August 17, 2006

The "Eyes" Have It

Aaron Woodley's nifty Rhinoceros Eyes, a film our own Walter Chaw championed a few years back, is finally coming to DVD. This would normally be cause enough for celebration, but take a closer look at the keepcase:

I believe this marks the first time that we've been blurbed on a retail release. Walter joins some pretty elite company, as both EYE MAGAZINE's Jason Anderson and the CHICAGO TRIBUNE's Michael Wimington are also quoted within the cover art. I'm really proud of him.

In the meantime, check out the mothersite's latest offerings: The Illusionist/Half Nelson; 2001 Maniacs; Equinox; and Harry & Tonto. Eclectic week, to say the least.


Nate said...

That's awesome. Congrats, guys.

I'm curious - was this a surprise, or did they ask for permission to print the quote?

Vikram said...

That's pretty cool...the next step is FFC on adverts, movie posters, commercials...

Erin said...

Very cool! Congrats!

Kirk said...

From the review/interview, I'm defintely sold on a Netflix rental. When's the release date?

The calendar says the 15th of August but I can only find it on Amazon's canadian site.

Rich said...

Congrats! On a related note, how's that radio programme spot going? I think it was mentioned in this blog a while back.

Alex Jackson said...

From the review/interview, I'm defintely sold on a Netflix rental.


Notice the blurb was from his intro to the interview and not from the review?

I kind of prefer "Rhinoceros Eyes is a lovely, dark fairy tale told in unembarrassed allegory with verve and intelligence" if past history hasn't taught us that words like "allegory" and "verve" tend to alienate the Blockbuster crowd.

Do I sound like I'm pissing on the parade? Don't mean to, I'm very happy.

Bill C said...

Nate: It was actually a complete surprise, which is why I'm a little astonished they got the site's URL correct. (Even with heavy intervention, we're usually referred to as a dot-com.)

Kirk: I thought Lionsgate was releasing it day-and-date with Maple's Canadian disc but maybe it's been postponed Stateside.

Norm Wilner said...

Congratulations, guys!

I still don't get the movie, but congratulations!

Jared said...

Would check it out if that had a prayer of being rentable around here.

Are you guys gonna do a review for "Snakes on a Plane"? There's a huge dearth of them on the net.

Bill C said...

Scroll down a little, Jared--some Snakes talk in the Bruno Kirby thread.

Anonymous said...

kudos for using LOL in a review, even if it's a Lohan flick.

Tim Norberg said...

Just read an interesting article claiming that the new habit of not prescreening movies for critics is actually a good thing, as now newspapers and such can feel free to review the tiny independent films they actually want to, instead of just the big, soulless blockbusters that usually get all the prominent front page coverage.

Needless to say, I found the article and the assumptions contained therein quite problematic.(not even counting its unspoken bias towards nonprint media) Instead of lamenting the state of mainstream movies and their audiences, the author assumes that what everyone really wants to see is cover pieces on "The Inconvenient Truth" and other niche indie films that deserve coverage over the big movies everyone is going to see regardless of coverage.

Any thoughts?

James Allen said...

Re: William Arnold's essay

Once again we get the oft repeated mantra that indie films, in and of themselves, are better and deserve extra attention. I've been reading this nonsense for years and it still grates on my brain.

The rest of the article is puff. Of course he doesn't believe that screening will be a thing of the past, because as a critic, he's just so damned important, and his say so is crucial to the success of the film.*

And that's where I really lose it. A critic shouldn't give one good goddamn how much money a film makes. Critics are and should never think of themselves as part of the industry. They are outside observers. This is not to say a film a critic loves shouldn't be championed, but only on its own artistic terms.

Yes, the paradigm has changed. Something like 20+ films haven't been screened this year, and most of them stink (Zoom got 0% at rottentomatoes, one shudders at the thought.) On the other hand, a bunch of them made money. No, the screening will never completely disappear, the prestige/oscar-bait will always get the advanced look, but a larger portion of films with their pre-existing fan bases/ market will bypass this. Snakes on a Plane seems to be a full realization of the new breed: the internet buzz-marketed film, and I don't expect it to be the last. Print reviews just aren't needed in such cases, and the internet guys (still considered second stringers) are left to fend for themselves; the web being such a big pool, no need to bother, right?


*Like the Friday section of his damned paper is the be-all and end-all of film promotion. I've had An Inconvenient Truth shoved down my throat from all angles. Where's he been?