Director's Cut
Last uploaded: Monday, May 4, 1998

Feedback on the "Godzilla" decision

Let me first start off by saying thank you to all those who sent me their thoughts, opinions and arguements for and against my decision to not upload the detailed Godzilla toy image I received. I honestly didn't expect to receive hundreds of messages, and if you haven't received a reply from me this is the only way feasable for me to thank all of you. I've read every single email and seeing such passionate responses made me feel good about who's reading CA (yes, even the angry emails, because the majority were polite and well-thought out.) Before I share some of the responses I received, I just want to quickly remind everyone my precise reasons for deciding not to post the image up until the time of the first public showing of the film. I still feel that this is the best decision at the present moment. Right or wrong, Sony is marketing this film based on one selling point: come see what Godzilla looks like. I feel that if I reveal that 'key secret' right now, it will take away from the enjoyment of the film. This is the most hyped and anticipated film of the May releases -- and I honestly think it'd be posted across the length and breadth of the 'net. This isn't like posting pictures of half-constructed sets, pre-production designs, script reviews, images of licensed product or Tom Cruise in drag in Eyes Wide Shut (that's next week.) I think that by posting the image right now you go over the line from merely taking quick glimpses of how the magic trick was done to bringing the lights up full and watching the magician perform it again in slow-motion -- before you've even seen the trick performed.

I still think it's not a full 100% solution to the situation; when you discuss ethics, everyone has a different interpretation of where to draw the line. There are a lot of you who have no problem looking at the design of the new big G and still plunking down $8 bucks opening night and walking out on an adrenaline rush, myself included. Or people who head on over to Drew's Script-O-Rama (myself included) who check out Don MacPherson's draft of The Avengers and still are looking forward to seeing the film. But it's the percentage of people who'll ruin the surprise for those who don't want it ruined that I fear -- the people who'll plaster the image on websites, tv shows, magazines or wherever that prevents me from going forward and placing a link to it on the Godzilla page itself. You think I'm being paranoid? Last week I found out a company simply 'cut and pasted' one of my web pages -- my own bloody writing -- and claimed it as the work of one of their own. This is a magazine that did this. I've got reason to fear the worst.

Will I act differently next time? I might -- hey, I freely admit that I'm learning this as I go along. Each case (and 'key') has to be weighed individually. If a photo showing Darth Maul chopping Ben Kenobi in half with his lightsaber is handed to me, thus revealing the secret that the Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars: A New Hope) is a clone, I'd probably not show it. All I can say is that each case is unique and should be weighed on its own merits. That's why I don't scan in storyboards or full scripts -- CA is the format that I've chosen to present the material. And there's enough secrets blown wide open on here that studios get pissed off at anyway...

(And before someone goes off half-cocked here -- no, I don't know if someone gets cut in half in the new Star Wars -- but it'd be kinda cool to see, huh?)

I hope by showing you some of the feedback and commenting on it you'll get a clearer picture of the reasons why I made my decision, and how greatly there exists different views of not just the question but the answer as well. Here was the first of the hundreds I received...

"How self-serving is it to tell us you are not posting a picture of Godzilla? Why not just not post it and not say anything about it? We are big boys and girls you know, we can choose wether or not we want our surprises to be spoiled or not - we don't need you to deciede for us. You have seen the picture, is the movie now ruined for you? Will you enjoy it any less? If the awnser is no, then just post the pic and stop being so high and mighty. Just present the information and let the people choose if they want to see it or not - that is what the internet is all about. Or have you forgotten?" -- Anonymous.

Great way to start off, huh? Since I've already answered my reasons why (again), I want to talk about this scooper's second sentence, "Why not just not post it and not say anything about it?"

This isn't a case of me saying "nyah nyah" and giving you the finger en masse. Some of you must realize that in the course of running CA for the past three years, I've had a number of well-known industry people come forward and scoop me information. Some of those people have no problem in revealing who they are; others use a pseudonym or just prefer to remain anonymous. I also get things sent to me, mostly scripts. I take that information and use it on the film's pages, or speak about it on Director's Cut. So, if Producer A tells me information about a film they're working on and asks to remain anonymous, I agree to it.

Ok, so picture this: suppose Mr. X sends me a .jpg of a key secret. Suppose I decide it is a 'key' and that if I post it now I feel I'll be taking away from the public's right to enjoy the picture. If I didn't tell you, and then I posted it after the picture was in widespread release, would you think I was in the back pocket of the studio who made it?

Or what about this scenario: studio or individual Y is known to me through their previous scoops. I get a key secret (or for that matter, a negative test audience review, or something "bad") and run it by them to see if it checks out. They confirm it but feel uncomfortable about me posting it on CA. Is that a conflict of interest?

Somewhere along the way this place went from being a cool hobby of mine to an actual (even respected) news source. I'm stuck somewhere between the two and yes, a transformation is taking place. But -- and this is the bottom line you can judge me against -- I've always been up-front with my readership. If, one day, a movie I'm involved with is listed on CA, and I've been 'taken into priveledge' and I've been told some secrets that I've had to sign non-disclosures for, you'll get told. You might get a different and completely unexpected viewpoint of how that movie progresses from the inside -- imagine what I could've reported on the Titanic page if I were fortunate enough to have that happen -- but I'd be honest with you. If I'm directing/producing/starring/writing/serving donuts on the ultra Top Secret film event of '99, you'll know about it.

So when I got this picture and it looked genuine, one way or the other the notice had to be given to you.

Next letter:

A very thoughful, articulate email from 'Goober', a known and trusted scooper. Of all the letters, this one struck the most in me. You got to understand something here: I've worked on film sets before and have friends in the biz. I've also had a love of films and for the trailers since I was a kid. But this letter shows the razor I've got to walk when making a decision like this one. There really is no right or wrong answer -- either way, you'll be offending someone or outright angering them.

I've appended parts of the letter in the sake of keeping the person's identity anonymous.

"Coming Attractions and sites like Ain't It Cool News, Dark Horizons, etc., are for people that WANT to know everything about a movie before it comes out. For people like you and I, it ADDS to the experience of the movie. The people that it would ruin the movie for are NOT reading your site. Plus, you always include spoiler warnings for the people that don't want to know about major plot points, designs, etc., etc.

"Comparing posting the Godzilla pic to Matt Drudge falsely accusing someone of wife-beating is a completely wrong analogy. Those were false accusations. A closer analogy would be Drudge printing the Monica Lewinsky allegations before Newsweek did. Should he have printed those and broke the story? I say 'yes' and I HATE that whole sordid story. But, the 'spirit' of the Drudge Report is to break those kind of stories.

"Coming Attractions is a website that breaks details of upcoming films before their release dates. That's the 'spirit' of CA. To say that you're not going to 'cross the line' and post the pics because Dean Devlin and Sony don't want us to know what Godzilla looks like is completely insulting to us faithful fans of Coming Attractions. And, especially to those of us who have given you good inside information in the past. It feels like you're ripping us off.

"Here's why:

"Of course, they don't WANT us to know what Godzilla looks like. That's the whole point of your site! Stanley Kubrick doesn't want you to post plot points and photos from Eyes Wide Shut either. Why does Dean Devlin get special treatment?

"And, don't tell us it will 'ruin' the experience for us because that's insulting, too. We'll decide if seeing a picture of a Godzilla toy is going to ruin the experience for us! Just put a spoiler warning and let your fans decide. The Coming Attractions fans LIKE spoiler-type things like pics, plot points, inside info, etc.

"I don't know why you're deciding that it's time 'not to cross that line' at this time. I think it's a dangerous precedent and completely destroys my enjoyment of your site. It would be different if you were talking about posting a quicktime of the whole friggin' movie, but this is a picture of a toy for gosh sake!

"When you bow to Dean Devlin just because he personally contacted you, it's the beginning of the end for your site. It's like Harry Knowles being in Robert Rodriguez next movie. I'm glad he's getting a role because I love the guy, but don't you think it's a lot less likely that any 'juicy' scoop from that flick is gonna' be posted on AICN?

"If we hear that you're being flown out to the Godzilla world premiere, then I know that the 'spirit' of Coming Attractions is dead.

"Sincerely,
"A Concerned Fan
"

I've corresponded with this person since and sent a more detailed email as to my reasoning behind the decision; thankfully, the person saw that I had my heart in the right place, but they still didn't agree with the decision. That's ok by me, as long as it's clear to them there's no hidden agenda on my part.

Movie gossip sites like my own and the others have broken lots of stories first, including secrets and even endings of films. I try personally to not blow any major surprises, or if I do, I post spoiler warnings. When I used the analogy of Matt Drudge, I was speaking about the power websites like mine now possess. Typing something like that certainly sounds egotistical of myself, but when CNN Entertainment News mentions that the new James Bond movie title is 'Aquator', and it started here on CA, you start getting a little nervous.

You have to judge what is news and what isn't. I've been getting scoops about who's bedding who in Hollywood, or so-and-so is on heroin, or this person did this to this person since day one. 99.9% of the time you can't use the information and relate it to a project; it's just gossip. If I were reporting politics, or the personal affairs of indivudals rather than film projects, I think the heat would likely be a lot hotter on me like it is for Drudge. Shocking headlines, whether true or false, command readers attentions. The material I cover usually doesn't make front page news -- with the key word to remember being 'usually'. That's why Access Hollywood comes after the six-o-clock news in most people's priorities. It's fun and newsworthy sure, but it's not breaking the Watergate scandal.

The 'spirit' of CA is to break movie news but not at the expense of ruining the movie. If a picture relies on one secret, and I know that secret, I can't break it. Do you consider me wrong for not posting it, thereby letting the genie out of the lamp, or the people responsible for the film for making a picture that relies on one primary secret ending? How many Agatha Christie novels would you have read if you knew whodunnit before picking up the book? Again, it's up to the individual to decide.

And comparing the Godzilla toy images to the sets pics of Eyes Wide Shut are, in my viewpoint, like comparing apples to oranges. Sorry Mr. Kubrick, but I feel that a basic outline of the movie and some images of the sets aren't going to ruin your film. "When you bow to Dean Devlin just because he personally contacted you, it's the beginning of the end for your site," 'Goober' wrote. Yes, Dean Devlin responded to an email I sent him, and I thought it was very classy of him to do that. Since then, Devlin has expressed some level of frustration at some of the scoops I've posted on the Godzilla page -- some sent to me by trustworthy Hollywood insiders. Regardless of whether I like or dislike Devlin's previous work, I respect his status as a creator, and he told me he respected my responsibility to report and inform movie news to thousands of readers. It's still the same deal with any other Hollywood insiders, regardless of their position or influence in Hollywood's power circles.

Finally, I can safely say that I have not received an invite to the Godzilla world premiere in New York City. I know I'm not in anyone's backpocket (do you really want me to scan in images of my apartment and car as proof?), but if Sony or Centropolis were to offer me the chance -- as insanely cool as it'd be -- I couldn't accept it. By posting notice that I had an image of Godzilla I changed the rules of the game, and a lot of people would draw a connection between not posting the picture and getting a VIP ticket to NYC. Uh uh. I've already been asked that question by someone else in the media so the potential to blemish the credibility I've worked hard to earn these past few years isn't worth it. I'm afraid I'll be buying my ticket to see the picture in downtown Vancouver like the thousands of others across the continent, midnight May 20th.

(But listen up, studio people: posters don't hurt!)

Next!

" I have to say in reference to your Godzilla tirade, that it's quite silly to go on about something that we shouldn't know about. Does it make you a big man to state that you have an image and you're not gonna post it? Would you now like Dean to email you with a thanks -- for David Poland of Rough Cut On-Line to salute your morals, or for Harry Knowles to say you did the right thing? I mean let us know what you'd like us to do. Wax your car, (extremely vivid phrase edited out), 'cause apparently you want something or you wouldn't have go on four paragraphs about how *&#$in' correct you are If we weren't meant to see the pictures, and ironically enough I support your decision 100%, then you should keep your *&#$in' mouth shut about it. Unless you want press, and then maybe I can help you out on that one. I'm a big fan of your site, but this stroke of the ego has set you down a notch to "Ain't It Egotistical" levels.

"In short: report -- or don't. But if you don't, then keep your mouth closed. Dan Rather wouldn't get on the air and state -- "I have a picture of Clinton getting it on with a secretary -- but because I'm so cool, I'm not gonna show it. Thank You and good night." You are now a journalist, and as such you have a responsibility to inform and not look like a goombah. Try not to look like a goombah.

"A fan ('cause if I didn't care about ya, I wouldn't have called.)"

Believe me -- these are the nicer of the angry emails.

Yeah, I don't come out and tell everyone every little secret I get told that would blow parts of all of said movie, mainly because I don't want 40 emails from people requesting the script/photo/email address, etc. Sure, you've got to decide which one go up and which don't. But this anonymous reader pointed out the biggie -- CA is now a news source. Yeah, my material gets swiped all the time and some traditional media outlets wouldn't know the meaning of the words 'attributed to' if they were on the end of a large mallet -- but the scooper is partially right. The Godzilla image is the first major decision. All the feedback and experience I get helps me the next time it happens, and next time may be different.

OK, I've got to get out of this 'beat me, kick me' streak, so time to run some feedback from people who actually supported my stance...

"I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your decision NOT to run the Godzilla picture. I am a big fan of your site (and not in the movie business either). However, as a movie fan, I don't feel like this is news. It is a secret yes, but the media's role is not to reveal secrets unless they are truly newsworthy. People would freak to see this picture, but you are under no obligation to show it, either. You've read the script. Are you under obligation then to tell us ALL that happens? No, of course not. -- 'Hawkeye'

"Kudos to you for not revealing the Godzilla images. I have been visiting your site for approximately one year and have really enjoyed it. Your refusal to put up the images sends a signal to those in Hollywood who are suspicious of this site that we, the fans, don't need or want to know everything. As you said, there is a line. We want to know what's going on in development and production, but we still want to enjoy the movies themselves." -- 'jfreelin'

Someone asked me if I thought by posting the image I'll be taking away an unknown amount of box office from the film. I say that's bullshit. Batman and Robin didn't tank commercially or critically because of Internet sites -- it bombed because it was a bad film. CA might give you a bit of a heads up on a film, but there's three reasons why I don't post my reviews in the main film pages:

1) Everyone's tastes are different. I say Power Rangers movies blow chunks, and angry 11-year-olds tell me where to shove that keyboard. Film is subjective.

2) There are already a lot of excellent Internet film reviewers out there. Go read their material -- I do.

2) I don't get enough time to post many reviews, but if I did, they'd go here on Director's Cut. And by posting my personal views, I'm open to critical attack. Ergo, I'd need more time to do a good job of reviewing a film -- except if I come up with the trademarked 'Five Word Movie Review' section...

"I just wanted to applaud your decision NOT to post the Godzilla pics. I'm not exactly sure why this strikes me as the right decision, but it's probably becuase even if you did post them, I wouldn't look at them. I'm very wary of what I read on your site for fear of spoiling things for myself. The moratorium I put on reading the Tomorrow Never Dies page definitely increased my enjoyment over GoldenEye, where I knew so much of the plot, etc. For 90% of all films, though, I read CA cover to cover (can you use that phrase for the 'net?).

"I think your "Christmas present" argument was dead-on. Nothing beats the anticipation that accompanies the lights dimming and your first glimpse of images you've never seen before. Even with huge spoiler warnings, I would have been majorly pissed had I accidentally seen the pictures. (Besides, if Dean Devlin asked you personally not to post them, you'd be a real asshole if you went ahead and did it)." -- Michael

And here's someone who agrees with my decision, even though I personally disagree with Sony's marketing campaign...

"I just wanted to say that I agree whole-heartedly with your choice not to show Godzilla's new look until the film is out. The major problem with many films being released today is that all the suprises are already revealed before you even go and see it, either in previews or on the net. The mystery of Godzilla's new look is, in my opinion, one of the smartest moves in a movie ad campaign in a long time." -- 'The Ragabash'

" just read your editorial on the Godzilla page regarding your decision not to run the full photo of the monster, and I must respectfully register my vote of disapproval against your decision. Your deciding not to run the photo bothers me chiefly for two reasons:

"1) When it comes to movie gossip, I've always believed that it should be up to the reader to decide what will or won't ruin a film, not the webmaster. I've had problems in the past with Harry Knowles's decisions regarding prequel gossip for just this reason. Myself, and I'm sure many of your readers, are hungry for any and all news regarding films, because it adds to the excitement of anticipation. It has never ruined a film for me, because reading a synopsis or seeing a jpeg can in no way compare to sitting in a darkened room with a huge crowd and experiencing magic as an audience. I'd like the photo to be up, just so that if I or anyone else wanted that info, it would be available.

"2) I think there's a bit of hypocrisy in your withholding this specific photo of the monster, and yet posting every tidbit of image you get depicting Godzilla's tail on a candy wrapper, head on a book, etc. In addition, the maquette photos were a huge form of spoiler, if the creature does indeed turn out to look like that. I think if you're going to go halfway, you should take the full step forward and go the "full monty," as it were. It's highly frustrating to view those tiny teaser images on the page, knowing that you have a picture of the full monster in your possession that we won't see until the film is released.

"I respect your decision, and part of me agrees with your move. I can imagine the weight on your shoulders is huge, especially since CA has grown beyond a site for movie geeks and has become somewhat of a "news source" for other outlets. No doubt, if you leaked the photo it would potentially reach any number of other outlets, and could damage the film itself. Plus, it never hurts to do anything to keep Dean Devlin on your side. :)

"But in the future, I'd rather see the site either go full-out and let the readers decide what they can and can't read/see, or show more restraint in cases of extreme secrecy and refuse to speculate at all. Hopefully, this instance has been a learning experience for all parties involved, and future decisions will run more smoothly." -- Matt Springer

Yeah. If of anything, I'm writing this one off on next year's taxes as a learning experience...which is just in time for the decision to run or not to run Star Wars One photos...

A number of very good points were made by this fellow who also disagreed with my decision. Here's his final thought:

"Finally, is the appearance of the creature really the most important part of the film? Is there going to be some, oh, I don't know, STORY to go along with the destruction? The original Godzilla was basically all about watching this person in a lizard suit punching model buildings with carefully controlled pyro-technics going off all around him. Back then, that was really cool. But today, special effects have come so far that we've seen every kind of destruction, explosion, moster attack, and horrific alien invasion that special effects alone won't cut it anymore (i.e. Starship Troopers). If you ask me, revealing anything about Godzilla's story-line, or lack thereof, would do more damage to the suprise and experience of the movie than revealing a picture of a toy." -- Thomas J. Evans

Part of me wants to bite my tongue, but the other part (which is slightly larger) is going to say: "Do you think there may be a reason why the commercials don't show any stars in the movie???"

"being a regular reader of your page..(about 2 years now it seems) i consider myself a fan. So i thought i'd just drop you a note to say i agree with your decision not to run the godzilla picture (even though if you did, i know i would have looked at it). i had read an article in my local chicago paper talking about the movie, and how dean had asked you personally not to show any images (the real ones)you might get of the creature..and i thought 'hey that's kind of cool, at least he aknowledges one of the best web sites, probably because he know he wont be able to keep it much of a secret from them forever, and asked personally not to..i can respect that.' so im glad you didnt run the picture...and hey, in your article you said you didnt recieve any kickback from sony or dean devlin... well, maybe now that you already made the decision, you should. it's the least they can do." -- Kevin

Well, in the email exchanges between me and Mr. Devlin, he did ask me not to post any further images that may start more false rumors. I responded by saying I wouldn't post anything that would destroy the sense of mystery and fascination for the picture. That meant I don't tell you who lives and who dies in the film, and it also meant that I would post the Hershey's and t-shirt images I did receive subsequently -- and I have no idea if Centropolis or Devlin were annoyed by that. By going back and reading the Godzilla page from earlier this year and looking back now, I see there was a tidal wave coming at me...

"Cheers to Patrick for not publishing the Godzilla pic. If they could keep it a secret for so long, it should remain so. Even the new Star Trek script has been posted. I didn't read it, but found out about the scene with Riker and Troi. Maybe our curiousity is hurting us. We like movies because of the surprises. Maybe the internet sites like yours should be wary of posting such news, and perhaps give tidbits of "false leads" so readers never really know." -- 'MosesX'

The leaked Star Trek 9 synopsis actually helped me make my decision. I thought it out in this way: imagine that the complete storyline to the film you're working on was suddenly posted on the 'net before one frame of film had been shot. That is where we are today: the movie sites literally can reveal the whole kaboodle before it's started. The simple reason the vast majority of films are made is because the people who make them hope to make money off of them, regardless if they are considered art, or even good or bad films. When you're talking about a film like Star Trek 9, millions have already been spent on the script, pre-production and development. Then, a week before your cast assembles, the Internet knows what's going to happen.

How would that influence Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan if it were made today? Or the public's knowledge about taboo subject matter for films like Midnight Cowboy, Deliverence or The Last Temptation of Christ? The Internet allows studios to gauge the public's reaction to shows like never before...but it can also influence content or change the ending. Knowledge is a double-edged sword...

"Thank you for responsible journalism. Personally, if I see a picture of Godzilla before the movie premiers it is no big deal but if you had published the picture, it would have been all over the Internet in 24 hours. I do think there is an implied contract between this web site and the movie business. Publishing the picture may have hurt the movie and this would have broken the contract. -- Anonymous.

Well, here's a dirty little secret I'm about to air that you may or may not know: more than a year ago I contacted all the major studios (with the exception of DreamWorks SKG, because I didn't have their number) and asked to be placed on their press distribution mailing list. Basically, I wanted to get access to pictures, official press releases, promotional material, anything that I could scan in or incorporate into their movie pages to get more information on there.

With the exceptions of New Line Cinema (who have placed me on their press kit list), the assistance the Internet publicity firm of i-traffic who inform me about upcoming events for Disney/Buena Vista films that take place on the 'net and a general 'anything you find in the media you can scan in and use' response letter from Paramount Pictures, no other major studio bothered to reply. I called up Sony, Warner Brothers, Disney, MGM, 20th Century, Universal...and got either a polite but firm "not interested" or no response. This is after me wrestling with the decision to incorporate photos of their films into the film pages to use as promotional material. I was worried about their copyright.

Frankly, if I were to play favorites, New Line Cinema would have every single film they're producing or distrbuting listed on CA. But I'm not. I know this site isn't officially recognized by the studios even though I see the hundreds of hits from studio servers every day. I know marketing people from studios visit here and read what is posted. I'd love to scan in the official The X-Files movie poster, or publicity images from Armageddon, or press clippings about Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but I see no interest by the majority of the studios to acknowledge the existence of the Internet other than by placing up their in-house website for the film.

Of course, TV shows get treated differently. But since there are tens of thousands of people visiting CA daily, you think there'd be some savvy marketing person who'd see this as a great means to interact. Uh uh.

Anyway...those are just some of the emails I received. I did an unofficial count of which side had the most responses: the people who supported my decision sent in the most emails by about 4 to 1. However, the con- side sent in by far the longest and most detailed feedback, in some cases four or six pages in length. I commend everyone for taking the time to send me their thoughts. I hope by posting some of the feedback up for all of you to see it helps paint a better picture of who I am and how I try to run CA.

And finally, I repeat -- the image goes online the moment the first public showing of the film happens, CA local time (PST). For those who sent outright hate mail without any justified comments, all you have to do is cool your jets until then. Can you hold out? Here's your opportunity to show me (and Hollywood) you can.

Of course, bear in mind this final thought before I drop the subject at hand: once upon a time, there was a movie that, even before one can of film was shot, everyone knew the ending of. Even though many Hollywood people (who got paid lots of money in their jobs) told people that the public wouldn't go see a film if they knew the ending of that show, this one movie made more money than any other in the history of cinema and tied the record for the most number of Oscars ever won by a film. It was called Titanic.

Ultimately, Godzilla won't fail or succeed with the public because of what the monster looks like.

It will fail or succeed based on how the tale is told, and if it entertains the audience -- and nothing else matters.

Review of Neil Jordan's "The Butcher Boy"

Enough with the controversy! Some of us here want to read about the damn movies!

Director Neil Jordan's latest is being slowly released in major cities but this month will expand to larger markets. We received a solid review of the film from CA correspondent Carol Saturansky who saw it months ago over in the United Kingdom. Here's what Carol had to say about it -- with a MEDIUM SPOILERS alert issued to all readers --

"THE BUTCHER BOY is Neil (Michael Collins, The Crying Game) Jordan's new film, completed early in 1997, but pushed back by Warners Distributing to what is now supposedly, an April 4, 1998 (limited) release date. Watch for it in early May, unless you live in L.A. or New York. And, I mean, 'watch for it.' The film is, in my opinion, a masterpiece.

"Adapted for the screen by Jordan and author Patrick McCabe from his novel, THE BUTCHER BOY is set in a small Irish town in the early 1960's. The adult-voiced narration (supplied by Stephen Rea) is that of the young hero's, grown-up. The point of view of the film is that of this young boy's, as he struggles with fantastic energy and imagination to deal with his family's crises and his own descent into a bloody, hallucination-driven psychosis. The movie is classified as drama, but with this as its premise, we might arguably also describe it as horror. It is also the blackest of comedies.

"We are privy to the internal world of a kid whose mind and heart are on the verge of breaking. The boy eventually hacks a woman to death and buries her body parts in a compost heap, and yet we feel for him, laughing and weeping at the same time.

"This is a wild ride through a tormented childhood. It is wild because every step of the way, Jordan has provided a soundtrack to counterpoint the horror, no matter how disturbing the visuals, and there is plenty of disturbance besides the climactic hacking. The musical score of the film is uplifting, energizing, satirizing and distancing. The kid's violence, for instance, is accompanied by what sounds like Zydeco. Other times, we get to hear Frank Sinatra's warm vocal phrasings out of his Gordon Jenkins period. What goes on here, musically, is a most original use of sound with pictures. Granted, directors these days do attend very carefully to soundtrack issues, but believe me, this one is not your standard soundtrack and it works incredibly well.

"Young, red-headed EAMONN OWENS plays the boy with incredible energy. He's like a spring, winding into himself and expanding all over the place with great gusts of vibrancy, over and over again. His father (STEPHEN REA, who else?) once a musician, is now a drunk. His mother has been hospitalized for depression, and this child has basically been on his own in life. Sensitive to name-calling ('pig') by a straight-laced classmate's mother, this boy's sense of self is wrapped up, ultimately, in a strong, buddy relationship with his only friend. These two boys indulge in the best of best-friend adventures and fantasies. His world gradually comes to a complete collapse when his mother dies; his friend cannot tolerate his bad judgment any longer; he spends time in a juvenile hall facility (after he harasses, in the very grossest way one could imagine, the family of the boy whose mom called him names); he's sexually abused by one of the priest-administrators; his father dies (at home, and the boy, in major denial, keeps the body propped up, a little like Norman Bates and his mom); etc., etc., etc. We are in this boy's body every step of the way, and by the end of the movie, we have a pretty good feeling for descent into psychosis.

"Plus, this movie moves. We are on a physical as well as mental journey here. We travel through the Irish countryside along with the boy. The time period is that of the Cold War, and the Cuban Missile Crisis finds its way into these folk's consciousness, everywhere the boy travels in the towns and cities of Ireland. We recognize that this is also humanity's psychosis. Except for the final scene of the movie, there isn't a wrong-headed moment. See it."

[Review submitted Carol Saturansky.]

Patrick Sauriol
Creator, Chief Content Writer & Director
Coming Attractions

Got some neato items from the shoot? Parking passes, photos from the set?? Poster images, or the latest hot script making the rounds???
That's why we're here.

Send them to our mailing address:

Coming Attractions
7971 Burnfield Crescent
Burnaby, B.C., CANADA
V5E 2B8

FAX: (604) 517-4405

We'll do our best to get 'em on the page. (Just remember to poke air holes in the parcel if it's alive -- thanks.)


Enter the world of Technopolis!
Aliens, gangsters and flying roadsters from the 50's
Published bi-monthly by Caliber Comics
Issue #3 OUT NOW!
To order, call 1-888-22-COMIC, or just yell really really loud into the air. We'll get back to ya.

For more info check out the Technopolis website.

Coming Attractions

Previous Issues of Director's Cut:

December 15, 1998
December 4, 1998
November 15, 1998
October 28, 1998
October 15, 1998
October 8, 1998
October 6, 1998
October 2, 1998
September 28, 1998
September 24, 1998
September 16, 1998
August 30, 1998
August 27, 1998
August 19, 1998
August 17, 1998
August 12, 1998
August 1, 1998
July 15, 1998
July 7, 1998
June 23, 1998
June 19, 1998
June 17, 1998
June 10, 1998
May 27, 1998
May 17, 1998
May 10, 1998
May 8, 1998
May 4, 1998
April 22, 1998
April 21, 1998
April 8, 1998
April 5, 1998
April 3, 1998
April 1, 1998
March 30, 1998
March 24, 1998
March 18, 1998
March 13, 1998
March 10, 1998
March 8, 1998
March 5, 1998
March 1, 1998
February 24, 1998
February 22, 1998
February 18, 1998
February 14, 1998
February 12, 1998
February 11, 1998
February 7, 1998
February 4, 1998
January 10, 1998
December 30, 1997
December 24, 1997
December 20, 1997
December 17, 1997
December 15, 1997
December 12, 1997
December 10, 1997
December 8, 1997
December 4, 1997
December 3, 1997
December 1, 1997
November 28, 1997