day was coming. Not just because it was inevitable, but because long ago George Lucas and company directly assured/warned us it would. But it's nuts that the announcement would have to occur only hours after I celebrated the coming re-release of "Back to the Future" as being the very opposite of a Lucas-type cash grab. And here's why: I honestly can not wait to watch the "Star Wars" hexology in 3-D. Yes, even the prequels. So am I a hypocrite? Most definitely. In the five years I've blogged professionally I've consistently knocked the prequels. And I still don't think I'll care much for them with the extra dimension. Yet I feel compelled. I feel a gravitational field pulling me in, and I'm not going to attempt to struggle. I'm just too damn curious.

I'll admit right away that I haven't seen "The Last Exorcism," this past weekend's most lucrative yet not necessarily most popular movie. As a commenter astutely pointed out recently, I'm not "built for the horror genre" but I periodically view some horror films "out of some morbid fascination." This is true, I guess, though I've also been too busy to make time for the film despite a minor interest built up from colleague's recommendations. Anyway I thought it was enough that I'd watched the latest from horror filmmaker Neil Marshall -- "Centurion," which isn't scary so much as bloody -- and honestly if there's any kind of horror movie I like least it's the religious/exorcism variety.

I despise box office reports, analysis and anything else having to do with the immediate gauging of a new film's success, probably because a lot of times it takes me a few weeks and sometimes a few months to get around to seeing a movie I'm interested in (it took me 66 days to finally fit in "I Am Love," for example). And I hate to say it, but the incessant references to a four-day-old title as "a bomb" or "disappointment" occasionally affects my desire to see it. "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" may not have made a lot of money its first weekend compared to other new movies. But word of mouth should be good to this one, if we hold back the premature dismissals and let it ride. Like most people, I didn't expect to enjoy it half as much as I did. If you're similarly doubting you'd enjoy it, you're probably underestimating it, too. Just tell me why you didn't see it and I'll tell you why you should ignore that reason and give it a shot. As for those of you who did see it and loved it, rather than focus so much energy on wondering why it didn't do as well as you'd hoped and complaining about its low return so far, concentrate on ways to convince moviegoers, theater owners and Hollywood why it is still worth their time and effort. Or, we just let everyone wait and see it on DVD/Blu-ray and enjoy it then (and no, unfortunately, nobody's really going to care that they didn't see it in theaters), either way is fine by me.