Walking The Green Mile with Di$ney, Paramount and Blockbuster

Some of you may recall my review of Star Wars: Episode I where I mentioned Stephen King's The Green Mile as a great example of a serial story. Of course, I didn't feel that Star Wars quite lived up to the hype (but who did?), but I finally had the time today to sit down and finish reading The Green Mile.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the book(s), The Green Mile tells the story of Paul Edgecombe, one of the "head screws" at a penitentiary during the Great Depression. It was originally written and released by King as a series of novellas, and has now been re-issued as a single, complete novel. The complete novel is what I read (I don't have the patience necessary to wait weeks or months for the next set of chapters in a book).

This book was of particular interest to me for a few reasons, one of which was the opinion of my wife (she's reads all of King's work, and lately hates most of it), and another of which is the choice of director for the inevitable film version of the book. In this case, it's Frank Darabont, the same man who converted King's previous work The Shawshank Redemption. Shawshank, it should be noted, is one of the best films ever made (and if you haven't seen it, the only thing I can suggest is running out and seeing it RIGHT NOW! Seriously. You will NOT regret it).

Shawshank didn't exactly do bang-up numbers at the box office, but seems to have (deservedly) gathered a large following on video. It was nominated for Best Picture the year it was released, but was overshadowed by two other films alongside it (neither of which is the masterpiece that Shawshank is), Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump. Personally, I thought Gump completely lacked emotion and was manipulative, and I love Pulp Fiction, but compared to Shawshank it's amateurish. I suspect one of Shawshank's biggest problems was its title and marketing campaign. The title tells you pretty much nothing about the story, and the marketing campaign didn't really convey anything about the movie either. This is one of those cases where a "based on the best-selling Stephen King novel" marketing campaigns would've helped immensely, because it would've gotten butts into the seats and eventually word of mouth would've taken over. To give you an idea of how good this movie is, nobody I've introduced it to has WANTED to see the movie, but after seeing it, they couldn't believe how good it was. It was marketed as an art film, and it performed like one.

The Green Mile, thankfully, will have the power of Stephen King's name behind it. It will also have one of the biggest box-office draws of the century, Tom Hanks, behind it (he plays Edgecombe). For these two reasons alone, I suspect, the film will do huge business. The presence of Darabont as director merely means that I can set my expectations very high, and there's a good chance those expectations won't be dashed. The man is a genius behind the camera, and everything I've read so far proclaims that he's got "a great middle", and now just needs a beginning and an ending (and if you've read the novel, you'll know this is very good news, indeed).

Also, hold no illusions about the film's release date. It's a thinking mans film, and has been placed carefully out of the way of summer blockbusters, but right in the face of Academy consideration. The film comes out in late fall, and as such has plenty of time to make a lot of money (and hopefully gain a lot of critical kudos) before being put to the Academy. If all goes well, expect a sweep of many of the major categories. Also, expect Hanks to bow out gracefully in the Best Actor category, as he did this past year for Saving Private Ryan (he actively campaigned against himself, claiming it was someone else's turn - talk about your class act!).

As you can tell, my expectations for this film are very high, and it's on my "must-see" list at this point. I may be especially stoked at the moment, having just finished (literally) reading the novel, but I can't help but be excited by a film version of this novel. It has all the necessary elements to make a great film, and it's episodic nature could be transferred very effectively to the screen.

On to the business of DVDs...

I see that DVD Resource has decided to stop reviewing (in his words) "DI$ney" DVDs until such time as the disparity between DVD and Divx releases from the studio is corrected. I certainly can't blame Steve Tannehill for his stance, but have to say that I disagree with a ban on reviewing Disney DVDs. The problem is, that by ignoring Disney, no bad light is shed upon them. Nobody is happy about their lackluster support of DVD, but letting up the pressure on them (especially at this critical juncture in DVD's life span) is not the way to go about it. I would actually suggest that a counter to the effect of "XX days since Disney screwed DVD" might be a better way to go (get on it, Jay!). The solution is to turn UP the pressure, and show Disney as the greedy sons-of-bitches they really are. My wife and I watched a special on the history of American film the other day, and one of the people they interviewed was Michael Eisner. Our collective opinion is that Walt Disney himself would not approve of Disney's maneuverings as of late. There's far too much time spent trying to gobble up companies and increase profit for the shareholders, and far too little time spent making quality family entertainment.

On another studio front, I see that there's a rumor circulating that the Titanic DVD may not be 16:9 enhanced when it's released because of the THX people. It seems that the THX folks may have a problem with the downconversion performed by some DVD players, and as such will not be certifying any future 16:9 releases. I hope this is not the case, because 16:9 enhancement is one of the best features of DVD, and provides some modicum of protection for people when they upgrade their televisions over the next few years. I realize that a "downconverted" picture doesn't look as good as a letterboxed transfer, but at the same time, a letterbox transfer looks like shit on a 16:9 TV. Having seen both results, I would say the downside of downconversion is the much lesser of two evils, and as such should be the road taken. I can only hope these rumors are wrong, and if they're not then I'd have to say to Paramount and Fox, screw the THX certification. 16:9 is far more important.

On one last DVD related note, I wrote a few weeks ago about the lackluster support for DVD from Blockbuster Video. I received an email from a gentleman in Texas who happens to live in the backyard of a Blockbuster which rents DVDs. My current understanding is that DVD rental is offered in a limited number of Blockbuster locations, but I won't forgive Blockbuster until DVD is available in ALL their locations. According to Studio heads in an interview a few weeks ago, DVD accounts for "about 5%" of the video market. This is HUGE for a format which is so young. By not renting DVDs in all their locations, Blockbuster is sending their customers to alternate locations for the product they want. If you asked a Blockbuster exec straight out if he would give up 5% of his market, I would bet the answer would be "no". So why are they doing it?

As for the last two "quotes of the week", nobody got the first one, which was from Mike Myer's comedy So I Married An Axe Murderer. The second one was answered correctly by several people, but the first person to get it was Louis-Phillipe Brochu, who correctly identified it not only as from Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, but as an "easy one!". :)

This week's quote is a little more difficult, but not much..

"Seventeen Days! Seventeen DAYS?! We ain't gonna last seventeen HOURS, man!"

As usual, if you recognize the reference, email me at

ken@dvdfuture.com