I don't understand why it got such bad reviews?

Motion picture lighting was an early avocation and I was summoned by friends in the industry several times to work on various movie sets. Never made a career out of that aspect of lighting as I went on to fine art and interior design moving out of the area to Laguna Beach, California. I developed a dislike for LA except for visiting friends and/or Blue Whale (Pacific Design Center). Primarilly it was the smog so there are locations in LA that I still would visit like the new Gehry Disney Concert Hall.

But "The Day the Earth Stood Still!" Holy cow. That is like being with Washington crossing the Delaware.

Did you see Rennie and Neal and the others? I heard that Neal, not being accustomed much to science fiction, used to laugh at her own lines, and Rennie would ask in exasperation, "Are you going to do that for the final take???"

I barely got a glimpse of Rennie and Neal as we finished with the lighting of the spaceship so unfortunately I was not on set when they were working. The lighting designer and one tech is left on the set when they shot scenes. A big epic movie, of course, has loads of techs and grips swarming around the cameras. Part of the spaceship, incidentally, which appeared to be translucent glass of some kind was plastic flourescent diffusing material in large sheets. Of course, a lot of that time escapes my memory (no, it wasn't the usual Hollywood partying that caused that, just too many irons in the fire at the time as I was also showing paintings in a La Cienega gallery, going to UCLA and had begun the weekly travel back and forth to Laguna Beach about 75 mi. away).

(Now that we are so side-tracked from the topic, I apologize to eoe for the diversion).

Me too, but, gee, you've really done some cool things. Even showing paintings in a gallery is more than most people ever achieve.

Not to mention I regret giving up on painting -- it seems one does have to starve before making it in the art world. I've done better selling it than creating it!

Back to the question -- I don't believe the majority of critics get it wrong when they pan a movie. That doesn't mean it won't do decent box office because, again, that also depends on the entertainment quotient with the typical cineplexer. It's obvious that's unpredictable and often perplexing.
When a film does get panned and bombs at the box office like "Alexander," perhaps there isn't as much mystery as first discerned.

OK, LW, you're right. But, as far as the box office is concerned, isn't that often a result of the marketing effort? A good Hollywood marketing team can sometimes turn a pig of a movie into a cash cow. It's panned by every critic and yet the people flock to the multiplex because of all the ads they've seen. And vice versa. A little gem of a movie isn't considered worthy of a big marketing budget and, hence, bombs. The critics may rave about it, but nobody gets to see it because the studio yanks it; it wasn't pulling in enough $$$.

I've seen the marketers, as you imply, promote a big budget, or one in a tried-and-true genre like a horror thriller, bad flick and it still bombed. The promotion behind "Alexander" was extensive with the same typical ads accentuating the stars rather than the story, the appearances on all the talk/late night shows and all the obligatory marketing ploys. Small, excellent films can still make a profit because typically they don't cost as much to produce. The profits from DVD, in addition, are now up to 60% of a film's prosperity, so if a small film doesn't reach a lot of theaters or is only shown in the sparse art theaters, it can get a renewed life on the DVD shelves (or NetFlix!) There's also the inbetweeners -- the film that has big stars and they know it has a strong script and will appeal to those who don't rush out to see the latest potential blockbuster, or for that matter flock to the cineplex because a movie is selling tickets.

Small films with good sized budgets are those who employ expensive big name stars like "American Beauty" and "The Hours," not to mention higher paid film score composers, editors, directors, et al --- the recent "Closer" qualifies.

I've long had a soft spot for small films with small budgets - part of why I've loved many "foreign" films, smallish perhaps anecdotal stories.

John Sayle's Return of the Secaucus Seven charmed me in its day, and seemed to be revisited in the bigger movie, The Big Chill.

A woman friend whose financial situation is as abysmal as mine and I rented, "the Terminal," which received mixed reviews and watched it. It was ok to watch on video but not good enough to watch as more than $8/head at the theatre.

I always think of "mixed reviews" as being somewhere near 50% good, 50% bad and very few if no rave reviews. The "Cream of the Crop" critics on Rotten Tomatoes only managed 49%. I liked the movie but it was rather predictable and most of the enjoyment came form the actor's performances. I thought the script had a contrived, inauthentic feel to it. Ebert has belied more than one that the movie didn't deserve proportion of poor reviews it garndered. Of course, both he and Roeper looked as though they had egg on their faces when they were two of the very few critics who lauded "The Passion of the Christ." ("On the Cross, Marinated In Barbecue Sauce")

I wouldn't call The Terminal predictable: Victor did NOT get the girl in the end. And Catherine Zeta Jones clearly played her as someone who didn't like herself: hardly predictable.

I did think Victor's ability as a builder was a little deus ex machina. That the airport workers even knew each other, let alone were friendly with each other, was unrealistic.

Finally, Victor's having attained the autograph for his father, without doing anything for himself, was oddly depressing and less than satisfying.

I picked up on the ending way in advance and Catherine Zeta-Jones character profile as well. The ending attempted to be inventive but wasn't, much like Spielberg's ending to "AI." Not that I didn't still enjoy the movie to an extent -- it just wasn't one I'd have on a list to especially see again.

Lightwizard -- I wouldn't want to see it again either. There really are movies that are great to see in the theatre and others that are fine rented as a video. The Terminal was amusing enough for two broke single women to watch while drinking some white wine on a Friday night but at nearly $10 a ticket for first run, a movie has to be more than just funny enough.

Well, Tom Hanks is usually worth a video rental, right? So is Catherine.

I'd say it's worth a video rental for a pleasant evening's viewing.

Speaking of Catherine, I thought she and George Clooney were wonderful together in that comedy about a divorce lawyer and his client. There were Oscar worthy performances. Too bad comedies don't win acting Oscars.

I've never watched it from start to finish but throw in Billy Bob and I'm sure it was a hoot. I'll have to try and catch it when it comes back on cable.

Speaking of Billy Bob, I bought "Indecent Proposal" the other day. (It's a guilt pleasure movie.) There's a scene in the casino featuring Billy Bob in a very small but memorable role as an admirer of John Gage, the high roller billionaire played by Robert Redford. I watched his scene over and over because he's just so humorous.

That was "Intolerable Cruelty" directed by Joel Coen (The Coen Bros., as in "Fargo" and "The Hudsucker Proxy.") There were good and it brings up once again the need for a musical or comedy category like the Golden Globes. It always seemed unfair to pit dramas up against musicals and comedies but "Chicago" proved it could be done.