Moviefone Copyright 2011, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. Moviefone Good old fashioned elbow grease.
Little did we know that the movie's cuddly-but-ferocious Ewoks would soon spawn a cottage industry of spinoffs, or that we'd be getting a trilogy of "Star Wars" prequels in another 16 years, and "Jedi" sequels another 15 years after that ("Episode VII" is due in 2014). Nor did we know, at the time, how close "Jedi" came to being an art-house film (judging by the directors whom "Star Wars" guru George Lucas initially asked to take the helm), or how close we came to losing Han Solo (Harrison Ford), or many of the other secrets of "jedi," which you can read below.

1. David Lynch and David Cronenberg both turned down the job of directing "Jedi." Instead, Lynch would go on to make his own sci-fi epic, 1984's "Dune," while Cronenberg would make the hit horror films "The Dead Zone" (1983) and "The Fly" (1986).

2. Welsh filmmaker Richard Marquand had previously directed the 1981 World War II spy thriller "Eye of the Needle." It was that film that brought him to the attention of George Lucas and ultimately earned him the directing job on "Jedi."

3. Lawrence Kasdan had worked for Lucas as the co-screenwriter of "Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" before Lucas hired him a third time as his collaborator on the "Jedi" screenplay. Somewhere in there, Kasdan found time to write and direct his first solo feature, the 1981 thriller "Body Heat," the movie that made Kathleen Turner a star.

4. Warwick Davis, then 11, made his debut as Ewok guide Wicket, after his grandmother learned of an open casting call for dwarfs in London. Davis was initially cast as an extra. Wicket was initially a role for Kenny Baker, who already had an established role as R2-D2 (he would inhabit the little droid in all six "Star Wars" features to date), but Baker fell ill, and Lucas gave his part to Davis. Baker ended up playing another Ewok in addition to R2-D2.

5. Lucas was on the set most of the time, often as a second-unit director (that is, shooting scenery, stunt sequences, and other footage not involving the primary cast). Marquand joked, "It is rather like trying to direct "King Lear" – with Shakespeare in the next room!"

6. Unlike the other principal "Star Wars" cast members, Harrison Ford hadn't contracted to do a second sequel, and it wasn't initially clear whether he'd return for "Jedi."

7. Ford suggested that Han Solo be killed off early, through self-sacrifice. Kasdan thought that was a good idea, one that would increase suspense, but Lucas said no.

8. Also, Yoda wasn't supposed to be in the movie, but Marquand insisted on a return to Dagobah so that Yoda could confirm that Darth Vader wasn't just playing mind games with Luke Skywalker in "The Empire Strikes Back" and was really his father.

9. Other rejected script ideas: the climactic battle would have taken place on a planet of Wookiees instead of Ewoks (like Wookiees, but shorter!), and Obi-Wan Kenobi would have returned from his ghostly existence to corporeal form, rather than remaining a ghostly presence within the Force.

10. Actually filmed, but left on the cutting room floor, were a sequence of the heroes getting caught in a sandstorm as they tried to leave Tatooine, a scene among imperial officers on the Death Star during the final battle, and a scene of Darth Vader communicating with Luke via the Force before Luke enters Jabba's palace. These scenes finally saw the light of day on the 2011 Blu-ray release.

11. While shooting on location, "Jedi" used the fake working title "Blue Harvest." That was to keep plot spoilers from leaking, and to prevent local vendors from price-gouging the filmmakers.

12. To shoot the forest chase, Steadicam inventor Garrett Brown walked through the California's Jebediah Smith Redwood State Park, shooting at less than one frame per second. Sped up to the standard 24 frames per second, the resulting footage made it look like speeding through the dense woods at 120 mph. (The speeders were superimposed later.)

13. Other scenes set on the forest moon of Endor were shot practically in Lucas's backyard, in the redwood forest near Skywalker Ranch in Marin County, California.

14. In late 1982, a teaser trailer and posters referred to the film as "Revenge of the Jedi." (The poster also incorrectly depicted Luke with a red-beamed lightsaber and Darth Vader with a blue one, instead of the other way around.) After Lucas decided that "Revenge" was inappropriate, changed the title to "Return," and sold the 6,800 remaindered posters to fans. Today, of course, they're collector's items.

15. "Jedi" ends with a sequence of Ewoks marking their victory over the empire by dancing and singing. The tune they sing is known as "Ewok Celebration." "Star Wars" instrumental composer John Williams wrote the music. The "yub-yub" lyrics were written by his son, Joseph Williams, who was then the lead singer of Toto. A version of the song performed by electronic artist Meco hit No. 60 on the Billboard chart.

16. Lucas's digital re-tinkering with "Return of the Jedi" in subsequent re-releases on home video altered some memorable scenes. There were more alien musicians playing in Jabba's lair, the Sarlaac (the pit monster on Tatooine) acquired a beak, and the fall of the Empire was marked by a montage of various alien worlds celebrating. Most notoriously, the ghost of Anakin Skywalker was changed from the broken old man seen beneath Darth Vader's helmet (played by Sebastian Shaw) to the young Hayden Christensen, who played the pre-Vader Anakin in Episodes II and III.

17. The film was nominated for four Oscars, including Best Art Direction, Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Original Score, and Best Sound. It won a special prize out of competition for its visual effects.

18. As with the first two "Star Wars" films, a radio version eventually aired on NPR. The 1986 radio play featured Anthony Daniels reprising his role as C-3PO, but other characters were played by new actors. Among them were John Lithgow as Yoda, Brock Peters ("To Kill a Mockingbird") as Darth Vader, Ed Begley Jr. as Boba Fett, and Ed Asner as Jabba the Hutt.

19. "Jedi" cost $32.5 million to make, a large budget for a 1983 movie. It grossed $252.6 million domestically in its initial release, and another $57 million on subsequent releases. Its worldwide gross over the years totals $475.1 million.

20. Marquand followed up "Jedi" with the hit courtroom thriller "Jagged Edge" (1985), starring Glenn Close and Jeff Bridges. He made one more movie, 1987 drama "Hearts of Fire," featuring a rare acting performance by Bob Dylan, but he suffered a stroke and heart attack, and died before it was released. He was 49.

21. Four months after "Jedi" came the release of Lawrence Kasdan's second writing/directing effort, "The Big Chill," a movie considered a cinema landmark despite its lack of Ewoks and space battles. He went on to make such celebrated movies as "The Accidental Tourist" and "The Bodyguard" (a script finally shot 20 years after he first tried to sell it). His most recent movie was 2012's "Darling Companion," with Kevin Kline and Diane Keaton.

22. Lucas oversaw two Ewok-themed spinoff projects, both of which debuted as made-for-TV movies. In 1984's "The Ewok Adventure" (a.k.a. "Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure"), the fuzzy folk rescue a family of shipwrecked space travelers. In 1985's "Ewoks: The Battle for Endor" (a.k.a. "Star Wars: Ewok Adventures – The Battle for Endor") the orphaned girl from the previous movie joins the wee warriors in defending their moon against alien invaders. Both take place during the time between Episodes V and VI and are therefore technically "Jedi" prequels. Warwick Davis has said a third Ewok movie was planned but never filmed.

23. The Ewoks also got their own animated TV series, "Star Wars: Ewoks," which aired 35 episodes from 1985 to '86. It also took place during the interval between "Empire" and "Jedi."

24. Lucas and Davis reteamed yet again for the Lucas-produced fantasy film "Willow" (1988), in which Davis had the role of the title hero and acted with his face visible for the first time. Davis would go on to star in the title role in the "Leprechaun" horror series and play cameos in the three "Star Wars" prequel films. Davis would spoof himself and his "Jedi"-derived fame in 2012 as the star of the Ricky Gervais-penned mockumentary series "Life's Too Short."

25. The title of 2005's "Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith" was a wink to fans who recalled the original title of "Return of the Jedi." ]]> Tue, 21 May 2013 15:09:37 EDT 3315086 earned a starship-load of money, debuted at No. 1, and dethroned two-week box office champ "Iron Man 3." And yet, box office analysts think it underperformed, falling far short of the $100 million premiere they'd expected.

Are the pundits right? Were the "Star Trek" numbers less than stellar? Or do the analysts have a warped perspective? Alas, even cold Vulcan logic may not be able to solve this one; it really depends on your point of view. Here are the arguments on both sides.

Hit: "Star Trek Into Darkness" earned an estimated $70.6 million in North America over the weekend. Add another $13.5 million from screenings Wednesday at midnight and throughout Thursday, and the movie has a total so far of $84.1 million.
Miss: Distributor Paramount was expecting a $100 million weekend. These figures didn't come close.

Hit: Still, $70.6 million is a pretty huge opening.
Miss: Not by the standards of the previous installment, 2009's "Star Trek," which opened at $75.2 million from Friday to Sunday, plus another $4.0 million from Thursday screenings.

Hit: The film's take includes an impressive $13.5 million from 336 IMAX screens. That means "Star Trek" earned 16 percent of its take from IMAX, compared to 10 percent for "Iron Man 3" during its debut two weeks ago.
Miss: Even with 3D and IMAX surcharges, "Into Darkness" couldn't outperform the 2009 "Star Trek," which sold only standard-price tickets.

Hit: The movie averaged $18,241 per screen, the highest of any film in current wide release.
Miss: Tiny indie dramedy "Frances Ha," which opened opposite "Star Trek" this weekend, debuted on just four screens but averaged nearly twice as much, $33,500 per venue.

Hit: While the last "Star Trek" earned less than half its take overseas, the new one is doing twice as well as last time in many countries around the world. Having opened a week ago in most territories, it's already grossed $80.5 million overseas, thanks to redoubled marketing efforts abroad by Paramount.
Miss: Paramount missed some marketing opportunities at home. A merchandising dispute between J.J. Abrams and CBS (which holds the rights to the "Star Trek" characters) meant few licensed products on retailers shelves and a far less ubiquitous presence than the film should have had in terms of grabbing retail consumers' attention.

Hit: A late move to a Thursday opening date may have increased the movie's premiere earnings.
Miss: Or it may have harmed those earnings, since the last-minute shift may have confused ticketbuyers.

Hit: Still, no other wide-release summer-blockbuster-hopeful dared to open against it, so "Into Darkness" had the multiplex pretty much to itself.
Miss: The movie still faced stiff competition from holdovers "Iron Man 3" and "The Great Gatsby," which earned almost $60 million combined this weekend. And next weekend, it'll get slammed by the one-two punch of "Fast and Furious 6" and "The Hangover Part III."

Hit: "Into Darkness" earned an A from CinemaScore, indicating especially strong word-of-mouth among the fans who saw it.
Miss: So why, after 47 years of "Star Trek" TV series and movies and books and videogames, can't the franchise break out beyond its base of loyal fans?]]> Sun, 19 May 2013 15:21:19 EDT 3303425 "Star Trek Into Darkness" has centered on the new villain John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a mysterious man who may have ties to familiar menaces from installments past. Which makes one realize that a "Star Trek" movie is often only as good as its antagonist. Threats to the U.S.S. Enterprise have come in many forms, including human, alien, Vulcan, Klingon, Romulan, robot, and supercomputer.

Conventional wisdom has it that the even-numbered movies in the franchise are better than the odd-numbered pictures, and the quality of villains often reflects that but not always. Here, then, is a ranking of "Star Trek" movie villains, from worst to best.



]]> Wed, 15 May 2013 14:53:21 EDT 3280745 "Tyler Perry Presents Peeples" should have done decent business this weekend. Even though he didn't write or direct it, the meet-the-parents comedy had Perry's name on it as producer and promoter. It features two popular TV stars, Craig Robinson and Kerry Washington, in the leads. It's a movie that caters to older women and comedy fans at a time of year (summer superhero season) when both are underserved. It opened on Mother's Day weekend, a good time to catch the family business that Perry targets so effectively. Most of all, as a movie with an all-African-American cast, it seemed like smart counterprogramming to "The Great Gatsby," a movie about white people throwing parties.

Perry movies typically open at around $20 million. Pundits predicted "Peeples" would earn at least half that. Instead, it debuted in fourth place, with a meager $4.9 million in estimated sales. It's Perry's weakest opening ever (eclipsing "Daddy's Little Girls," which debuted with $11.2 million in 2007), and it looks like it'll be his first real flop.

What went wrong? Here are a few possibilities:

Perry's name alone isn't enough. Writer/director Tina Gordon Chism is no slouch; her previous screenplays include "ATL" and "Drumline," so she clearly knows how to write effectively for the same viewers as Perry's films (African-American, middle-class). Still, having "Tyler Perry Presents..." above the title isn't the same as having "Tyler Perry's...." Ticketbuyers noticed the difference.

No Madea. Perry's movies in which he appears in drag as the gun-toting grandma do better at the box office than those without the popular character.

Craig Robinson and Kerry Washington aren't box office draws. Robinson ("The Office") and Washington ("Scandal") are talented actors from hit TV shows, but neither has ever carried a movie on the strength of his or her own name. "Peeples" may have been too tame for those who saw Robinson in such raunchy screen comedies as "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" and "Hot Tub Time Machine." Washington's biggest film to date may be "Django Unchained," but "Django" fans may have been more likely to spend this weekend seeing Leonardo DiCaprio in "The Great Gatsby."

The movie sat on the shelf for two years. That alone doesn't mean much, but it suggests a lack of confidence on the part of distributor Lionsgate, which, in a worst-case-scenario, might have simply dumped the movie as unceremoniously as possible on a weekend when few would notice. The studio gave the movie better promotion than that (it does, after all, have to keep Perry happy, since he's its most reliable hitmaker), but not by much. Certainly, critics, and sometimes audiences, can smell the desperation behind a picture that's been allowed to grow musty in distribution limbo.

Word-of-mouth was weak. Not that critics' opinions mattered much, as Lionsgate didn't even screen the movie for critics. (Though that's also usually a sign that a movie isn't any good.) Perry's movies typically rely more on audience word-of-mouth than professional reviews anyway. But "Peeples" didn't do well even by that standard. Its CinemaScore grade was just a B-, indicating lackluster word-of-mouth. Viewers were not recommending "Peeples" to their friends and relatives.

Mother's Day isn't Easter. Perry often capitalizes on holiday weekends to grab family audiences. It's been just a few weeks since "Tyler Perry's Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor" opened on Easter weekend, raking in $21.6 million toward a total to date of $51.7 million. (In fact, it was still on the chart this weekend, at No. 15, meaning Perry's competing against himself.) Maybe Easter is a time when families decide to go to the movies together after church. Mother's Day? Apparently, not so much.

There was still plenty of competition for the movie's target audiences. "Gatsby" turned out to be a surprisingly strong draw for older women who might otherwise have been receptive to the "Peeples" Mother's Day strategy. With its Jay-Z-led hip-hop soundtrack, "Gatsby" may also have been a strong draw for younger African-American audiences. "Peeples" was also competing for older African-American viewers against "42," the Jackie Robinson biopic, still a strong draw after five weeks. (It earned $4.7 million, just $200,000 less than "Peeples.") And then there was "Iron Man 3," the weekend's top movie, which pulled in an estimated $72.5 million. It drew such a huge general audience that no other movie, save the well-promoted "Gatsby," could compete.

So maybe Perry can chalk it up to bad timing. Certainly, one flop isn't going to stall his career. No doubt his next release, "Tyler Perry's A Madea Christmas" (due on Dec. 13), will press all the right buttons and avoid all the mistakes of "Peeples."]]> Sun, 12 May 2013 14:05:17 EDT 3263166
But even if you hadn't read the book, it wouldn't be too big of a shock to see Leonardo DiCaprio's Gatsby die in the new film version of "The Great Gatsby" (opening May 10). After all, it's hard to think of a current leading man who's suffered more on-screen deaths than DiCaprio. (For what it's worth, DiCaprio is stepping into the shoes of Robert Redford, who played Gatsby in the 1974 version, and who was the leading man in his own day who was least likely to survive until the the end credits rolled.)

The typical DiCaprio death scene is often startling in its abruptness. He tends to die suddenly and quickly, without suffering much or having enough time to mutter memorable last words. But he does leave a beautiful corpse, which is probably why there are a number of fan-made supercuts of his death scenes on YouTube.

Here, then, are eight memorable pre-"Gatsby" DiCaprio death scenes. Read 'em and weep.

]]> Mon, 6 May 2013 15:19:44 EDT 3224790 "Iron Man 3" in a North American theater this weekend and didn't have its major plot twist spoiled for you, consider yourself lucky. After all, people in nearly every movie market around the world got to see the movie a week before you did.

It's become increasingly common for Hollywood's would-be blockbusters to open all over the globe before they finally make it to our own shores. "Iron Man 3" opened in territories throughout the world on the weekend of April 26 before opening here on May 3. It follows in the footsteps of Tom Cruise's sci-fi epic "Oblivion," which also opened overseas a week before it opened here on April 19. "Star Trek Into Darkness" has already opened in some countries, a full two weeks before it opens in North America.

Not long ago, homegrown Hollywood "event movies" like these would have opened in America first, then abroad. Or they would have opened everywhere in the world on the same day, a measure that not only created worldwide hype for the films but also thwarted pirates who might have taken advantage of the release-date gap to flood a country's streets with bootleg DVDs from another country where the movie had already opened. So what changed? Why does Hollywood now make America wait to see its own movies until after they've premiered throughout the rest of the world?

More than anything else, the shift reflects how the international market, once just gravy for Hollywood, has eclipsed the domestic market as the main source of revenue for mainstream theatrical releases. As big as last year's "The Avengers" was at home ($623.4 million), it was even bigger abroad ($888.4 million). Of that foreign total, $185.1 million came in on the film's overseas opening weekend, which took place a week before the movie premiered here. So it's no wonder that Disney would repeat the strategy for "Iron Man 3."

And the strategy worked. A week ago, "iron Man 3" beat the foreign opening weekend record set by "The Avengers," earning $198.4 million. Before a single American ticketbuyer had seen it, "Iron Man 3" had earned $307.7 million. By Sunday, when Disney was reporting that the Robert Downey Jr. threequel had opened here with an enormous $175.3 million, second-weekend grosses had already driven the international earnings to $504.8 million, for a global total of $680.1 million. Not bad for ten days' work.

It's certainly reassuring for studios to know that an expensive blockbuster-hopeful is a hit even before it opens in the U.S. Universal moved "Oblivion," initially scheduled for summer, to April, setting it up to grab what it could in the two weeks before "Iron Man 3" opened. But that meant it also had to open a week earlier overseas. Which was fine; Tom Cruise movies routinely perform much better abroad than they do here, which is why Cruise remains an A-lister despite his modest box office performance in America."Oblivion" earned only about $70 million in North America in the 14 days before "Iron Man 3" opened domestically, but by then, it had earned twice as much overseas. The movie opened with $60.4 million abroad a week before its American debut netted $57.1 million. As of this weekend, "Oblivion" has earned $222.8 million worldwide, with two thirds of that coming from foreign markets.

One sign of how important these international early releases have become is the promotional travel schedules of the stars. They're sent out to tout their films around the world, often for months at a time, appearing at red-carpet premieres in multiple countries. By the time it opens here, "Star Trek Into Darkness" will have staged seven such premieres. So in some cases, these staggered release patterns are just a matter of scheduling around other factors.

"Worldwide release dates often come down to timing issues," Exhibitor Relations Co. Senior Box Office Analyst Jeff Bock tells Moviefone. "When can Robert Downey Jr. trot around the globe? When are the other studios releasing their films overseas, and how can our release maximize profits? And sometimes, it comes down to increasing the viability of an unknown commodity like 'Battleship' or 'Oblivion.'"

In the cases of "The Avengers" and "Iron Man 3," there were also international holidays to consider. Unlike in America, "May Day is a holiday throughout the world," Disney's Vice President of Distribution for Motion Pictures Dave Hollis tells Moviefone, by way of explaining the week-early overseas releases of those two films.

Hollis says he doesn't know when or why Hollywood shifted from simultaneous worldwide "day and date" releases to a staggered rollout schedule where the U.S. comes last. But he does say that such release patterns work well for Disney's event movies, since the buzz from successful international releases helps generate excitement among American moviegoers. "There's a trickling effect as these movies move into the domestic space," he says. "It creates a wisdom-of-crowds mentality."

Still, does the delayed domestic release mean that the U.S. market is now an afterthought? "The truth is, with the emergence of Russia and China and other foreign territories as premium box office markets, the United States is starting to become just another territory on the studios' release schedule," Bock says."This global strategy is becoming a more common occurrence each year as blockbusters are adapting to a worldwide release pattern instead of one that is U.S.-centric."

Hollis, however, suggests that such a release strategy is the natural result of crafting movies targeted toward audiences everywhere, not just American viewers. Action spectacles like superhero movies, where the threats are global and the dialogue isn't that important, are built to work in countries throughout the world. "These movies transcend geography and culture," Hollis says. "They have a universal appeal."]]> Sun, 5 May 2013 14:14:54 EDT 3219898 nearly $200 million it already earned in overseas markets this weekend. The movie's a certified smash even before a single American ticketbuyer has seen it.

In fact, Hollywood accountants are bracing for good news this summer. There are a lot of potential blockbusters; the analysts at Box Office Mojo are predicting that as many as 20 movies could cross the $100 million threshold in North American theaters.

Then again, that seems like an especially optimistic number. With the crowded schedule that makes up the first half of the summer season, there are bound to be some disappointments as well -- some much-touted movies where sales will fail to live up to the hype.

Here, then, are Moviefone's own guesses as to what will be the biggest hits of summer 2013, as well as which movies we're worried will underperform.

BELIEVE THE HYPE
"Iron Man 3" (May 3): The good will generated by 2012's gargantuan "The Avengers" will still be strong enough to buoy this threequel to the top of the summer heap. With its pole position as the first summer release, it'll have four full months to rake in the bucks. The overseas take so far suggests that the buzz on this one is justified, so there's no reason the film won't earn well over $300 million in the U.S. and Canada.

"Star Trek Into Darkness" (May 17): After the success of J.J. Abrams's 2009 reboot, "Trek" fans are primed for another adventure of the young Enterprise crew. Few are better than the guy behind "Lost" and "Super 8" at drawing out excitement over mysterious plots. Keen anticipation over this visually lush 3D adventure, and over the secretive nature of the villain (Benedict Cumberbatch), should drive huge opening weekend business and a total of just over $300 million.

"Man of Steel" (June 14): We're a little worried that star Henry Cavill (who?) will be overwhelmed by colorful supporting players like Russell Crowe and Michael Shannon. Otherwise, this Superman reboot seems to be doing everything right. It should be able to leap $275 million in a single bound.

"Monsters University" (June 21): This Pixar prequel should do what the CGI cartoon house's movies usually do, which is rake in more than $250 million from family audiences.

"Fast & Furious 6" (May 24): The rare action franchise that has only gotten more popular and more successful as it's aged. This installment takes The Rock, Vin Diesel, and the rest of the leadfoot gang to England, where we'll see how fast they can drive on the wrong side of the road. Probably fast enough to earn another $200 million.

HONORABLE MENTION:
For "World War Z" (June 21), Brad Pitt and zombies seems like a match made in summer movie heaven. After Melissa McCarthy's success this winter with "Identity Thief," her teaming with Sandra Bullock for another raunchy, R-rated comedy in "The Heat" (June 28) should do sizzling business. Along with "Monsters University," Steve Carell's "Despicable Me 2" (July 3) should be one of the summer's biggest animated hits. Hugh Jackman's last solo X-Men foray wasn't all it was cracked up to be, but anything Marvel is a license to print money, so his "The Wolverine" (July 26) should do fine. August is often a dead zone, but we're looking forward to seeing Matt Damon in "Elysium" (Aug. 9), director Neil Blomkamp's follow-up to his sci-fi sleeper "District 9."

OVERHYPED?
"The Great Gatsby" (May 10): Great cast (Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan), but do we really need to see Fitzgerald in 3D? Baz Luhrmann is a visionary director, but that doesn't necessarily translate into summer dollars.

"The Hangover Part III" (May 24): After the disappointing "Part II," is anyone really clamoring to see this one? Plus, it's competing for the same audience of young males as "Fast & Furious 6," opening on the same day.

"After Earth" (May 31): It's seldom smart to bet against Will or Jaden Smith, not to mention both of them together. But director M. Night Shyamalan hasn't exactly been on a roll lately, and the film could take a pounding from Memorial Day entries "Fast & Furious 6" and "The Hangover Part III."

"The Lone Ranger" (July 3): Johnny Depp's unhinged performances are usually delightful, but with his Kabuki-looking Tonto, he's trying to revive a character even creakier than Barnabas Collins of "Dark Shadows." Also, not to slag that nice Armie Hammer, but who goes to see a movie where the sidekick is more charismatic than the hero? Given how expensive and troubled this production was, it'll either be a modest success or an epic failure.

"Pacific Rim" (July 12): Guillermo Del Toro's monsters-vs.-robots epic has geek cred off the charts, but despite what buzz says are stunning visuals, this might not break out beyond the director's fan base.

ALSO-RANS:
"White House Down" (June 28) has a few things going for it (star Channing Tatum, master-of-disaster director Roland Emmerich), but didn't "Olympus Has Fallen" steal its thunder? "Grown Ups 2" (July 12), "Red 2" (July 19), "The Smurfs 2" (July 31), "300: Rise of an Empire" (August 2), "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters" (August 7), and "Kick-Ass 2" (August 16) all sound like sequels no one asked for. Same with "Cars" spin-off "Planes" (August 9), which was originally meant to go straight to video.]]> Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:50:04 EDT 3174905 "Valley Girl" could have (like) been a (totally) lame teensploitation comedy (fer shure), created to capitalize on the novelty 1982 hit song by Frank Zappa and his 14-year-old daughter, Moon Unit. Instead, the film turned the song's satiric jabs at the slang and fashions of the San Fernando Valley set (soon popular among teenage girls nationwide) into a clever teen romantic comedy, one that celebrated the subculture's materialism and fads in style, speech, and music, all while gently poking fun at them. What's more, the movie (released 30 years ago this week, on April 29, 1983) launched several careers (notably, that of Nicolas Cage) and influenced many of the teen-girl comedies of manners that followed (including "Heathers," "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Clueless," and "Mean Girls").

Of course, not everyone involved in the film saw their careers flourish as Cage's did. Here, then, is a roundup of the fortunes that befell the makers of "Valley Girl," from the trippendicular to the bogus.



CORRECTION: An earlier version of this feature had the incorrect photo of Michael Bowen. It has been updated with the correct picture.]]> Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:43:21 EDT 3164849 Tom Cruise's "Oblivion" opened in North America on Thursday night, the 50-year-old must have been grinning his famous grin. Before the movie had sold a single ticket here, it was a surefire hit.

In his native land, Cruise takes a lot of ribbing, whether for his headline-generating personal life (especially since 2005, the year of the couch-jump) or for the seeming shrinkage of his star-power (again, especially since 2005). The estimated $38.2 million "Oblivion" earned this weekend marked his biggest domestic opening since "Mission: Impossible III" seven years ago. Some will call it a comeback, others will call it a fluke or last hurrah from a middle-aged action hero desperately trying to hold on to his relevance in an industry that relentlessly moves on to the next big (young) thing.

But the truth is, Cruise has been a remarkably consistent box office winner, even since he started raising eyebrows eight years ago with his ill-fated romance with Katie Holmes and his increasingly vocal pronouncements about Scientology. Even his weakest movies routinely earn upwards of $200 million worldwide. ("Oblivion" is well on its way, with $150.2 million earned worldwide already.) There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that Cruise cultivates the overseas audience better than almost anyone else. The other is that he knows what works for his personal brand -- what audiences want to see him do.

While Americans may snicker or scratch their heads at the latest tabloid headlines about Cruise, audiences abroad don't seem to care. His star has not dimmed in overseas markets, where he was smart enough to open "Oblivion" a week before it opened here. The movie pulled in $60.4 million last weekend and about $77 million total before a single North American moviegoer had seen it.

If the U.S. looks like an afterthought in the typical Cruise movie-release plan, so be it. His movies routinely earn most of their grosses abroad, often as much as 60 or 70 percent. Foreign fans have an almost personal relationship with the star, who routinely travels to overseas premieres and spends hours outside at each one, shaking hands and signing autographs. Other stars attend foreign premieres, too, but Cruise, more than anyone, seems enthusiastic about hobnobbing with his fans.

Maybe that's why Cruise action pictures that did modest or lackluster business here -- "Valkyrie," "Jack Reacher," "Knight & Day" -- flourished in foreign markets, where each earned well over $100 million. He's made nine movies that have earned more than $350 million worldwide, including all four installments to date of his "Mission: Impossible" franchise, which by itself has earned more than $2 billion worldwide.

In fact, in the last 15 years, the only Cruise movies that haven't made more than $200 million around the world are the ones where he's stretched the most -- "Eyes Wide Shut," "Magnolia," "Lions for Lambs," "Tropic Thunder," and "Rock of Ages." And only those last two saw him earn more in America than overseas.

Even overseas, then, fans don't want to see him stray too far from the type of roles he's best known for -- men of action, men who sprint toward the camera, men whose every straining muscle is visible. (Cruise works very hard to make sure he's seen working very hard, including performing many of his own stunts, as if audiences will give him an A for effort -- which they often do.) Seeing him sing ("Rock of Ages"), rant about politics ("Lions for Lambs"), indulge his libido ("Eyes Wide Shut," "Magnolia"), or crack wise in a fat suit ("Tropic Thunder") -- not so much.

Cruise also tends to gravitate to roles about guys with daddy issues, men trying to please absent or disapproving fathers or father figures. (This has been true since "Risky Business" 30 years ago, but it also includes such films as "Top Gun," "The Color of Money," "Rain Man," "Days of Thunder," "A Few Good Men," "Mission: Impossible," "Magnolia," "Vanilla Sky," "Minority Report," and now, "Oblivion.") We'll leave it to the armchair psychologists to figure out why Cruise (who had a famously troubled relationship with his own father) is drawn to such roles, or why audiences like to see Cruise play such characters.

Cruise is savvy about protecting his brand in other ways, too. He tends to pick directors who have a strong vision, filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick, Neil Jordan, Brian De Palma, Paul Thomas Anderson, Cameron Crowe, Sydney Pollack, Michael Mann, Brad Bird, Bryan Singer, J.J. Abrams, and now, Joseph Kosinski. ("Oblivion" makes clear, as did "Tron: Legacy," that Kosinski has a visual flair for sci-fi and is not daunted by complicated plots.) Many A-list stars prefer to work with directors they can dominate, but Cruise seems confident that, in the hands of a capable storyteller, he'll make compelling movies that still highlight his essential Cruise-ness.

So go ahead, make all the Tom Cruise jokes you want, but he'll still remain an A-list star as long as he feels like running and jumping and piloting fast vehicles and dangling from wires. If he keeps giving the foreign audience what it wants, then when it comes to homegrown snark, Cruise can remain, well, oblivious.]]> Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:40:46 EDT 3128239





]]> Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:58:26 EDT 3072258 "42" is all of these things, and yet it outperformed expectations in its chart-topping theatrical debut this weekend.

The film had been expected to earn no more than $20 million in its first three days. In fact, it earned an estimated $27.3 million, the biggest debut ever for a baseball movie. (The previous record-holder was sports comedy "The Benchwarmers," which opened with $19.7 million in 2006.) As a result, previously unknown Chadwick Boseman, who plays the hall-of-famer, suddenly looks like an overnight star.

How did "42" manage to hit it out of the park? Here's what it did right:

Broad Appeal: "42" seemed to offer something for everyone. The story of how Robinson broke the color line in major league baseball was expected to draw African-American audiences, but Robinson's heroism so transcended civil rights activism and sports that it should also have held appeal for people of all backgrounds. As a historical drama set in the 1940s, it would appeal to older audiences, but the sports action and continuing relevance of Robinson's achievements gave the movie appeal beyond the nostalgic or educational. And even though it was a sports movie, it played surprisingly well among women (who made up 52 percent of the audience, according to distributor Warner Bros.), perhaps because the movie also gave emphasis to Jackie's romance with wife-to-be Rachel (Nicole Beharie).

Good Reviews: Most critics liked the film, finding it uplifting even though it offered few surprises or character quirks in its straightforward, warts-free portrait of the Brooklyn Dodger. To the older audience that was the primary target for "42," good reviews still matter.

Strong Word-of-Mouth: Unlike critics, audiences don't mind being manipulated and having their buttons pushed. For many filmgoers, that's why they go to the movies in the first place. "42" pushed all the right audience-response buttons, and as a result, the film earned a rare A+ rating from CinemaScore. Viewers who saw it on Friday were especially eager to recommend it to others over the rest of the weekend.

Good Timing: Warner Bros. was smart to release the movie as baseball season opened, and close to Jackie Robinson Day (April 15, the 66th anniversary of his debut with the Dodgers). But the studio was also smart to release it in April, when grown-ups are starved for quality mainstream movies, when the only real competition is playing in limited release in the art-houses, and when summer blockbusters are still a few weeks out from stealing thunder away from smaller movies like this modest ($40 million) production.

Stellar Marketing: At 70, Harrison Ford is far from the box office draw he once was, but the often taciturn star was unusually enthusiastic about promoting his supporting role in "42" (he plays Branch Rickey, the Dodgers general manager who makes history by hiring Robinson). He was on seemingly every talk show, appearing not just chatty but even moved by the poignant place Robinson's story holds in American history. Having Ford make the rounds surely helped attract older audiences, but Warners cleverly attracted younger ones, too, by using in its marketing the anthem "Brooklyn (We Go Hard)" by Jay-Z. The effect was to make the movie seem contemporary, relevant, and anything but nostalgic by connecting the original Brooklyn sports hero with the modern-day entertainment mogul who helped bring big-league sports back to Brooklyn (basketball's Nets) for the first time in the more than 50 years since the Dodgers vacated the borough for Los Angeles.

The Right Brand: "42" is just the latest example of a big-studio production whose familiar brand is such a strong selling point that even an unknown can play the lead. In this case, the pre-sold brand was Jackie Robinson; he, not Boseman, was the real star of this film. Usually, that notion applies to big-budget special effects blockbusters based on comic-book superheroes. But Robinson was a real-life superhero to many in the 1940s and '50s and remains so today. He was bigger than baseball. This weekend, more than 40 years after his death, he proved he was bigger than movies, too.

EARLIER: '42' Review: 10 Things You Should Know]]> Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:44:59 EDT 3081232 who died Friday at 87, was a beloved comic whirlwind for generations, one whose influence on movie comics from Robin Williams to Jim Carrey to Sacha Baron Cohen is very apparent.

So why didn't he make a bigger splash on film? The paradox of WInters's 50-year screen career was that film wasn't a big enough medium to contain him. He did his best work on records and TV, where his surrealist, improvisational genius could run free in short bursts. In movies, however, he was often constrained to a single character (though in some animated films, he played as many as three), which is why many of his best films are ones where he appeared in brief but unforgettable cameos.

The one movie that did give him a broad enough canvas was actually his first major role, the sprawling "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World," where he was a larger-than-life force of nature. But even when invisible and restrained, as he was in his role as Papa Smurf in the recent "The Smurfs," he was an unforgettable comic presence, one hinting at a much grander, more eccentric life beyond what he could display on screen.
]]> Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:57:51 EDT 3071726
The woman who led Great Britain from 1979 to 1990 cast a long shadow over filmmaking in her country during her time in office, inspiring much reaction (pro and con) among filmmakers, inspiring some classic movies, and unwittingly giving major career boosts to some of our era's greatest movie talents.

The conventional wisdom about Thatcher's impact on pop culture was that performing artists, being a lefty, proletarian bunch, hated her with a passion. Certainly the British musicians of the '80s, from Billy Bragg to Pink Floyd, composed numerous bitter protest anthems condemning her as a war-mongering tyrant who was strangling the working class. But the movies British filmmakers created during her three terms in office were a lot more ambivalent, balancing their contempt for her administration's jingoistic patriotism and its apparent disdain for foreigners and gay people with their grudging admission that the entrepreneurism that she inspired wasn't all bad.

The emblematic movie of the era was 1985's "My Beautiful Laundrette," written by Hanif Kureishi. He was no fan of Thatcher's, calling her "vulgar" and saying she "actively hated culture, as she recognized that it was a form of dissent." Nonetheless, his breakthrough film had a more nuanced view of her policies and their effects. The central character, Omar, is a Londoner of Southeast Asian descent who is trying to start a business and to romance on the sly a gay white punk named Johnny. The result is a comedy of manners that juggles Omar's conficting issues -- immigration, cultural assimiliation, the closet, entrepreneurialsm -- as he tries to find a place in a world that seems hostile toward him on all fronts. The film helped put on the map its director Stephen Frears ("The Grifters," "The Queen") and its co-star, Daniel Day-Lewis, who played Johnny. It also elevated Kureishi, who continued to explore similar issues of money, sexuality, and melting-pot culture of the Thatcher years in his next film, "Sammy and Rosie Get Laid."

Part of what made Day-Lewis a star was his chameleonic versatility. In the U.S., released on the same day as "Laundrette" was "A Room With a View," in which he played a stuffy upper-class twit named Cecil. (Critics marveled that the gay, peroxide-haired punk and the snobby, brunet aristocrat were played by the same actor.) "Room" also turned out to be emblematic of the Thatcher period.

On the surface, the period comedy (an adaptation of E.M. Forster's 1908 novel) seemed to be a celebration of traditional English virtues (and English xenophobia), but its agenda was more subversive. For one thing, it featured an unusual amount of male frontal nudity. Also, Helena Bonham Carter's heroine ends up not with Day-Lewis's traditional British exemplar but with Julian Sands' free-spirited bohemian. The movie made stars out of Bonham Carter and Sands, and it marked the first major worldwide box office success for the Merchant/Ivory producing/directing team that dominated literary and period filmmaking for the next decade or so (with such movies as "Howards End" and "The Remains of the Day").

Like "Room," many films commenting the Thatcher period while it was happening were allegorical pieces set in the past. It wasn't hard to see "Chariots of Fire," for instance, as a flag-waver about 1980s Britain even though it celebrated British Olympic athletes of the 1920s. Cult favorite "Withnail & I," set at the bitter end of the 1960s, seemed to be just as much about the excesses and privations of 1987, the year it was made. Same with "A Private Function," starring Michael Palin and Maggie Smith, a satire about the theft of an illicit pig raised for a ceremonial dinner, set during the years of postwar food rationing but also clearly commenting on the present (it came out in 1984).

Other satires approached the Thatcher years through surrealism.

"Withnail" writer/director Bruce Robinson and his star, Richard E. Grant, teamed up again in 1989 for "How to Get Ahead in Advertising," a contemporary satirical allegory about the extremes of commercialism and materialism in the Thatcher era. Grant plays an ad-man who develops a boil on his head that soon develops a mouth and a mind and eventually threatens to take over from the original head. Bill Forsyth's gentle 1984 comedy "Local Hero" involves a Scottish seaside village whose residents are only too eager to sell their land to an American oilman, only to have everyone's plans run aground as the magic of the place begins to reveal itself.

In Monty Python's 1983 feature "The Meaning of Life," the opening short, "The Crimson Permanent Assurance," spoofs the high-finance world of the greed-is-good decade by potraying financiers literally as marauding pirates. Python's Terry Gilliam went on to lampoon England's government -- both its creeping totalitarianism and its blundering ineptitude -- through the elaborate, dreamlike, retrofitted sci-fi of 1985's "Brazil."

The decade closed with Peter Greenaway's scabrous "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover," an ornate and gruesome allegory about a philistine gangster (representing ruthless and crass Thatcherite commercialism much as Grant's boil did) who dines on lavish meals while despoiling culture (in the form of the Lover, the meek scholar who has an affair with the gangster's wife, who exacts an equally brutal revenge on her husband). The movie provided major career boosts for writer/director Greenaway as well as stars Michael Gambon and Helen Mirren.

Still, there were some films that looked at Thatcherism straight on, without the disguises of allegory. In "Educating Rita," a Cockney hairdresser (future "Harry Potter" actress Julie Walters) broadens her horizons with literary college classes, only to find that her entree into the world of highbrow culture has alienated her from her family and her working-class peers. Nineteen eighty-eight saw the release of "High Hopes," in which an enervated old-school socialist rails against the yuppies who've taken over his London neighborhood. It marked the first theatrical feature director Mike Leigh had made in 17 years and re-launched his career.

Throughout the next quarter-century, Leigh would make celebrated films analyzing the fallout of the Thatcher era, from "Life Is Sweet" to "Secrets & Lies" to "Another Year." (Fellow class-conscious directors Ken Loach and Alan Clarke would take up similar banners.) Even mainstream British comedies and dramas in the 1990s seemed to reflect the sense that Thatcherism had made life much harder for working-class Brits -- see, for example, "The Full Monty," "Brassed Off," and "Billy Elliott." The movie "V for Vendetta" -- set in a dystopian future but based on Alan Moore's graphic novel published serially from 1982 to '85 and openly inspired by what the author saw as Thatcher's totalitarianist tendencies -- was still criticizing the former prime minister in 2006, a decade and a half after she left office.

The 2011 film "The Iron Lady" caused controversy over its portrayal of Thatcher even before it was released, since its star wasn't British and was known for holding political views well to the left of the woman she was portraying. Even though Meryl Streep ended up giving an unassailably convincing, Oscar-winning performance, the controversy continued. Thatcher fans were upset that the movie had focused so much on their heroine's dementia in the years following her retirement, while Thatcher haters found Streep's portrait far too sympathetic.

Both sides seemed unhappy that the movie focused more on her personality and indomitable will than on her policies, achievements, and failiures -- the reasons, after all, for her historical importance in the first place.

By the way, Streep was hardly the first actress to play Thatcher on the big screen. That honor belongs to Janet Brown, who played the then-prime minister at the end of 1981's "For Your Eyes Only." In a comic scene where she's on the phone with James Bond to thank him once again for saving the world -- unaware that she's actually talking to a parrot while 007 gets frisky with his latest conquest -- Brown's Thatcher comes off a pompous housewife.

Somewhere between Brown's dotty dowager and Streep's force of nature, there are probably countless interpretations of Margaret Thatcher, awaiting their close-up in the movies. Meanwhile, her legacy on screen, as in life, will continue to define her nation for years to come.]]> Mon, 8 Apr 2013 20:33:11 EDT 3039308 opened at No. 1 this weekend, scaring up an estimated $26 million from horror film fans. Still, that's a remarkable number, considering that its about 11 times what the 1981 "Evil Dead" earned over its entire domestic theatrical run. In general, it's an impressive number considering that the entire original "Evil Dead" trilogy (including 1987's "Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn" and 1993's "Army of Darkness") was not widely popular; all three movies together grossed about $6 million less over their lifetimes than the remake earned in three days.

Nonetheless, considering that Sam Raimi was a barely-known filmmaker when he directed the first three movies on the cheap, the 'Evil Dead' films have had a surprisingly long and influential afterlife. The 1981 film launched the careers of Raimi (who became known as the director of the blockbuster "Spider-Man" trilogy that starred Tobey Maguire), character actor Bruce Campbell, and longtime Raimi producer Rob Tapert (all three men have a production credit on the 2013 film, though it was directed and co-written by newcomer Fede Alvarez), as well as future Oscar-winning director Joel Coen, who served as an assistant editor on the original "Evil Dead." Moreover, its innovative camera work and special effects influenced a generation of directors.

By the time of the remake, 30 years of horror filmmakers and fans had grown up with those innovations, and with cabin-in-the-woods chillers. So an audience was primed to return to the source -- or visit it for the first time.

Here's an index of figures, many of them from Box Office Mojo, tracing how the franchise grew from micro-budgeted fringe fare to mainstream blockbuster status.

Budget of the original 1981 "Evil Dead": $350,000

Budget of the new "Evil Dead": $17 million

Lifetime gross (domestic) of the 1981 "Evil Dead": $2.4 million

Lifetime gross (domestic) of the "Evil Dead" trilogy: $19.8 million

Opening weekend estimated gross (domestic) of the 2013 "Evil Dead": $26 million

Opening weekend estimated gross (foreign) of the 2013 "Evil Dead": $4.5 million

Largest previous gross (domestic) of an "Evil Dead" movie: $11.5 million ("Army of Darkness")

Largest previous opening weekend (domestic) of an "Evil Dead" movie: $4.4 million ("Army of Darkness")

Gross (domestic) of the "Evil Dead" trilogy, adjusted for inflation: $40.7 million

Number of then-current TV regulars appearing in the 1981 "Evil Dead": 0

Number of current TV regulars in the 2013 "Evil Dead": 2 (Jane Levy of "Suburgatory," Jessica Lucas of "Cult")

Gross to date (domestic) of Sam Raimi's other current movie, "Oz the Great and Powerful": $212.8 million

Number of screenwriters on the 1981 "Evil Dead": 1 (Sam Raimi)

Number of screenwriters on the 2013 remake: 3 (Fede Alvarez, Diablo Cody, and Rodo Sayagues)

Number of projects (movies, TV episodes) on which Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell have collaborated: 86

Widest previous release (domestic) for an "Evil Dead" film: 1,391 screens ("Army of Darkness")

Current release (domestic) of "Evil Dead": 3,025 screens

Gallons of fake blood in the original "Evil Dead": 200 to 300

Gallons of fake blood in the remake: More than 50,000
]]> Sun, 7 Apr 2013 14:54:53 EDT 3033681
There was much to admire about the legendary film critic -- his taste, his generosity to friends and strangers (especially writers who basked in his encouragement), and his tireless work ethic, even as his health deteriorated and robbed him of the ability to eat, drink, and speak. Most of all, there was that indomitable voice, the one so certain of the rightness of its opinions (about movies, religion, politics, rice cookers, London walking trips, and so much else), the one that remained optimistic about its own future even as recently as two days before he died at age 70.

But the one thing Roger had that no other critic (save his longtime TV partner Gene Siskel, who died in 1999) ever had or ever will have again is the ear of a mass audience. Having brought intelligent film criticism to TV, Siskel and Ebert once wielded the most powerful thumbs in showbiz. By the time he died on April 4, however, Ebert's thumbs-up or thumbs-down had long since ceased to exert the same power, He and Siskel made film reviewing look (deceptively) like something anybody could do. Popularizing film reviewing led ultimately to the devaluing of the profession at newspapers and magazines and the flooding of the Internet with cheap critical opinion, to the point where Ebert was treated as just another voice howling in the wilderness. Whether or not he'd intended to be, Ebert was the architect of the unmaking of the world he'd built.

It's impossible to imagine now that a newspaper would hire a 24-year-old movie critic (as the Chicago Sun-Times did in 1967) and let him stay on the job for 46 years. Ebert told me last year that he was fortunate to have that job fall in his lap, though he was also fortunate enough to come along at a time when both movies and movie criticism were undergoing their own revolutions. Critics like Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, and Manny Farber (all exemplars to Ebert, the way he would be for subsequent generations of reviewers) were pushing the envelope to enlarge the way people wrote and spoke about movies, but they were doing so in response to the works of American and foreign directors (from Bergman to Scorsese) who were expanding the creative possibilities of film. Today, when moviemakers seem so much more timid and less ambitious, it seems less likely that a Kael or Sarris or Ebert will arise to invent a new way to talk about movies.

Ebert's expansion to TV, he said, was a similar happenstance. That Siskel and Ebert (and later, Ebert alone) should have become the most heeded film reviewers on the planet was largely a serendipitous accident of being in the right place at the right time.

Still, no one took that football and ran farther with it than Ebert. It was lucky for the rest of us that he had good taste in movies, but there was also a missionary zeal that no one (perhaps not even Ebert, initially) realized was inherent in his work. Again, we are all fortunate that his enthusiasm was not for a particular school of criticism, but merely for having a critical and independent eye. His scholarship and teaching, his curation of his own film festival, and his cultivation of other writers were all intended not to force a particular set of standards for criticism but to encourage viewers to think about what they watched and to encourage critics to express those thoughts with clarity and eloquence, as he did.

That's why, even as film criticism as a profession seemed to be dying all around him (with many fingering the Internet as the chief culprit), Ebert waxed enthusiastic about the Web as a place to discover gifted amateur critics from around the world, new voices that might not otherwise have been heard. He recruited them as his "Far-Flung Correspondents" and brought many of them to America to speak at panels at Ebertfest. Today, it seems doubtful that anyone will ever make a living at criticism again (certainly no one will ever profit from it as handsomely as Ebert did for 46 years), but Ebert has helped ensure that criticism around the world will have a digital future.

Ebert himself seemed poised for a bright digital future, even as his health failed. Having battled since 2002 the cancers that had robbed him of his jaw and his voice, he found that voice again on the Internet as a blogger, Twitter personality, and e-mailer. (He was kind enough to strike up a brief e-mail correspondence with me after I wrote an essay for Moviefone exploring his legacy on the occasion of his 70th birthday last year.) His writing in recent years seemed more urgent and personal than ever, not because he seemed to be living on borrowed time, but because he literally could not express himself except at the computer keyboard.

His announcement just two days ago that he was taking what he called "a leave of presence" -- cutting down on his reviewing because his cancer had returned -- should have put us all on notice that his torrent of words was finally going to run dry, but there was no indication that the spigot would be shut off so abruptly and so soon. Ebert may have been putting the bravest possible face on his latest health woes, but his news was accompanied by the assurance that his latest Web venture, a revamped online company called Ebert Digital with a comprehensive archive of his tens of thousands of reviews, was on its way. The company was planning to re-launch RogerEbert.com on April 9. it will certainly be a fitting tribute for Ebert to live on in cyberspace in a way that real life denied him.

Whatever the future of his online properties, one thing certainly will continue: the conversation he started. His own voice may have lost its reach, due to the collapse of the profession he made and then unmade, but it was never silenced, and it was never less than welcoming to other voices, even those that disagreed with his opinions. Reviews are fleeting -- consumer dispatches meant to tell you whether or not to spend your money on a film during its opening weekend -- and today, few remember whether Ebert gave a particular movie thumbs-up or thumbs-down. What they will remember, I hope, is his criticism, the notion that movies matter enough for us to keep talking about them long after the house lights come up, and the notion that each new viewing (and new viewer) brings another reason to talk, so that the dialogue about movies need never end.

]]> Thu, 4 Apr 2013 20:17:13 EDT 3017529