Scott Hettrick

Mann and Milch, unlikely partners as two of three executive producers of the new HBO series about the underbelly of horse racing called “Luck” (9 p.m. ET/PT on Sunday nights beginning January 29) joined the show’s two highest-profile stars, Dustin Hoffman and Nick Nolte, on a panel during HBO’s presentation at the Television Critics Association tour Friday in Pasadena.
<Story continues along with review of all nine episodes of “Luck” below the following 85-second video interview with Hoffman and Mann…>

My father took our family to a movie in 1969 starring Steve McQueen called “The Reivers,” an adaptation of the William Faulkner novel, featuring slow-motion scenes of horses racing that Dad thought represented some of the most impressive cinematography he had ever seen.
I think he would have thought the same about the powerful scenes of horse racing at Santa Anita in “Luck.”

But even some of those who follow horse racing and are familiar with Santa Anita expressed disappointment with the one-hour pilot that HBO showed as a sneak preview last month. Too many characters and too much insider jargon that combined to make it a little hard to follow, and nothing much of significance happening which made it feel a little slow and not very engaging. Providing even more challenge in the pilot, most of the characters are degenerates and criminals who don’t initially exude much charisma or humor, though they do each have personalities that will eventually emerge.

For those viewers who were not bowled over by the pilot, I recommend sticking with it with a few more episodes; the second hour ramps up considerably, even if it is still not “The Sopranos.” In fact, mob-like violence eventually creeps in during later episodes, particularly as Hoffman’s character, who is being released from prison in the first scene of the pilot, becomes entangled by episodes four and five with a yacht-residing heavy rival for Hoffman’s Ace character played by Michael Gambon (the polar opposite of his avuncular Professor Dumbledore in the “Harry Potter” movies).
It is that juxtaposition of the seedy side of horse racing set against the idyllic ambiance of Santa Anita that offers the primary intrigue and focus of the show. Milch described it as the “double-ness” of Santa Anita, the real world and the “Santa Anita of the mind.”

The momentum of the mid-series episodes, including a mild earthquake tremor that literally shakes up the motley crew while dining at the local “Rod’s Grill” near the track, tends to stall a bit before regaining energy in the final installment.

Along the way, despite the multitude of characters already in place, new high-profile actors like Gambon continue to be added, such as Joan Allen. Her role as a persistent horse welfare activist (a la Bo Derek?) and her motivation is as vague as many of the other characters, but she appears to become a potential romantic interest for Ace.

Another actor gaining screen time after the pilot is Hall of Fame former jockey Gary Stevens (“Seabiscuit”), whose story arc carries him through a recurrence of his battle with alcoholism that threatens his career. Stevens displays an impressive and extensive range of acting skills that his prior acting roles had not allowed.

For Hoffman, the series presents a new opportunity to work unencumbered by studio executives.
“I’ve not had this experience before,” he said. “You can’t get a shot at doing your best work in the studio system.”
HBO does not have committees analyzing and making recommendations, he said. He also enjoys having three cameras filming at the same time to catch different angles so that actors don’t have to repeat the same shot multiple times.

Also somewhat unique to this HBO series is the wide variance in running times of each “one-hour” episode by as much as 20-minutes.” Each episode has a different director and some run about 45-minutes while others run 50-plus minutes and 60-plus minutes, including the 66-minute finale.

Hoffman and the producers all expressed interest in seeing the expensive series be picked up by HBO for several more seasons.
Maybe that would give Milch time to write in a visit to Santa Anita from Tony Soprano or even Carrie and friends from that other former HBO series “Sex and the City.”

– By Scott Hettrick

Scott Hettrick

First of all, we know there are a limited number of 3D screens. For the sake of keeping the math simple, let’s say there are 1,000 3D screens. When a 3D movie gets released – call it 3Da – it may make as much as 80% of its overall gross from those 1,000 3D theaters showing the movie at a premium price.
But what happens when movie 3Db gets released while 3Da is still in theaters? If they split the 1,000 theaters evenly, each film has access to only 500 screens and therefore only 50% of the potential 3D gross. Keep extrapolating as three, four, five, or even eight or nine 3D movies are in the market at the same time, as is the case right now. Each of those movies is splitting the same 1,000 screens, with movie 3Di getting access to as few as 50 – 100 theaters, or only 5%-10% of the potential 3D market.

Exacerbating the situation is the IMAX 3D factor. IMAX can represent as much as 10% of a movie’s overall gross. There are even fewer IMAX 3D screens and only one movie is playing in IMAX theaters at a time, meaning as much as 10% of 3D revenue is not even available to the other five movies in the market at the moment.
Given that formula, it’s mathematically impossible for two, three, and especially eight or nine movies in the market simultaneously to each generate 60% – 80% of their overall gross from 3D. Of course the 3D percentage from each film must inevitably get smaller with the addition of each new 3D film into the market.

Further, every week crappy movies are released. The more movies that use 3D, the greater the odds that there will be a higher percentage of bad 3D movies, just as there are bad 2D movies. Yet, I’ve never seen anyone draw the mathematical conclusion that the disappointing openings of films like “One Day, ” “The Change-Up” and “Cowboys and Aliens” is dragging down the percentage of grosses of 2D movies which means that audiences are less interested in seeing 2D movies.

It would be a delightful surprise if, at some point, hopefully soon, the media who report these numbers could grasp and accurately interpret these grosses before drawing and promulgating erroneous conclusions.

By Scott Hettrick

Scott Hettrick

Maybe then they will all understand what is missing from mainstream 3D films and what would make audiences feel they are getting their money’s worth from the premium price of a 3D movie ticket.

While the feature-length “African Cats” delivers impressive wildlife photography of adorable and intimidating lions and cheetahs, the 40-minute “Born to be Wild,” directed by David Lickley, is so much more engaging and memorable almost entirely because the orphaned baby orangutans and elephants spend a lot of time frolicking, snuggling, and swinging seemingly inches from us.
The two movies represent one of the best comparisons yet of the dramatic difference in impact between a good movie in 2D versus a good similar-type movie enhanced significantly when presented in the kind of 3D that only IMAX documentarians have been doing so well for decades.
There has yet to be a mainstream 3D movie produced that has had the in-your-face audience immersion of any IMAX 3D documentary, none of which rely on gimmicky shots yet take advantage of the opportunity to create a truly unique experience that fully exploits 3D technology without creating eye fatigue or distracting from the narrative.
It’s a mystery to me why mainstream Hollywood stubbornly resists this approach.
Disney even delayed indefinitely this year’s release of the 3D conversion of the French documentary “OceanWorld 3D.” The Disneynature franchise could benefit enormously and lead the innovation and consumer acceptance of 3D.

“Born to be Wild,” which follows the young animals from the rainforests of Borneo to the savannah of Kenya as they warm to their human rescuers led by primatologist Dr. Birute Mary Galdikas for several years before being rehabilitated and integrated into their natural habitat, is narrated delightfully by Morgan Freeman and presented by IMAX and Warner Bros. Pictures on 207 IMAX screens domestically and at least 18 internationally.

– By Scott Hetrick

Scott Hettrick

Such a person is singer-songwriter Hayley Taylor, the musically talented daughter of my former boss and mentor at The Hollywood Reporter in the 1990s, and friend Alex Ben Block. She has a new music video on YouTube, “Felt Like Love” that will be showcased with an interview of Hayley at 7:30 a.m. (PT) Monday morning, March 21, during the “Music Spotlight” on KTLA channel 5 in Los Angeles.

I’m a sucker for upbeat songs featuring a banjo fused with acoustic guitar, and this pop ditty is a delight, enhanced further in the perky video below depicting the exhilarating feelings in the early stages of a new romance.

– By Scott Hettrick

President Ronald Reagan

The two-hour “Reagan” is a remarkably comprehensive and objective view of the seemingly simple man who actually was a complex person with many faces, shifting from actor to pitchman to politician with as much ease as he moved from being a liberal Democrat to a conservative Republican.

Jarecki tells the life story unimaginatively chronologically yet deftly interweaves news footage and comments about Reagan’s personality throughout to create a deeper perspective on the man, and dwelling perhaps the longest on the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal that marred his Presidency.

Son Ron Reagan gets the most screen time and offers a very honest and loving perspective of his father, puzzling about why the President had trouble accepting certain realities like homosexuality until his friend Rock Hudson died of AIDS, expressing his disappointment in his father’s decisions about Iran-Contra but saying the President was doing it with the best intentions of serving the public, and praising his political savvy and good looks. The movie also closes with Ron’s eulogy at his father’s funeral.

Others provide fascinating reflections as well, including former Chief of Staff James A. Baker, former White House senior advisor Pat Buchanan, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and several economists who remain mystified about the illogic of Reaganomics, which sparked many of the economic divides the country is still suffering from decades later.

“Reagan” is entertaining, informative, and a worthwhile reminder of the many sides of the President who has become so revered since his death after suffering through Alzheimer’s.

The movie replays  at 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. Feb. 11, 2:30 p.m. and midnight Feb. 16, 12:30 p.m. Feb. 21, 6 p.m. Feb. 24, and 3:45 p.m. feb. 26

– By Scott Hettrick

Scott Hettrick

His death at age 77 on Jan. 30 in New York is cause to revel in the memories of the man who brought us some the most enduring movie music of all time, starting most prominently with his signature theme for the James Bond franchise.

How fitting that one of Barry’s most dynamic scores was recently released on Blu-ray Disc for viewers to enjoy in its fullest surround sound. Kevin Costner recognized how critical it was to have Barry create the sense of scale for his Western epic “Dances with Wolves,” which Barry did with aplomb, winning yet another one of his many Academy Awards.

John Barry

Film scores are still underrated as perhaps the key element in almost every movie that triggers our emotions; it’s the music that is usually what sparks both tears and an adrenaline rush. Barry did both better than most. He essentially created the genre of action movie franchise score with music for nearly a dozen 007 films for 25 years  from 1962 – 1987, a series which is also credited with establishing the trend of original title songs by pop singers. Yet even without a title song to work with in 1969′s “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,” Barry managed to deliver perhaps the most definitive score of the franchise in that film. And his music is among the few memorable elements of clunker episodes in the secret agent series such as “The Man With the Golden Gun” and “A View to a Kill.”

Twice in 20 years during the 007 span he enhanced our sense of awe and wonder in Africa with the score and timeless theme song from “Born Free” (he won Oscars for both) and the lush, romantic orchestral swoons in his Oscar-winning “Out of Africa,” the latter largely responsible for a boon in tourism and safaris.

Equally locked into the hearts of a generation is his quintessential score of romance from “Somewhere in Time,” which, more than 30 years later, continues to transcend the listener to a time and place every bit as alluring and fulfilling as the one depicted in the movie itself.
Only a year later he turned that blissful romance into sounds of steamy sexual tension in “Body Heat.”

Among the plethora of genres in which Barry excelled was period pieces, such as his Oscar-winning score for the riveting “The Lion in Winter,” his nominated “Mary, Queen of Scots” and “Chaplin,” and the endearing sweetness in his orchestration for the often overlooked Sean Connery, Audrey Hepburn film “Robin and Marian.”

If you bought and listened to only the soundtracks from the movies noted above, your collection could be considered very comprehensive. Such was the scope of John Barry’s genius and his gratefully extensive career.

– By Scott Hettrick

Scott Hettrick

Roger, first of all, congratulations on the revival of your “At The Movies” program last weekend. But even though I religiously watched your original PBS “Sneak Previews” out of Chicago from the earliest days in the 1970s and continued to tune in faithfully as you and Gene took it to syndication under the “At the Movies” moniker, I fear that like your laudable passion leading to your refusal to recognize that the time for that kind of program has long since passed is also the same mind block that is preventing you from acknowledging the potential value and inevitability of 3D in the cinema.
Last May I challenged most of the nine reasons why Roger Ebert hates 3D, to which you offered a respectful response to me.
I’m afraid I have to take issue with you once again, along with Mr. Murch, this time about this slightly different angle you have taken, but for basically the same underlying reason.

One of your primary points last May was that filmmakers should leave the third dimension to the viewer’s imagination. I was curious why you didn’t express such sentiment about leaving moving images to the imagination of a book reader instead of making a movie in the first place, or leaving color to our imagination instead of continuing to show movies in black-and-white.

With your latest posting, Mr. Murch raises an interesting and perhaps valid point that 3D requires our eyes to make adjustments they were probably not designed to do by focusing on both the actual screen where the image resides as well as the artificial convergence point behind or in front of the screen. I’m not even sure if this is, in fact, as big of a challenge for our eyes as Murch suggests — certainly many of the people who commented on your posting disagree. But the bigger point to me relative to your ongoing protesting of 3D is why neither of you makes the same point about human eyes not being designed to watch hours of images on a flat two-dimensional cinema screen or TV sets or in printed books and magazines. That’s probably not what our eyes were designed to do either.
In fact, our eyes were designed to view the world in true three-dimension.
Mr. Murch raises an interesting argument for medical and science experts to consider, but in the meantime it seems you are not applying the logic of your anti-3D arguments to any other technology. If you want to leave entertainment to the mind’s eye of the audience, if you want to ensure that people view only those things for which the human eye was designed, you should be arguing for the elimination of cinema altogether.

I know you like to proclaim things are closed but while the balcony may once have figuratively been closed between episodes of your TV show, this case is not even close to being closed and will likely never close.

Here’s looking forward to your next anti-3D salvo!

– By Scott Hettrick

Scott Hettrick

But for all the hoopla surrounding 3D this year, and all the high-profile movies released in the format, only one was nominated in the bloated primary category and the nominations for two of the other six had nothing to do with the 3D (“Tron” for sound editing and “Tangled” for song). Likewise, two of the three for “Alice” are for non-3D elements of art direction and costume, and the third of visual effects may not be meant for the 3D effects. Similarly, three of the five noms for “Toy Story 3″ are for sound, song and screenplay, and one of the two noms for “Dragon” was for score.

As a matter of fact, one suspects the 3D didn’t play much of a role in the two best picture noms for “Toy Story 3,” especially since the 3D in the movie was nearly undetectable.
It’s possible that 3D only played a role in the nomination of one movie, “How to Train Your Dragon,” which came across as if it were designed specifically for 3D.
But two animated movies in 3D that should have been nominated in the animated feature category are Universal’s “Despicable Me” and Disney’s “Tangled,” both of which were comparable to “Toy Story 3″ and superior to “How to Train Your Dragon” in their cleverness and artistic elements and featured 3D that was far superior to “TS3.”

Except for one screenplay nom for “TS3,” there was no recognition for any 3D movie in the prominent above-the-line categories of directing, writing, or acting. And I think IMAX’s “Hubble 3D” was overlooked in the documentary category.

Perhaps that is an indication that 3D is still perceived as a gimmick technology at the moment. Or perhaps it means that 3D movies are being produced more for the gimmickry than for the substance of the material to which 3D is brought in as just another filmmaking tool to tell the story.

If the quality of the 3D were factored  in,

– By Scott Hettrick

Scott Hettrick

This is the OMG! disc the industry needs so badly.
Clearly Panasonic knew what it had in this disc that the company’s Panasonic Hollywood Laboratory also authored with lots of input and oversight by director James Cameron.
And clearly Cameron wasn’t joking when he told an audience a couple weeks ago that it looks as good on a 3DTV as it looked in theaters.
I would actually argue that it looks better, way better!

Since Nov. 1 the “Avatar” Blu-ray 3D disc has only been available in Europe only with the purchase of a Panasonic Blu-ray 3D player or 3DTV. I’ve been reporting for months that it will be available the same way here in the U.S. beginning Dec. 1, and only available that way for about a year. Panasonic and Fox have yet to confirm the Dec. 1 date for the U.S.
But I just discovered a new posting by Panasonic about special “Avatar” viewing settings for the Panasonic plasma 3D TV as recommended by Cameron to optimize the experience.

Many people have seen footage from “Avatar” on a demo disc at conferences and other industry and media events for months, which is impressive but nowhere near as dynamic and compelling as the actual movie disc that I had a chance to watch this week on a 60-inch 3D plasma display.
I saw 20-minutes of “Avatar” at Comic-Con in 2009; I saw the movie at the Hollywood premiere at the Chinese Theater last year; I saw it again at a giant-screen IMAX theater at Universal Citywalk, where the 3D was far more impacting than on a traditional screen. And I saw both 2D Blu-ray versions, which I feel have images that are even more vivid than the theatrical 3D versions, probably because the TV screen is inherently brighter than watching on a theater screen through dark glasses.

But none of those experiences was anything like the Blu-ray 3D version I saw this week, which instantly immersed me in the world of Pandora beginning with the stunning main menu page. Finally, the 3D made me feel like I was in experiencing this world rather than observing. And everything had far more depth and clarity than any other version. When the two main characters run across the log in the forest, this was the first time I really felt the danger of the plunging depth below them, which also drew my eyes to a waterfall down below to the left that I had never seen before. The bright and colorful wood sprites felt as if they were flittering much more closely to me. I wanted to remain in this world and instantly watch all my favorite movies in this way.
This is much closer to the 3D experience I have always sought and have thus far only found in documentary films at IMAX giant-screen theaters. I was hoping Hollywood would be able to deliver that same sensation with its more personal, fictional stories, but so far that has not been the case, not even the theatrical release of “Avatar.” Next week’s “Tangled” comes about the closest I have seen so far.
Having just watched about a dozen of the most recent Blu-ray 3D titles released this week (Zemeckis’ Christmas Carol, Polar Express; IMAX documentaries from Image/Warner; Warner’s Clash of Titans, Cats & Dogs w/ Road Runner; Sony’s FIFA 2010 World Cup, Open Season, Monster House), with varying quality but none better than slightly above average, I did not think Blu-ray 3D would be the medium that would wind up coming closest to meeting my expectations.
That was until I saw the Blu-ray 3D of “Avatar,” which was followed shortly thereafter by a call to Best Buy to see if that current price of $1,799 for a Panasonic 3D package including a 50-inch 3D TV, Blu-ray 3D player, two pairs of 3D glasses, and two Blu-ray 3D movies will still be good after Dec. 1.

– By Scott Hettrick

By Scott Hettrick