Anthing Chris Nolan can do, Michael Bay can do better?

In the realm of not-very surprising news, Michael Bay has announced his intention to shoot several scenes for Transformers 2: Revenge Of The Fallen in IMAX film. For some reason, I didn't mention this possibility in my Iron Man 2 IMAX 3D article earlier this month, but the rock-sock-em robots sequel did seem the next likely tent pole film to go this route. And frankly, Transformers 2 could be even more tailor-made for this process than The Dark Knight. Even as someone who hated Transformers and loved The Dark Knight, I must concede that the technical aspects of Transformers were beyond compare. The robots were basically supporting characters in their own movie, and there wasn't nearly enough robot action to balance out the campy, cliched character arcs and tone-deaf comedy, but the rare out-and-out robot smackdowns were truly impressive. This is the exact opposite case of The Dark Knight. Does anyone really have a favorite action sequence in that film? Did anyone come out of the theater blathering about 'that one scene where Batman went to Hong Kong, jumped off a building, punched out five guys, and escaped on a zip line'?

People loved the story, loved the characters, and loved the acting. But the choppy actions scenes, while less Paul Greengrass-y than Batman Begins, were no one's highlight. And, truthfully, they were rendered even harder to follow on a giant IMAX screen (Nolan probably sensed this, as he had Morgan Freeman basically narrate the climactic construction site brawl). Actually, has any Batman film ever contained a truly stunning action sequence? Transformers, on the other hand, is all about empty spectacle, so the giant screen format will be a huge bonus. Frankly, I'm surprised that Bay isn't going for 3D this time to boot. I'd imagine that the CGI robotics would be much easier to convert to 3D than the practical car chases and explosions of The Dark Knight (I'll let someone else discuss the added incentive for the core audience seeing Megan Fox in 3D). Furthermore, Paramount's main summer competition, Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince, has already announced that its climax will be in 3D yet again.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see how the two biggest movies of the summer will split IMAX screens, as they will open less than a month apart. If Paramount really wants long-term playability, then maybe they ought to consider moving up the release date. I'd imagine that Transformers 2 would threaten the three-day opening weekend record no matter when in summer it opened, so maybe an early June berth might be in order. This does bring up an interesting problem. As more and more event films decide to go the IMAX route (and make no mistake, Nolan has opened the floodgates), how will the limited number of IMAX screens deal with competing product when this because the norm for tent pole films?

Scott Mendelson

Sex and the City (the movie) and the difference between male and female escapism.

I would love to get on a high horse and proclaim that Sex And The City: The Movie is a terrific movie and that the critics who hated it were misogynist pigs. Some of them may be, but it's still a mediocre movie. The first hour is pretty dreadful, a peon to crass consumerism and shallowness that's especially icky during a time of prolonged economic suffering. I can't speak for the show, but the movie contains not a single homeless person or working stiff. Once the emotional plot comes fully center, the film slightly improves. But the writing just isn't as sharp as the best episodes of the series (I've seen a few, my wife's seen a bunch) and the characters feel thinner. The film is 151 minutes long, but there is less plot than The X-Files: I Want To Believe. But, at its core, it suffers from the same problem as many romantic dramas and comedies. Without going into spoilers, the film's plot catalyst never would have occurred if the main characters just talked to each other like adults for three minutes. Furthermore, the conflict could have been resolved right on the spot with another thirty-seconds of straight communication, explaining how last minute jitters and a child's mistake led to disaster (sorry for the vagueness, no reason to spoil something that occurs an hour into the movie). So the film suffers due to the idiot plot, as do many other movies. And the romantic partners refuse to talk to each other like adults, but that seems to be the case for most romantic comedies (and most relationships in the entertainment world to boot). That doesn't explain the outcry of outrage that occurred following the opening day and opening weekend.

As I wrote in May, 2008, the resulting circus, personified by Jeff Wells' statements that the film represented 'an Al Qaeda recruitment film, or was the equivalent of the 'OJ Simpson verdict' in terms of showing women in a negative, superficial light, was sexist and confounding to boot. Mass audiences embrace all kinds of films that are stupid, superficial, or just plain terrible and they have for a century. Now that women are enjoying a film aimed at them that is just as sugary, fantastical, and (almost) fantastically terrible as Ghost Rider or Top Gun, the men in Hollywood are frothing at the mouth in amazement and condemnation.

If anything, this will be good for female entertainment. Hopefully, now women can be allowed to enjoy films targeted at them that are just as fluffy and superficial and wish-fulfillment-y as Transformers. And, eventually, they can enjoy such films without being criticized for it. Yes, there are those who wish that every black-themed film was Rosewood or Do The Right Thing, but progress comes when black people can enjoy Soul Plane without being criticized for it by blacks and whites alike. Sex And The City is just a major film aimed at women that is (apparently) just as superficial and goofy as fantastical as most of the wish-fulfillment aimed at young boys. The huge opening number merely points out how few of these are made for women.

I stand by that statement, but having seen the film, I think I understand a little about the pomp and circumstance. Escapism and wish-fulfillment is by nature the acting out of something you don't do or can't do. Films like Transformers and Iron Man basically show damaged men and boys who 'man up', take responsibility, do the right thing and use their new found masculinity to help other people and/or save lives and kill bad guys. They really don't sacrifice anything, and as a bonus they end up with a really hot girl who doesn't really expect anything from them in return.

As noted in Michael Kimmel's book, Guyland, the lessening of the traditional roles for men as the financial provider and/or steady husband and father of the house (both by a cruel economy that all but demands duel incomes and by advances by women in the workplace and the world) has created a culture of boys who are reluctant to become men, who treat women like objects to be used then discarded, who surround themselves with other guys and basically spend much of their time one-upping each other in various behaviors to prove their 'manliness', or to prove that they're not 'gay'. At its worst, this behavior climaxes in bullying, gay-bashing, and sexual assault.

In the real world, they are irresponsible, selfish, and not really able or willing to carry out the roles that were expected of them. Furthermore, the economic advances by women, the advances of childbirth science, and irradiation of the industrial economy has rendered the stereotypical role of the adult male almost obsolete or at least not nearly as vital to the society. Why bother becoming men and growing up when the stereotypical adult male isn't nearly as valued as their fathers were just a generation ago?

This is not a brand new concept, although the book attempts to be the definitive look at the subject. Movies like Fight Club, The Matrix, American Beauty, and (shudder) Wanted deal with this in one form or another (while Wanted is the worst film of the four, it may be the most honest as wish-fulfillment as it defines the solution as ignoring women and committing wholesale mass murder to avenge a father you never knew). But even many films that aren't specifically about this represent an escape or an outlet from this issue. But if you'll note the stereotypical fantasy films directed at men (usually action/adventure or comic book sci-fi), you can see portraits of men who do stand up and take responsibility, who keep their manliness and help other people. It's not just a manly man rescuing a damsel in distress, although that's still a key element (which is why even allegedly modern, independent women usually end up being kidnapped or imperiled at the climax of said films). Tony Stark becomes a man when he stops being selfish and uses his toys to help others. Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) accepts his grandfather's 'no sacrifice, no victory' motto and plays a key role in saving the Earth from rampaging robots.

It may be dramatically unsatisfying, but this template mandates that Sam, not Optimus Prime, be the one to destroy Megatron and save the world. He has manned up, and as a reward he gets to have sex with Megan Fox. In male-escape movies, the girl is simply the bonus prize. The real goal is maturity and being a man in the way your father talked about being a man. With young protagonists, earning the respect of their parents is usually a goal for these boy who would be men (see Shia LaBeouf's Eagle Eye and Disturbia for a perfect examples of this). In the male escapism, the fantasy is proving your worth, being the responsible man, and stepping up to help people who need you without expecting anything in return. In the real world, a great number of men find themselves unwilling or unable to fulfill the time-tested role of men, and they are often miserable because of it. In the stereotypical male fantasy (Iron Man, Transformers, Die Hard, Spider-Man 2), the fantasy is being able to be a man without actually having to grow up or change all that much.

If the male fantasy is about selflessness, sacrifice, and responsibility, the female fantasy is about just the opposite. Fair or not, the expectations of society dictate that women sacrifice on a daily basis, for their kids, for their (allegedly unappreciative) husbands, even for their aging parents. They are the caregivers and selflessness is both their calling and their burden. For many women, life is like The Prize Winner Of Defiance Ohio (terrific movie by the way). Thus, for the female fantasy film, the escape is one of escaping responsibility, of being selfish, of having unlimited funds and unlimited time to make yourself look better and feel better. If the women of Sex And The City are a little shallow (as are some of the romantic heroines played by Reese Witherspoon and Jenifer Aniston), then that is only because that is the fantasy of many women: to throw caution to the wind, to be selfish and wealthy, to use your wealth only to better yourself and not worry about others.

Women (stereotypically) spend their lives doing for others, neglecting themselves often at the cost of their own mental and physical health. Thus their fantasy films will often revolve around either someone taking care of them (hence the peril sub-genre that appeals to both sexes equally and occasionally leaches into pornography), them taking care of themselves when no one else can (woman in danger movies like When A Stranger Calls or Red Eye), or being so wealthy or set that the world just takes of you by happenstance (this is where Sex And The City comes in). The other thing to note is that many female-centric movies have 'the guy' as the grand prize, the main object of desire and pursuance. Whether it's just finding love (who just happens to be in the guise of that platonic friend that you always flirt with), or whether it's chasing down a specific guy for the duration of the picture (before the end arrives and he realizes just how awesome you are), finding 'the one' is the paramount concern. Whether that is a more noble thing than the 'man's movie' which treats the girl as the desert after a full meal is open to debate.

A slight digression, but it is worth noting that I have always found Mean Girls to be the very best female-centric high school movie that I have ever seen (of course, writer Tina Fey casting herself as the hot math teacher is worth two-stars right there). While it is certainly well-acted and sharply written, I wonder if the reason I responded to it as much is because it is the rare female-driven movie that operates under the rules of male fantasy. The goal for Lindsey Lohan in this film is about taking responsibility, growing up, not being afraid to do what you're good at (math, in this case), and using your skills to help others (using her math skills to help her classmates win a math competition, giving her ill-gotten homecoming crown to other kids to boost their self-esteems). Like most male-centric films, the love interest is merely the prize, and her winning him over (he likes her because she as smart as she is cute) is simply a climactic grace note, rather than the whole climax. Of course, that would disqualify Mean Girls as a female-fantasy, but possibly render it a serious statement (according to Fey, author Rosalind Wiseman, and maybe myself as a father of a very young daughter) of how young girls should lead their lives. Or maybe it's just a damn good movie.

It is worth noting that even in the female fantasy sub-genre, cold reality usually sets in towards the end. And, sure enough, the ladies of Sex And the City eventually acknowledge their consumerist ways and they eventually have to step up and take responsibility for their life mistakes. Of course, there wouldn't be much of a character arc if they didn't, but it's a little disheartening to see these women forced back into the roles of 'fixers' by the end of the picture. I do like that both the men and the women admit their flaws and their mistakes and accept shared responsibility (the film certainly never demonizes men, nor did the show). But still, if this is supposed to be the 'ultimate chick flick', I wonder if they could have found a way to end the movie without forcing the women to 'man up'.

To (finally) wrap this up, the critics who complained that the characters of Sex And The City were vapid, shallow, and selfish were not off the mark, they were just missing the broader context. They missed that the female fantasy is a whole different breed of film then the male fantasy. You could argue that the male fantasy is more noble because it involves selflessness and potential sacrifice, because it involves helping others and doing good for society as a whole. And you would be correct, but that's only a fantasy because it usually doesn't happen that way. Instead of belittling women for enjoying their own version of escapism, why not critique the film on its own merits as an example of a specific genre. It won't make you 'gay'. Transformers is a terrible movie, but I see its appeal. I will give Sex And The City the same courtesy.

Scott Mendelson

Chocolate-magnate Wonka arrested for murder!

Chocolate-magnate Wonka arrested for murder

Willam Wonka to face charges after four children, one adult die in chocolate-factory massacre.

by Scott Mendelson

World-renowned candy-bar maker and multi-trillionaire William J. Wonka was arrested yesterday evening after four young children perished while touring Wonka’s top-secret chocolate factory.

Authorities are still trying to piece together the details of the gruesome affair but so far there are confirmed reports of five fatalities. The dead children, Augustus Gloup, Violet Beauregarde, Mike Teavee, and Veruca Salt, are reported to be the young winners in the worldwide Golden Ticket contest, which awarded an exclusive tour of William Wonka’s base of operations to five lucky children who discovered golden tickets hidden in Wonka chocolate bars. One adult, Mr. Salt, is also presumed dead. A fifth winner, Charles Bucket, is said to be alive and unharmed.

“It would seem,” stated Chief Steven Helemson, “that Mr. Wonka lured these innocent children into his factory with a promise of a tour and a life-time supply of chocolate, than viciously murdered them in various bizarre and unspeakable methods.” The police believe that the deaths were in fact premeditated, as the various transportation vehicles seemed to actually decrease in seat space as the tour went on, indicating that Wonka planned on progressively thinning the herd.

The mother of Augustus Gloup, one of the slain, has stated that she herself witnessed her son’s tragic drowning in a raging river of chocolate.

“I asked Mr. Wonka to stop my son from heading into the marshmallow room. But, Wonka insisted that he was instead heading for the fudge room. I then replied that he was in fact a ‘terrible man’, to which he simply laughed.” Gloup’s gooey carcass was found floating along the river after police arrived.

Further examination of the carnage unearthed a giant puddle of blueberry goo, mixed in with brain matter, bones, and various organs, which is believed to be the remains of Violet Beauregarde. According to witnesses, Ms. Beauregarde was tricked into eating a poisonous gum-substance, which caused her to turn into a giant blueberry and eventually explode.

A third victim, Michael Teavee, was alleged to have been shrunk to the size of an action figure and then sucked into a TV set, where he is likely being constantly tortured and defiled by the “TV people” who are upset about the factory being buried on an ancient Indian burial site.

“They moved the headstones,” claimed an employee at the factory, one of several dozen ‘Oompa Loompas’, “but they didn’t move the bodies.” Oompa Loompas are tiny, orange-faced midget creatures that often talk in rhyme that may or may not be Wonka’s slaves. Most expressed sympathy with their master.

“Oompa Loompa doompadee doo,” exclaimed one distraught Loompa. “I’ve got another puzzle for you. Ommpa Loompa doompadee doo, if you’re wise you’ll listen to me.” The Loompa then proceeded to spew rhyming profanities (which are unsuitable for print) and claim that there was no life they knew that was not completely expendable in their quest to build a perfect chocolate factory. They threatened various authorities with acts of violence that were horrific beyond any world of pure imagination and thus also unsuitable for print.

The fate of the final casualty remains sketchy, with reports claiming that Veruca Salt and her father may have both plummeted to their deaths after being pushed down a chute designated for golden eggs. Although no bodies have been found, all accounts do report, however, that she was a “very bad egg.”

“Mr. Wonka is a sick, diseased maniac,” claimed an un-named executive of the rival candy corporation, Slugworth. “The golden tickets promised that ‘In your wildest dreams you could not imagine the marvelous surprises that await you’. Instead, the tickets brought a violent, surreal, ironic demise to four out of five of these innocent children.”

Wonka has claimed that each of the victims in fact caused their own horrible fates by breaking the rules and thus bear complete responsibility. According to the jailed Wonka, the contracts that were signed dictated that any violation of the rules and regulations ‘and et cetera, et cetera... Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera... Memo bis punitor delicatum’ would result in immediate execution.

“It’s all there in black and white, clear as crystal,” Wonka has claimed. “You can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy: ‘you mess with my factory, I will totally f^&%ing kill you!”

Wow... a Spirit trailer that's actually comprehensible!

It took them three tries (and the teaser made people think it was a Dick Tracy sequel), but here is a trailer for The Spirit that actually has a semblance of plot and character, as opposed to just random hot women tossing off their best 'come-hither' lines. Sam Jackson is in geek heaven and the trailer finally acknowledges that Frank Miller didn't actually create The Spirit (Will Eisner did). Am I the only one amused that this is the second time in a less than two years, after Ghost Rider, that Eva Mendes has played the former childhood sweatheart of our tormented hero, who comes back at just the wrong time? It's an improvement, but considering how thin and junky I found Sin City to be, I'm not terribly optimistic.

The original teaser:


The hot-to-trot first trailer:

SNL does Palin/Couric and the Debates, plus MadTV does a Palin townhall

Whatever will the Saturday night sketch shows do once the election ends?

SNL - Palin/Couric sketch:


SNL - Obama/McCain sketch:


Mad TV - Palin Town Hall sketch:


Scott Mendelson

Paul Newman has died of cancer at 83

Condolences to friends and family. If there is a need to update, I will do so as more comes in. Here is the article.

Scott Mendelson

Pointless Pet Peeve Of The Day - Crappy cover art for Blu Ray and 2-disc DVDs

In the realm of things that really don't matter, I've noticed an obnoxious trend of late in the home video market.

In the olden days of standard and special edition DVDs, the pattern was simple. For the one-disc bare bones disc, you often had substandard cover art meant to appeal to mass audiences, usually emphasizing either generic elements of the story or a main set piece that people remember enjoying in theaters.

But for the two-disc collector's set, and the BluRay, you got a snazzy replication of the actual poster from the movie itself.

Or, worst case scenario, you got the same image with a token mention that one of them is a two-disc collector's set.

But, of late, the studios seem to be going the opposite route. Let's look at four recent summer releases. The one-disc set for Iron Man (streets next Tuesday) feature the poster art, which highlights the entire cast.

However, for the two-disc set and BluRay, we have simply a stylized, artless picture of the Iron Man suit, something that resembles the start menu for a computer game. If I'm paying extra for the more expensive version, I'd also like the original poster art to go with it.

Let's have a look at the just released art for the not nearly as bad as you've heard Star Wars: The Clone Wars, which Warner Bros will street in 1-disc, 2-disc, and Blu Ray versions in November. The standard one-disc set features the poster art, with the main cast in a moody, dimly lit battle-ready pose, suggesting drama, darkness, and turmoil. It's a decent enough poster.

Yet, for the two-disc and Blu Ray, we get a big brightly lit picture of just Anakin Skywalker, looking like he was posing for Tiger Beat. This is pretty terrible art regardless, but why punish consumers who opt for the more expensive option?

Next up is Get Smart, Warner again, which streets on December 4th in 1-disc, 2-disc, and BluRay versions (all three promising 62% more laughs - so that's 4 more laughs?). As you'll notice, the one-disc set gives us profiles of all four of the main stars, which is appropriate since Get Smart was a true ensemble piece that coasted along on the talent and goodwill of its cast.

Yet the 2-disc and Blu Ray version crops out Alan Arkin and Dwayne Johnson, leaving us with only Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway. Not a huge deal, but again it seems a case where the more expensive version should have included the original poster art.

Finally, and this is the one that prompted me to write this, we have the covers for Sony's Hancock, which will street in November on 1 d... you get the idea. Anyway, the one-disc theatrical cut contains the poster art.

Yet the two-disc and BluRay extended edition displays $25 photo shopping that not only is ugly and displeasing to look at, but actually constitutes a mild spoiler. I gave Sony major props last summer for actually running an ad campaign for Hancock that didn't reveal the whole movie in the trailers and TV spots, so it's a shame that they had to go and hint at a major scene in the second act of the picture. And besides, if you're going to give Charlize Theron billing above the title, you damn well oughta give the same courtesy to Jason Batemen, who basically stole the film with a warm, subtle, empathetic comic performance.

On the plus side, the just released UK cover art for The Dark Knight seems to be on the right track. The two-disc and Blu Ray sets will include the original poster art, plus the option for covers with Batman or The Joker (the exterior sleeve has Batman, while the case itself has the Joker poster). Of course, both Nolan Batman pictures had so many posters that they could easily do a dozen versions of each film and have a different theatrical one-sheet for each.

Again, not the end of the world, but it doesn't make sense that the studios are making a habit of giving lesser quality presentations to the versions of their discs that the more discerning consumer is likely to purchase. And frankly, I'm tired of having to contend with ugly artwork when I fork over money for the 'more special' version of a given DVD or Blu Ray.

Scott Mendelson

Update - darn it. Warner Bros. just released the US cover art for The Dark Knight, and it's exactly the kind of thing I was complaining about. The single disc version gets the official poster art. Meanwhile, the two-disc set gets the alternate, ugly poster art highlighting the 'way-cool' Bat-Pod. Aside from the fact that Batman is barely visible in the poster, it is easily the ugliest of the many posters, primarily because the center of attention is a giant wheel. How unfortunate.

Craig Ferguson once again sums it up best (You don't suspend democracy!)

"Not for 9/11, not for Pearl Harbor, not for the Nazis..."

Scott Mendelson

Valkyrie trailer debuts... now.

Here is the new trailer for Valkyrie, as promised. It's a well-cut piece, presented as a ticking clock of doom, and it gives the other major cast members (Kenneth Branagh, Terence Stamp, Bill Nighy, and Tom Wilkinson) their close up as well as Cruise. Of course, the overtly 'exciting scenes' of people quickly walking and randomly pointing guns seems to imply that it's far more of a cat and mouse thriller than an out-and-out action piece. So far, so good.

Oh, and here is a much older one (apparently November) that is equally compelling, this one highlighting the entire cast even more than the new trailer.


Scott Mendelson

Valkyrie poster debuts... now.

The trailer for Valkyrie goes online on Yahoo at 9:00pm tonight. Above is the final one-sheet. This is what I get for writing something nice about Valkyrie in my MPAA post yesterday. On a related note, I'm sure the Dark Knight Blu Ray will be extra swell and Quantum Of Solace will be the best Bond movie ever! In all seriousness, it's a pretty cool poster. It's surprisingly artsy, and I like the credits being put in the box on the left, although the partial swastika seems to resemble a giant number 1 or 7.

I always appreciate posters that show off the whole cast, not just the top-lined star (far too many Tom Cruise posters are just his giant face or his upper body in forward motion). It seems that MGM/UA is trying to sell this as a team movie, in the vein of (ah-ha!) The Usual Suspects and X-Men. If you'll notice, Tom Cruise's arms hanging wide pose is similar to Wolverine in several X-Men: The Last Stand posters (yes, it's ironic that they are using the marketing campaign from the X-Men picture that Bryan Singer did not direct). And, pleasant coincidence, there are six characters pictured, same as the six main good guys in the first X-Men (Xavier, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Wolverine, Storm, and Rogue). Whether this is an attempt to frame this film as a team caper picture, or whether UA is trying to downplay Tom Cruise for PR reasons, it's an effective poster none the less.

Scott Mendelson

Quantum Of Solace - longer to spell than to watch?

This came out a couple days ago, but I couldn't find any respectable places where this had been confirmed. Now it's widespread enough that I feel comfortable commenting on it.

Quantum Of Solace will not feature two trademarked James Bond lines ('shaken, not stirred', and 'Bond... James Bond'), with director Marc Forrester basically giving up on putting them in without it feeling disjointed and unnatural. Good for him. Yes, they are classic lines, but also the kind of obvious references never fail to pull you out of the movie. And, for the record, could they avoid having someone archly say 'quantum of solace' in the middle of the movie? Having characters intentionally utter the title of the movie is a pet peave of mine ('It's a SCREAM, baby!")*, and Bond films are the biggest offenders.

More surprising is the apparent running time of 106 minutes. That's right, Quantum Of Solace may be the shortest James Bond film ever, possibly by a wide margin. A brief history: The first three James Bond films (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger) were about 111 minutes long. Then, starting with Thunderball in 1965, the James Bond series broke the two-hour barrier and never looked back. The only other film to be under two hours in between 1965 and 2008 is Tomorrow Never Dies in 1997, which ran 119 minutes. And the last film, Casino Royale, ran a record 144 minutes. Now that was technically four minutes longer than On Her Majesty's Secret Service in 1967, but of course end credits were much shorter back in the day.

That brings us to the next question. Does that 106 minutes include ending credits? If not, then Quantum Of Solace will likely run about 115 minutes, which would simply make it on par with Tomorrow Never Dies and the earliest Connery Bonds and thus not break the record for the shortest 007 adventure. However, if that includes 7-10 minutes of credits, we could see a James Bond film that has about 96 minutes of actual content. Factor that with reports that the film will have a fifteen-minute pre-credits sequence, plus the usual three to five-minute theme song, and you have a movie that's almost 25% over by the time the credits are over.

Obviously running time doesn't designate a good movie. As Gene Siskel said, no good movie is too long and no bad movie is too short. But considering the sheer amount of (admittedly exciting) action set pieces on display in the two trailers, there is a fear from this writer that the film may become something akin to The Bourne Ultimatum - all action, no story. Pure speculation at this point, but I'll feel better when the film starts screening (next month?) and we find out if there is any character development and/or plot to this second Daniel Craig 007 picture.

I'm also concerned because it seems that, at least since Roger Moore left, that we've had a situation where we've had a Bond film trade off of sorts. The Living Daylights was complicated and real-world messy, while Licence To Kill was simple and somewhat simpleminded (I love both Dalton pictures, but the former has aged better than the latter). Furthermore, Goldeneye was complicated and story-rich, while Tomorrow Never Dies was simple and easy to follow (Brosnan was quoted in Entertainment Weekly as saying that Goldeneye was too much work for audiences). The same thing with The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day. The former was rich with character development and multilayered plotting, the latter resembled a bad cartoon by the second act.

As long as we're playing the even/odds game, let's acknowledge that Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day both suffer from the same major flaw. They both spend the first hour telling a character driven Bond story dealing with an unexplored part of Bond (What happens what an old flame comes back? What happens when Bond gets captured and can't be trusted?) In both films, these stories are tossed overboard in the second hour as Bond teams up with a secret agent from another country to blow up the bad guys without a care in the world (for all of Halle Berry's constant libels about how Jinx was the first Bond girl to do anything ever, she was a rewritten version of Michelle Yeoh's character from TND). Bits and pieces from the second trailer have me worried that this particular 'every other film' pattern may continue.

I've said many times that I feel director Martin Campbell was the unsung hero of Casino Royale, and that the somewhat on-the-nose dialogue by Paul Haggis was the weak point. Giving that Campbell passed and Haggis stuck around, I'm concerned that Campbell's penchant for visually decipherable action and genuine character development may have been lost as well.

Now that I've engaged in rampant fact less, conjecture for a few paragraphs, let me be optimistic for a moment. The trailers do look terrifically engaging. I adored Marc Forrester's Stranger Than Fiction, and I've liked all of Haggis's other recent work, so don't read this as bashing the replacement director and the script doctor. I'll gladly eat my words if the film ends up being closer to The Living Daylights than Die Another Day, but for now I'm officially in the category of 'trust, but verify'.

Scott Mendelson

* Ironically, the original working title for Scream was in fact 'Scary Movie'. Needless to say, that would have been even more annoying as the characters do make a point to overtly say 'scary movie' about two dozen times in the course of the picture.

Interesting news on the MPAA ratings front...

Box Office Mojo sends out a weekly update of what films have received what ratings from the MPAA. There are several interesting tidbits this week.

W, Oliver Stone's allegedly comic biopic of George W. Bush (mainly dealing with his life pre-presidential run), has been awarded a surprising PG-13 (for language including sexual references, some alcohol abuse, smoking and brief disturbing war images). I presume this means that we won't see Bush allegedly using cocaine in his youth. On the other hand, this is Oliver Stone's second PG-13 movie in a row, and his second PG-13 movie ever, following the terrible World Trade Center.

Stone used to specialize in hard-R adult entertainment, so this is an interesting development. If you can't count on Die Hard, The Terminator, and Oliver Stone dramas for R-rated entertainment value, who can you count on? If Lionsgate makes good on its alleged intent to make Punisher: War Zone into a PG-13 picture, they will have the two most inappropriate PG-13 movies of the year. Are they really hoping that teenagers are going to see this one? Perhaps we'll all be treated to the scene of Richard Dreyfuss's Dick Cheney telling Sen. Patrick J. Leahy to 'go frick himself'.

Quantum Of Solace has received the expected PG-13 for the expected helpful helpings of 'intense sequences of violence and action, and some sexual content.' There is some 007 news, but that will be dealt with in my next 'short' post.

Valkyrie, the Tom Cruise-starring and Brian Singer-directed adventure has been rated PG-13 for (violence and brief strong language). The 'Nazis who plot to kill Hitler' thriller is obviously going for broke as a mainstream action adventure title. Fair or not, this somewhat troubled production will make or break United Artists and Tom Cruise's future as an aging star. Still, troubles aside, Tom Cruise hasn't made a completely bad movie since Days Of Thunder in 1990. And, Superman Returns aside, Bryan Singer has a pretty solid track record (Usual Suspects, Apt Pupil, and the first two X-Men pictures). There's no real reason to presume that this won't be a dramatically compelling action thriller.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Burn After Reading (2008)

Burn After Reading
2008
095 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Burn After Reading is so lightweight, so airy and devoid of potency, that is almost an apology of sorts for the deadly serious myth making that was No Country For Old Men. This is not unprecedented for the Joel and Ethan Coen. Back in 1998, they followed up the award-winning and acclaimed Fargo, a black comedy that none the less had dramatic potency, with the wacky comedy The Big Lebowski. Now there is nothing wrong with being light and fancy free, but the almost intentional irrelevance of this new picture renders it a success only as an acting treat.

The chief pleasure in that area is John Malkovich, who has a blast hamming it up as a disgruntled former CIA agent who has misplaced a CD containing his memoirs (yes, that CD is the McGuffin). Malkovich only does comedy every so often (Being John Malkovich, Johnny English, The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy), so it's always a treat when he plays for laughs. His resentful, bitchy, and overtly ornery would-be spy dominates the first third of the picture and it's the main reason why the film's first act is its strongest.

Also having fun is Brad Pitt, who basically playing a work-a-day idiot and looking about twenty-years younger in the process (some of that Benjamin Button makeup still lingering?). George Clooney shows up here and there, as do Tilda Swinton, J.K. Simmons, and Richard Jenkins. They all seem to consider this a relaxing vacation with good friends.

If the film has an emotional beat, it belongs to Francis McDormand. As an employee of a health club who is desperate to get extensive plastic surgery, she sees the discovery of said disc as a way to get respect and love, completely oblivious to the fact that her boss (a mournful Jenkins) would happily give her both. Whether or not a character who looks like McDormand thinks so little of her appearance is intended as social commentary is irrelevant. She is the only character who moves beyond the level of low-key cartoon.

Still, even if the plot is barely there, the pacing is slow, and the climax attempts meaning that is unearned, the film works as ninety-minutes spent with terrific actors all having fun sending up their images. It is one of the more undisciplined films in the Coen Brothers archive (Fargo aside, they work best when they restrain themselves or are adapting a previous movie or a novel), but it is still intelligent and witty and an enjoyable time at the movies.

Grade: B-

Favorite/Best films of the 1990s

Keep in mind, these are favorites, not necessarily best, in general order of release year.

Dick Tracy - Still one of the darkest and saddest comic book films ever made - Pacino and especially Madonna both do some of their best work and everyone else is in top form. Behind the colors and gee-whiz violence, this is a sad, mournful character study of several people (Tracy, Breathless, Big Boy, 88 Keys) stuck in places they don't want to be, excelling in roles they have little interest in playing, with no plausible way to get out.

Awakenings - I haven't seen it in close to fifteen-years, but I loved it back when it was new. A sorrowful examination of people waking from decades of a walking nightmare. One of Robin Williams' very best performances (along with his guest spot on the 'Bop Gun' episode of Homicide: Life On The Street back in 1994).

Dances With Wolves - It was a giant smash and a multi-Oscar winner, yet now it is genuinely underrated. Forgive Costner for some of the crap that came after and forgive him for defeating Scorsese and Goodfellas. All that aside, this is a beautiful western epic that was a true groundbreaker in its treatment of native americans. And another great Costner-directed western, 2003's Open Range, easily makes up for The Postman.

Goodfellas - Duh.

The Silence Of The Lambs - still holds up as the definitive adult dark fairy tale for our age. Hopkins' work is cliche by now, but it still works because his screen time is limited (only twenty-seven minutes). The heart of this film still belongs to Jodie Foster, and her relationship with Scott Glenn, and the blunt realism of Ted Levine are what makes this fable sing. Still an incredibly rich, character-driven thriller that is a true classic.

JFK - A dazzling, hyper kinetic examination of the fragile nature of truth itself, it passes the non-fiction test that so many conventional biopics fails. It is so completely involving and entertaining that it would be a near-masterpiece even if it were complete fiction (which it may be).

Malcolm X - Spike Lee's best film, Denzel Washington's finest moment, and the best biopic of all time. Period.

Batman Returns - Despite heavy competition, still the best Batman film of all time. I love Batman and Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but this is Batman re imagined as a grim fairy tale, while staying true to the core concepts of the Batman universe. The Nolan Batman films may be more faithful to the character and plot beats, and Tim Burton's original Batman may be more faithful to the tone and spirit, but Batman Returns is the only Batman film that qualifies as haunting.

Dead Alive/Brain Dead - the goriest film ever made and the finest horror comedy I've ever seen.

Schindler's List - Take away all of the staggering Holocaust footage and you still have a peerless character study of two opposing figures (Neeson and Feinnes) who eventually represent two sides of a moral spectrum. It was somewhat groundbreaking in its portrayal of a three-dimensional Nazi, both monster and as a man, and it still works as a haunting character study.

In The Line Of Fire - It has aged much better than The Fugitive (Kimble finds his wife's killer in literally two easy steps that any private eye or lawyer should have accomplished). This is one of the best Hitchcock-type thrillers of our time (watch how an audience gasps when Malkovich drops his bullet under the table) and one of my favorite white-knuckle thrillers. Eastwood and Malkovich are in peak form and everything just clicks into place. A near perfect example of its genre.

Pulp Fiction - Still holds up, because it's more concerned with being good and being compelling than it is with being cool. While the rip-offs and cash ins that followed were more concerned about being hip and funny, they all forgot that at heart Pulp Fiction is a drama, a story about three-dimensional characters and the bonds they form or break as they make life-altering decisions.

Speed - One of the best action films of the decade. It still holds up because of the acting and the writing. The chemistry between all four leads (Keanu Reeves, Dennis Hopper, Sandra Bullock, and Jeff Daniels) crackles and the dialogue is a joy to listen to. Oh yes, and the sustained action is exciting and compelling every step of the way.

Hoop Dreams - The film that changed documentary film making, arguably for the better. Easily the best documentary of the 1990s, and one of the finest of all time. Whenever people blather on about how critics don't matter, I point to this one. Would any of you have even heard of this movie if not for Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert?

Ed Wood - This is still Tim Burton's best film and one of the best movies ever made about movies. This was one of his last gasps of truly original filmmaking, before the career-killing Mars Attacks and the career-saving Sleepy Hollow turned him into a revamp/remake machine.

Forrest Gump - no matter your political stripe, I've always taken this as a dark comedy disguised as a heart warmer. It deals both with the concept of America being a place where you can fall into success while the more ambitious and worthy fail, and the idea that the good luck of Forrest Gump rubs off inversely towards everyone he meets, bringing death, destruction and misery to everyone in his path. It's ok to still love this film AND love Pulp Fiction, Tarantino does too.

Babe - Still my all-time favorite live-action family film. I can't wait to show this one to my daughter. If she doesn't like it, that may be grounds for adoption.

Toy Story - Just because part II is one of the best sequels ever doesn't mean the original wasn't a masterpiece. Still one of the best Pixar films, behind only Toy Story 2 and The Incredibles.

Dead Man Walking - Ironically, despite losing four or five times, Susan Sarandon won the Oscar for her very best performance. Arguably the best film ever made about the death penalty. It absolute stands against it, but never shies away from the valid reasons so many approve of it.

Goldeneye - Still my favorite James Bond film. Why, oh why, didn't they bring Martin Campbell back for Quantum Of Solace? It has all of the Bond elements in place, but also with a sympathetic villain, a smattering of real-world history, a ridiculously over-the-top villainous, and a heroine who gives gravity to the proceedings by being genuinely repulsed by the violence she encounters.

Twelve Monkeys - The only time travel movie that actually makes a token amount of sense, and it's emotionally gripping to boot. This may be Terry Gilliam's best film, as it is the only one that mixes his eccentricities in a cocktail that is accessible to audiences and dramatically compelling, without sacrificing any of what makes Gilliam so unique. The finale is a knockout and Bruce Willis is in rare form.

Se7en/Copy Cat - They are both peerless thrillers in their own unique way. One rewrote the book on the genre, launching the careers of David Fincher and Gynneth Paltrow, affirming the stardom of Brad Pitt and Kevin Spacey, giving us Morgan Freeman's finest moment. The other was a last gasp of the old way, with Holly Hunter's best performance and delightfully human dialogue for every character.

Fargo - No Country For Old Men was fine and all, but there is only one Fargo. Compared to the somewhat mythical grandeur of No Country, Fargo's folksy ordinariness makes it all the more chilling. And Francis McDormand creates a modern icon in Marge Gunderson, arguably one of the goofiest, friendliest, and warmest police officers in cinema history.

LA Confidential - Come what may, this is probably my favorite film of the decade. It's one of the best film noirs ever made, surely the best in the last thirty-years or so. Every performance crackles, the plot actually makes sense, and the bursts of brutal violence have a sting to them.

Face/Off - Woo's best film period, one of Cage's best performances, and one of the best action films ever written. It's so rich that it works as an emotional drama even without the shootouts.

Titanic - It needs no defense at this point. Either you love it or you don't. The key is that Cameron makes sure that the death of every single person on that ship every bit as tragic as what happens to our leads.

Wag The Dog - Contrary to popular belief, it actually came out a month before the Lewinsky mess broke. If ever a film were to predict the future... One of the last times that Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman actually tried.

The Mask Of Zorro - Martin Campbell strikes again, with my favorite action adventure film of the 1990s, and perhaps my favorite superhero film of all time. Antonio Banderas is terrific, and Anthony Hopkins does better, more alive work here than anything since The Silence Of The Lambs. The stunt work and sword play are grandly staged, exquisitely shot, and coherently edited. The music is sweeping, and the villains are both devious, sympathetic, and surprisingly intelligent (the master plan is genuinely brilliant). I used to show this one to new girlfriends as a litmus test. Knowing this, my wife refused to watch it until after we were married (yes, she liked it, but she still is afraid to watch Almost Famous, which is the only other 'must like' movie). This is one of those movies that I probably enjoy more than anyone else on the planet.

A Simple Plan - Sam Raimi's best film, Billy Bob Thornton's best work, and one of the more nerve-wracking thrillers of the decade.

Dark City - I loved it when I saw it in theaters and time has only improved its sad, mournful power. The director's cut is better, but that's no strike against the original version. Was, is, and always shall be better than The Matrix.

The Sixth Sense - It still holds up as an incredibly moving character study about a troubled son, an overburdened single mother, and the wounded therapist who tries to help them heal. It still works as a slow-build thriller too. Take away the twist, and the climactic conversation between mother and son is still a stunningly effective, emotionally bruising, but ultimately uplifting climax to a terrific film.

Galaxy Quest - The only good live-action Tim Allen film, and the finest satire of the 1990s. Created with absolute love for the science fiction genre, this Star Trek meets Three Amigos farce is far funnier and far smarter than it has any right to be. Alan Rickman cements his return to Hollywood and Sam Rockwell becomes a star as the 'red shirt' who expects death around every corner. Sigourney Weaver, Tony Shalhoub, Enrico Colantoni, and a very young Justin Long are all game. The dining hall sequence has a great pay off, and the deleted scenes on the DVD include one of the best bathroom gags in ages (why it's not in the finished film, I cannot say). Amazingly enough, this comedic spoof of Star Trek is probably the best Star Trek movie ever made. By Grabthar's hammer... by the Sons of Warvan... this one is aging like a fine wine.

Toy Story 2 - One of the finest sequels of all time, and probably the best cartoon ever made. This has the purest distillation of the quintessential Pixar theme - learning that life is only precious because it eventually ends. This one is so stunningly moving and powerful, I almost wish they wouldn't go ahead with their plans for Toy Story 3D. This one leaves our pals in a perfect place - completely willing to accept that they can't control their fate, but completely willing to enjoy the ride... for infinity and beyond!

Other worthies of the decade - Total Recall (Arnold's best film), LA Story (Steve Martin's best film), City Slickers, Dead Again, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Candyman, The Fugitive, Searching For Bobby Fischer, Jurassic Park, Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm, Clear and Present Danger, Wes Craven's New Nightare, The Shawshank Redemption, Quiz Show, Braveheart, The Usual Suspects, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders of Robin Hood Hill, Independence Day (especially the director's cut), Big Night, Contact, Donnie Brasco (Pacino's best performance of the 1990s), The Truman Show, The Siege (another 'predict the future' movie), The Matrix, Election, The Iron Giant, Being John Malkovich, Magnolia, Sleepy Hollow, and yes, sorry, Star Wars: Episode One: The Phantom Menace (judged evenly, it's as good as A New Hope but it's not nearly as good as The Empire Strikes Back or Revenge of the Sith).

Scott Mendelson

Hannah Montana Movie moved away from Summer (Fox breathes a sigh of relief)

Yet another high-profile date change, this one affecting the beginning of summer 2009. The (sure to be highly anticipated) Hannah Montana Movie has moved from May 1st to April 10th, 2009. I'm not sure why Disney made the move, but this will be a huge relief to Fox, Paramount, and Sony for the month of May.

The Hannah Montana Movie was originally set to kick off the summer on May 1st, head to head with Fox's X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Now you may be thinking that this would have been a similar situation to summer 2003, when X2: X-Men United opened to $85 million and The Lizzie McGuire Movie opened with $17 million. And you'd be wrong.

Call it improved marketing or a coming of age of the Disney Channel audience, but Disney Channel television is bigger than its ever been and Hannah Montana is its queen. Hannah Montana is a monster unlike any of the previous Nickelodeon or Disney starlets of previous generations. Don't believe me? Ask any parent of a young girl about the likelihood of being dragged to this one on opening weekend. Ask any young girl if they'd rather see Hannah Montana or just about any other movie you can name other than Harry Potter 6. Melissa Joan Hart, of Clarissa Explains It All and Sabrina The Teenage Witch, once ruefully remarked that had she been a star today, she would have had a movie, a TV show, and a platinum-selling CD to her credit. Miley Cyrus and her rock-star alter-ego are absolutely a crippling force to be reckoned with. This is a character who's last movie , the 3D concert film Best Of Both Worlds, opened last February to $32 million on just 683 screens. Yes, many of those screens charged an extra buck or two for the 3D experience, but that's still a record $45,561 per screen.

Ok, fine, let's say Hannah Montana opens on 4000 screens and we cut that average in half ($22,780 - not even in the top twenty-five per screen averages). That still gives us a $91 million opening weekend. Does anyone think that Wolverine is going to do $91 million on its opening weekend? Maybe, it's possible, if the stench of X-Men 3 and the alleged behind the scenes drama doesn't affect the buzz. How about Star Trek? Angels And Demons? Anything else this summer other than maybe Harry Potter 6 and Transformers 2? Even chopping that per-screen average down by 2/3 gives the Miley Cyrus vehicle $15,000 per screen and a $61 million opening weekend.
So, aside from not wanting to embarrass Fox and Sony, why did Disney move it out of the summer? The only explanation that I can think of is two-fold. First off, they know they can't gross $151 million, so the record for May is out of reach. The April record, Anger Management's $42 million, could theoretically be beaten on opening day (expect massive frontloading of April 10th). The other reason is simpler. If Hannah Montana can live up to even the bottom rung of potential, it'll have a full month to itself to print money before having to deal with the big guns of summer. I suppose it's better to trade being a big fish in a big pond for being the fish who eats and kills all the other fish in a smaller pond.

But make no mistake, this is as much a game changer as Harry Potter's big move. Alas, in the broad sense, Disney loses a chance to prove that yet another female-centric film can cause mega-damage to cash registers in summer just as well as the super heroes and geek properties. While it may be a smart financial move for Disney, it creates the perception that the girl flick isn't tough enough to hack it out against the men. Pity, since it's likely that Hannah Montana would have thrashed Wolverine, Captain Kirk, and John Conner without breaking a sweat.

Scott Mendelson