This is the second of two posts about movies that were not given a theatrical release, but are still managing to find an audience.
With smaller, experimental movies (like last week's Ink), it's not hard to understand why a film was not picked up for distribution. The movie business is a *business* after all and investment is weighed against risk. A film by a new director, featuring unknown actors, and questionable plot accessibility is quite a risk.
Horror films are regarded as easy money. Their budgets are reasonable, as are their returns. Fear, it would seem, is the ultimate in accessible. When a horror film like Trick 'r Treat with a known director (Michael Dougherty, X2, Superman Returns) and name actors (Anna Paquin (the X-Men movies, True Blood) and Brian Cox (Deadwood, the first two Bourne movies)), is shelved, it's curious.
Trick 'r Treat is a homage to horror comics, and the horror anthology movies (Creepshow) and TV shows (Tales from the Crypt, Fear Itself) they spawned. The film is a collection of four stories mildly interwoven and containing a loose wrap-around. As horror movies go, it's mildly gory, fairly suspenseful, and full of "fun" scares. So, why wasn't it released theatrically?
Trick 'r Treat's R rating might have been some of the problem. While the target demographic for horror films is teenagers and films such the Saw franchise and Rob Zombie's recent movies haven't suffered from the rating, Trick 'r Treat doesn't look like R-rated horror. It's not torture porn and there are no grungy psycho-killers. Instead, Trick 'r Treat filled with wicked little stories with twist endings. Again, it's scary, somewhat gory, fun. It just happened to be in the R category according to the MPAA and may not have been available to what was perceived to be its target audience.
The hardcore horror competition, especially in October, probably also contributed to Trick 'r Treat's shelving. The film was originally slated for release in October of 2007. This release date would have put it against Saw IV and Rob Zombie's Halloween remake, as well as 30 Days of Night. Tough competition for the over age-17 dollar. A 2008 release would have had a similar problem: a Saw film and an R-rated remake (Quarantine). Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures finally released the film on DVD in October of 2009. It is available through all major retailers and rental services. And I don't think you need to wait until October to give it a look.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Movie: Ink
This is the first of two posts about movies that did not receive theatrical release, but are still managing to find audiences.
The first movie is Ink.
Ink is a very nice example of a modern fairly tale. This is not an old tale re-envisioned, but instead it has its own mythos, or at least relies on fairly obscure folklore. It is unafraid to mix some vaguely technological elements (like the creepy TV screened incubi) with more traditional fairy tale tropes (the child stealing ogre and the blind fool). It presents its concept of how the world works with little initial exposition. I could present a succinct and non-end-spoiling plot summary, but I think that would do the film injustice. Ink is at its most charming when its not working too hard to tell an exact story.
Unfortunately, the most prevalent problem with fairly tales is that, they're pretty simple. The title character of Ink goes on his journey and, as he is accompanied and pursued, he learns about himself as a character along with the audience. While the movie is not preachy, it does end in an inevitable moral lesson.
The film-making is very good if taken within a certain context. Ink has several very distinct looks for its different worlds. The effects are cheaply done, but not necessarily cheap looking. I would not wish for this movie to have better effects, but I also can't see that it could have ever been a "big screen" movie. I'm not sure if it comes down to lack of polish exactly, but for me, Ink is a very fine TV movie. Not more than that.
Still, Ink has a certain Terry Gilliam aspects to it, and is a better use of an hour and forty-five minutes than the likes of Gilliam's Brothers Grimm.
Ink was not picked up for theatrical distribution. Instead Double Edge Films went truly independent, releasing the film on DVD and Blu-Ray and marketing for sale directly from their website and for rent from various retailers. They've also embraced the "give-it-away" strategy. The video is currently available on Hulu, and Double Edge's website urges free viewer (whether through Hulu or other means) to contribute.
The first movie is Ink.
Ink is a very nice example of a modern fairly tale. This is not an old tale re-envisioned, but instead it has its own mythos, or at least relies on fairly obscure folklore. It is unafraid to mix some vaguely technological elements (like the creepy TV screened incubi) with more traditional fairy tale tropes (the child stealing ogre and the blind fool). It presents its concept of how the world works with little initial exposition. I could present a succinct and non-end-spoiling plot summary, but I think that would do the film injustice. Ink is at its most charming when its not working too hard to tell an exact story.
Unfortunately, the most prevalent problem with fairly tales is that, they're pretty simple. The title character of Ink goes on his journey and, as he is accompanied and pursued, he learns about himself as a character along with the audience. While the movie is not preachy, it does end in an inevitable moral lesson.
The film-making is very good if taken within a certain context. Ink has several very distinct looks for its different worlds. The effects are cheaply done, but not necessarily cheap looking. I would not wish for this movie to have better effects, but I also can't see that it could have ever been a "big screen" movie. I'm not sure if it comes down to lack of polish exactly, but for me, Ink is a very fine TV movie. Not more than that.
Still, Ink has a certain Terry Gilliam aspects to it, and is a better use of an hour and forty-five minutes than the likes of Gilliam's Brothers Grimm.
Ink was not picked up for theatrical distribution. Instead Double Edge Films went truly independent, releasing the film on DVD and Blu-Ray and marketing for sale directly from their website and for rent from various retailers. They've also embraced the "give-it-away" strategy. The video is currently available on Hulu, and Double Edge's website urges free viewer (whether through Hulu or other means) to contribute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)