Weekend Box Office (10/31/10): Saw 7 3D rules over one last Halloween weekend.

The Saw series has been a Halloween weekend custom of sorts for the last six years. It debuted in third place on Halloween weekend 2004, where it opened with $18 million behind the second weekend of The Grudge and the opening weekend of Ray. From 2005 until 2009, Saw ruled the annual Halloween roast, with $30-33 million opening weekends in the Halloween or pre-Halloween weekend. Last year, it didn't quite go as planned. Fueled by viewer antipathy over the dull and listless Saw V, and the wide-release of the slow-building Paranormal Activity, Saw VI (ironically the best film in the Saw series) crumbled over the weekend before Halloween, opened with just $14 million before ending with just $27 million. This year, Lionsgate went back to the safety of Halloween weekend, and declined to open directly against Paranormal Activity 2. With ads (trailer 1 and trailer 2) touting the 3D gimmickry and alleging that Saw VII would be the final chapter in the series, could the long-running franchise regain some of its lost box office luster. The answer? Not really...

Saw VII 3D (review) opened with $24.2 million over its first weekend, which includes $1.7 million worth of advance-night screenings. Over 90% of the tickets were sold for the 3D version, meaning that higher ticket prices and the lack of direct opening-weekend competition did more than any retained luster. In terms of attendance, Saw 3D had the second-lowest number of tickets sold, behind the original film. This is not a glorious comeback, but rather inflated ticket prices creating the impression of bolstered numbers. Ironically, if the $24.2 million estimate holds, Saw VII will have pulled off a record opening weekend for a 'part 7' of an ongoing franchise, which it will keep for exactly three weeks until Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I (trailer) opens. As it is, I'm sure Diamonds are Forever and Star Trek: Generations sold far more tickets on their respective opening weekends.

The real question is how leggy this seventh chapter will be. Saw films notoriously have terrible legs, with the series averaging a horrible 2.27x weekend-to-final gross-multiplier (Saw IV, Saw V, and Saw VI all did over 50% of their business over opening weekend), 3D films seem to have a way of stemming the blood-flow of even the most frontloaded franchises, mainly by keeping their premium venues longer. So we'll have the 3D effect (to the extent that the deluge of 3D content doesn't negate the above point) against the fact that the seventh chapter was arguably the worst in the series, and a spit-in-the-face to those of us who actually liked this unfairly maligned series and wanted some kind of worthwhile finale. So call it 2.28x and give it a probable finish of $55 million. So farewell Jonathan Kramer. We shall miss your low-key gravitas and rampant moral hypocrisy.

Coming in second place was Paranormal Activity 2, which dropped just 59% in its second weekend. Considering that the film had one of the most frontloaded opening weekends ever, a drop under 60% is downright impressive. That gives the film a $16.5 million second weekend, and a ten-day total of $65.6 million. It probably won't top $100 million, but it's not too bad for a mere $3 million investment. For what it's worth, the film is actually playing like an inflated variation of The Ring Two, which opened with $35 million in a severely frontloaded opening weekend and had $57 million in the bank by day ten (it too was a cash-in sequel to a word-of-mouth phenomenon). It the pattern holds, Paranormal Activity 2 will end with about $87 million. Ironically, Paranormal Activity could very well become the new Saw series. As long as Paramount keeps the budgets under $10 million, they can happily crank these out every Halloween until the next horror franchise dethrones it. The king is dead, long live the new king.

The only major limited release news was the soft-ish debut of The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, which opened with $881,737 on 153 screens. It's a touch lower than the opening for The Girl Who Played With Fire, so it could theoretically equal the $7.5 million that part II garnered, but not the $10 million that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo grossed early this year. For what it's worth, this franchise is basically a mediocre television procedural with a touch more kink, and it's all the more apparent that the films don't gain anything for theatrical exhibition. I bent over backwards to be fair to the first picture, but The Girl Who Played With Fire bored me silly, playing so much like a mediocre episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit that I instinctively thought that it too would be improved by bringing back Richard Belzer. In other limited-release news, Welcome to the Rileys opened with $42,145 on ten screens. Just you watch for headlines screaming that Kristen Stewart isn't a star because this low-budget indie didn't open like Twilight Saga: Eclipse.

In other holdover news, Jackass 3D dropped another 60% in weekend three, but still passed the $100 million mark. With $101.6 million, it is now the second-highest grossing documentary of all-time, behind the $119 million-grossing Fahrenheit 9/11. Red dropped a mere 28% in weekend three, for a 17-day total of $58.8 million. Red is now the second-largest non-Twilight grosser in Summit Entertainment history, behind the $79 million-grossing Knowing. Secretariat dropped just 28% in its fourth weekend, making it the third consecutive drop under 29% for the horse-racing drama. The Diane Lane vehicle, which has had better legs than any other movie in wide release this year, has grossed $44.7 million on a $35 million budget and should play for awhile. Conviction expanded into wide release, with so-so results. The Hillary Swank true-life legal drama pulled in $1.83 million on 565 screens for a $2.3 million cumulative total. Finally, Clint Eastwood's Hereafter dropped 46% in weekend two of wide release. It now has a total of $22.2 million.

That's it for this weekend. Join us next weekend for the start of the holiday movie season. Dreamworks unleashes the year's second animated cartoon about a super-villain, Megamind. Warner Bros gives us the Robert Downey Jr/Zach Galifianakis comedy Due Date. Lionsgate releases Tyler Perry's would-be Oscar bait For Colored Girls. In limited release, we get Danny Boyle's true-life survival tale 127 Hours, the Elliot Spitzer documentary Client 9, and a film based on the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame: Fair Game.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Saw VII 3D (2010)

Saw VII
2010
91 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Saw VII is an unnecessary epilogue to a series that already had a pretty satisfying finale. Saw VI succeeded in returning Tobin Bell to the center stage, while devising a compelling story that brought the story full circle and tied up every reasonable loose end. Saw VII adds nothing of value to the universe, aside from a last-minute 'twist' that anyone with half-a-brain could see coming from the first reel. It also may very well be the worst film in the long-running franchise. It is sloppily plotted and abysmally-acted. Worst of all, it seemingly goes out of its way to avoid every element that made the series unique and worth defending. This is a Saw picture that makes one embarrassed to have enjoyed the prior installments.

A token amount of plot: Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell) has failed in her attempt to murder Jigsaw apprentice Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor), and he's plenty upset about it. Seeking protection, she turns to Internal Affairs officer Gibson (Chad Donella), who is all-too ready to believe Tuck's accusations due to his personal dealings with Hoffman. Meanwhile, a bestselling author who made his fortune on his story as a Jigsaw survivor (Sean Patrick Flannery) is about to find himself and those close to him put to the test yet again. You'll notice what's not included in the plot synopsis, and that's any reference to John Kramer himself. Sure enough, Tobin Bell literally has a single brief scene in the entire picture, plus a token appearance in the climactic montage of exposition. Just as the Halloween sequels have been given a certain gravitas by the continuing appearances of Donald Pleasence, the Saw series have always used to the compelling presence of Mr. Bell to give it a certain edge. Bell's low-key menace had a way of keeping the other actors in check, making sure that few overacted and/or chewed the scenery.

Without Bell to anchor the film, the picture falls headfirst in the realm of stupidity. Every actor gives a truly terrible performance, especially the newbies. Sean Patrick Flannery stumbles without a net as the primary target. He, like Angus Macfadyen in Saw III and Peter Outerbridge in Saw VI, is forced to walk through a maze of horrors, faced with an escalating series of tasks that require him to suffer in order to save those around him. But the film lacks the emotional pull of Macfadyen coping with his son's death and Outerbridge's empathetic horror as he is forced to put his personal philosophy to the test. Flannery's Bobby is just a lying butt-head who wanders around while his colleagues are slaughtered in the usual assortment of elaborate traps (unlike Saw VI, there is no suspense as there are no real choices to be made). Chad Donell gives a truly terrible performance, seemingly haven taken cop-acting lessons from Chris Klein. Yet these two characters are supposed to anchor an entire motion picture that posits to end a six-year long series.

As for the traps, they are a bit more larger than life than the norm, which makes even less sense when you realize that it is Hoffman (basically the muscle in Jigsaw's operation), not Kramer (the architect), who constructed them this time around. But the over-the-top nature of the violence undermines what should be a sense of empathy for the victims. The best installments (Saw II, Saw III, and Saw VI) put the audience in a position of rooting against the slaughter. Saw VII, with its crowd-pleasing death scenes and gratuitous 3D effects, sells out whatever moral leverage it had for the sake of chunks of flesh flying right at you. There is a brute heartlessness to the carnage this time around, as the film contains far more gore and drawn-out suffering than any prior entry. If ever there was a Saw film that could accurately be accused of being torture porn...

As for the whole 3D gimmick, it is reasonably effective, used in the same fashion as My Bloody Valentine. But the use of video makes this seventh installment look and feel completely different from the previous Saw pictures. The sets are bright, the detail is lacking, and the film feels less like a Saw sequel than the first installment of the direct-to-DVD franchise Saw: the Next Generation. Frankly, save for brief moments of screen time for Bell, Russell, and Mandylor, this feels like a completely disconnected picture. Visually and narratively, the film has next to no real connection to the prior Saw pictures. We learn no new information about John Kramer or anyone else in the Saw universe. For a series that prided itself on convoluted retroactive continuity, there isn't even a barest attempt to make this final entry fit in with the rest. It is shocking that this film was in fact directed (somewhat unwillingly) by the man behind Saw VI, and that it was written by the same people involved in all of the prior sequels.

There is a cheap cruelty to the traps this time around, and an obnoxious misogyny that the series has previously avoided. The opening trap, an exciting change of pace played out in broad daylight in front of a panicked crowd, is marred by the nasty undertones at play (two men must fight for the affections of a woman who dated them both, or team up to let her slowly die). Furthermore, the majority of the victims are young women, and a major female character has nothing more to do than scream and beg for her life for the duration of the last two acts. Worst of all, Jill Tuck spends the entire film as a damsel in distress, hiding in fear of Hoffman before being forced to play out the oldest cliche in the book - the 'final girl' attempting to elude the monster in the dark.

Saw VII is like the ninth season of Scrubs, a flawed product that extends a series past its perfect finale and undoes much of the goodwill that said finale brought about. Saw VII is an atrociously bad film. But more importantly, it is just the sort of film that people complain about when trashing the series sight-unseen. It is stupid, poorly written and acted, needlessly gory, pointlessly cruel, viciously misogynistic, and just plain boring. In my head, Scrubs officially ended at the conclusion of season 8, and Homicide: Life on the Street ended with the seventh-season finale. In the approved continuity, there is no Saw VII. The series ended on a high note, with dignity and integrity at the conclusion of Saw VI. To those who remember this series with a certain fondness, I'd like to play a game: it's called 'pretend Saw VII never happened'.

Grade: D-

Goodbye John. A farewell to Saw, as Jigsaw lays his last trap.

For one half a decade, he has thrilled us with his adventures, amazed us with his discoveries, and inspired us with his courage. His traps were beyond imagination. His name has become legend, his cohorts the finest ever assembled. We have traveled beside him from one poorly-lit warehouse or factory to another. He has been our guide, our protector, and our friend. Now, you are invited to join him, for one last game...

The first Saw (which I rather disliked) was the last film I saw in a theater before I left for Los Angeles. The far-superior Saw II was the first date with the woman I would eventually marry (her choice, fortunately I had already seen The Legend of Zorro at a test screening months earlier). Needless to say, the series has had a strong nostolgic value in our household for the duration of our relationship. We haven't actually seen a Saw picture on opening night since 2007. Saw IV was our second movie-night after our daughter was born in late August (the first was Michael Clayton in early October). Saw IV's mediocrity gave way to Saw V, which we casually saw on opening day in an after-work matinée. Last year, the series had declined enough to make my wife pass on our annual tradition. Bitter irony that I ended up seeing Saw VI on my own, only to discover that it was perhaps the best of the whole series. She eventually saw it on Blu Ray, and she immediately regretted skipping out. So now, with a babysitter in tow and our schedule cleared, the wife and I are doing an old-fashioned date night. Dinner at a favorite seafood restaurant, then off to the 8:00pm show, and home before bedtime (I'll try to have a review up around midnight).

Yes, if this is truly the end of the line, I will miss the series. I will miss Tobin Bell's gravitas and genuine pathos. I will miss the only ongoing horror series to constantly feature adult actors playing adult characters, with hardly a child or teen actor in the bunch. I will miss the rare horror franchise that never veered into misogyny and never pandered to the prurient desires of its audience. I will miss the insanely retroactive continuity that became more convoluted than later seasons of Lost and/or Arrested Development. I will miss the inexplicable need to spend 15 minutes per film detailing random character interactions from Saw III and the setting-up of a random trap from Saw IV. I will miss the absurdity of building an entire second trilogy around a character (Costas Mandylor's Hoffman) who had but a thirty-second cameo in Saw III. I will miss the inconstancy of Jigsaw's schemes, which targeted everyone from murders and rapists to cops who cared too much and federal agents who trusted their instincts too much.

But, warts and all, there was something weirdly special about the Saw series. Unlike so many horror films that basically amounted to 'kids get lost in the woods, get slaughtered by supernatural freaks', the Saw franchise was an intricately plotted and carefully constructed puzzle box. It featured not a random boogieman, but a genuine character (John Kramer) played by a real actor (Tobin Bell). It didn't always make sense, but you could tell that the writers were sincere about laying the longterm groundwork, or at least successful in retroactively paying off random moments from the earlier films. Jigsaw's philosophy was pretty absurd (free legal tip: putting a guy in a room with a bomb and putting the key up his ass is still murder), but the films occasionally called him out on his failings and we were never really expected to accept Kramer's monologuing at face value.

They really weren't 'torture porn'. Sure, a few of the on-screen demises (just over a dozen out of just-under fifty) involved pain and suffering, but most were spectacularly quick and completely painless. The Saw franchise was a place for undervalued actors (Donnie Wahlberg, Shawnee Smith, Angus Macfadyen, Peter Outerbridge) to shine in the genre sandbox, as well as a place for somewhat more well-known actors (Scott Patterson, Julie Benz, pretty much every single performer in the first Saw) to fall on their faces. There were moments of high art (Angus Macfadyen choosing to burn his dead son's belongings in order to save the life of the judge who gave his son's killer a light sentence in Saw III) and unintentional hilarity (Scott Patterson conducting the world's police worst interrogation of Betsy Palmer in Saw IV).

Of the six movies thus far, I could only call three of them (Saw VI, Saw II, and the ambitious but flawed Saw III) truly good, although the overwrought and absurd Saw IV isn't the least bit boring. And yes, sorry to say, but the original Saw still stinks. It's slow, boring, and still feels like a sloppy and on-the-nose first-draft screenplay that never got rewritten after it sold based on the Amanda trap scene. It also contains the worst performance of pretty much everyone in it, and that even includes Michael Emerson. But the franchise as a whole stands out as a unique bit of horror filmmaking, not to be dismissed out of hand. For six long years, we have amused ourselves watching John Kramer and his cohorts strive to teach random citizens to value their lives. If this is to be the end, then it is the end of something worth remembering. Let me be the first to say goodbye to Mr. John 'Jigsaw' Kramer. You will be missed. Thanks for the memories.

Scott Mendelson

Chris Evans as Captain America debuts in Entertainment Weekly.

For a sneak peak at the actual article from tomorrow's issue, click here. No complaints here, it's a surprisingly solid look that combines a certain period-realism with the gee-whiz aspect of the character. Purists may carp over this or that detail, but Matt Salinger wore a costume EXACTLY like the comic book version back in 1990, and it didn't make that movie any better. This should be a fun time for geeks, as we'll soon start seeing real screenshots and actual trailers for the geek-centric films of next summer. We already know that we're getting a Green Lantern trailer before Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I, and there's a good chance that we'll see trailers for Thor and/or Captain America before Paramount's Megamind or Morning Glory (or everyone could just pile on behind Mr. Potter). Captain America is arguably the biggest question mark of the comic pictures. It's the best known property but also faces an uphill battle with its period setting and it's release date smack in the middle of July, a week after the Harry Potter finale and a week before Jon Favreau's Cowboys vs. Aliens. Once again, why oh why didn't Paramount schedule Captain America to open over July 4th weekend?

Scott Mendelson

Wow, actual Batman 3 news! The Dark Knight Rises will be 2D, with no Riddler.

Maybe it's because I'm getting older, or maybe because the rumor mill has gone into hyper-drive over the last few years, but I've spent quite a bit of time rolling my eyes at the nonstop onslaught of false rumors and non-news regarding Chris Nolan's third and theoretically final Batman picture. Some random blog posts a random rumor, and every other site runs with it and offers their subjective commentary before said rumor is debunked. So, when actual news turns up, straight from Chris Nolan himself, it is a somewhat noteworthy event. Long-story short. Chris Nolan revealed in an interview with the LA Times that the third Batman film will not be shot in 3D. It will not feature the Riddler. And it will be titled The Dark Knight Rises. Oh, and there's looking for a female lead of some kind, but that's not really news.

First things first, for all the random theorizing over the last 2.5 years, Chris Nolan never actually stated that he had any intentions of using Edward Nygma as the primary antagonist in the third Batman picture. Granted, Nygma was really the highest-profile villain remaining that could support his own picture, but it was never even hinted at by Nolan or anyone else actually involved. So now that we know that the villain will not be the Riddler, and it won't be Mr. Freeze, it's just a question of wild speculation without a real center for the rumors. At least we'll see an end to the various blog posts that start with 'riddle me this...!'

Will Tom Hardy be playing Black Mask, will he even be playing a villain at all? Will the film be a Bruce Wayne-driven narrative with several C-list villains showing up at various intervals? Will the would-be female lead be Catwoman, Talia Al Ghul, Poison Ivy, or (one hopes not) just another random female for Bruce Wayne to hit on? Will Nolan actually choose not to take a villain from the comic books? The last one is quite unlikely, as there are plenty of rogues that could be custom-fit into the 'real-world Gotham City' that Nolan and company have crafted. Pure speculation is of course great fun. It's fine and dandy, as long as the various film blogs don't go around pretending that their guesses are tantamount to news.

The whole 'no 3D' news isn't really a surprise. Chris Nolan has stated before that he's not the world's biggest fan of 3D, while going out of his way not to begrudge others who disagree. Warner Bros' willingness to cancel the 3D-conversion of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I shows that they don't want to get a reputation for exploiting their crown jewels with 3D gimmickry. Point being, the call on 3D or 2D was always Nolan's to make. The studio eats out of Chris Nolan's hands at the moment, and since his 'one for me' project was a critically-acclaimed action picture that grossed $800 million worldwide, he's kinda got bargaining power.

As for that title... it's kinda terrible. It feels like a last-minute choice plucked out of thin air to meet some arbitrary deadline after spending the weekend before on a bender ('umm... quick, we've got a title due in four hours for the licensing companies!'). It utterly fails at differentiating the three chapters as three unique motion pictures, but rather turns the trilogy into Batman Begins, plus The Dark Knight parts 1 and 2. Sure, we all had our favorite theoretical picks (I was pro-Shadow of the Bat from day one), but I'm pretty sure no one expected such a lazy choice.

And, worst of all, it will lead to nonstop speculation that Two-Face will somehow return from the dead, since Nolan said on more than one occasion that The Dark Knight title referred to the character arcs of both Batman and Harvey Dent. Never mind that if Dent were alive, it would negate the whole 'Batman takes the rap for Harvey's murders and becomes a feared and hunted fugitive' cliffhanger, it seems that unless someone's head explodes onscreen, half the audience will assume that they will be back in the sequel. Even cutting Darth Maul in half wasn't enough to get geeks swearing that he would be back in Attack of the Clones.

So for now, we have a title, a major actor (Tom Hardy) having been cast, and random utterances about a female lead. The film is just under two years away, so there's plenty of wild speculation masquerading as news to sort through between now and July 20th, 2012. Maybe it's because I'm getting older, maybe it's just a shift in my prerogatives, or maybe it's because The Dark Knight was that one Batman movie that I always wanted (a gritty and serious crime drama starring Jim Gordon and The Joker), but I just don't care as much this time around. And, frankly, the choice of such a lazy, tossed-off title seems to imply that Chris Nolan may feel the same way. As always we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Farewell to Arms...

Right or Wrong, The Hangover 2 does not need Mel Gibson.

Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms and the rest of the cast just plain didn't want Mel Gibson in The Hangover 2. That much we know, as his cameo role as a crazed tattoo artist was announced, then retracted and recast with Liam Neeson in just a few days last week. Since then, there has been much speculation and discussion in the blogosphere, much of it centering on the alleged hypocrisy of allowing a convicted rapist (Mike Tyson) to appear in the original Hangover while crying foul at casting a man who is an occasional drunk driver and periodic anti-Semite/racist asshole. But sometimes it's really not that complicated. What if the disapproval over casting Mel Gibson in The Hangover 2 had nothing to do with morality, but with simple business sense?

Galifianakis made headlines just a day or so after the casting in an interview where he out-and-out stated that he was having issues with decisions that were being made on his current project. "I'm in a deep protest right now with a movie I'm working on, up in arms about something. But I can't get the guys to [listen] ... I'm not making any leeway." That was the choice quote from a podcast over at Comedy Death Ray. Let's presume for the moment that he was in fact discussing the use of Mel Gibson in a token appearance in The Hangover 2. Notice how Galifianakis never stated that it was a moral objection, merely something that he was in deep protest about. We have no more reason to assume that Galifianakis (and whomever else in the cast disapproved) had any moral qualms than we have reason to presume that it was purely an artistic and/or business decision. It is just as likely that it was the latter, and if that's the case, those who disapproved were 100% correct.

The Hangover 2 does not need Mel Gibson. Having Mel Gibson in the film does not help the film earn a single dollar at the box office. Purely due to solid reviews, pre-release buzz, and a powerful Warner Bros marketing campaign, the original Hangover opened with $44.9 million back in June 2009. That's the second-biggest debut ever for an R-rated comedy (behind American Pie 2). It played all summer, earning $277.3 million domestic and $467 million worldwide and becoming the highest-grossing R-rated comedy ever, the third-biggest comedy domestically (behind Meet the Fockers and Home Alone) and the third-biggest grossing R-rated film in domestic history and the fourth-biggest worldwide R-rated grosser ever. Plus the film had such positive reviews and popular acclaim that there was genuine talk as to whether or not the film would end up with a Best Picture nomination at last year's Oscars.

The Hangover 2 is all-but guaranteed to score one of the biggest R-rated openings in history, with a four-day opening weekend (it opens Thursday, May 26th) that could eclipse the five-day total of The Passion of the Christ ($125 million) in 2004, if not the $134 million grossed by the four-day debut of The Matrix Reloaded in 2003. As I noted last year when discussing break-out potentials of sequels, comedies usually have the largest boost when comparing opening weekends. Even popular comedies tend to be devoured on DVD and watched repeatedly on cable, where they are discovered by new fans over the years. Alas, the two-year span between films negates the effect of basic cable airings, as TBS won't be airing The Hangover until right around when the sequel shows up on DVD/Blu Ray. Still, The Hangover 2 is primed to break out in a way comparable to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, The Dark Knight, The Bourne Supremacy, and Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me. Having Mel Gibson onboard won't add much to an already sure-fire smash.

But here's what adding Mel Gibson would have added: It would have turned every media story about The Hangover 2 into a story about Mel Gibson. How did he behave on set? Was he polite? Did he socialize with the cast? Is there anyone he did or didn't get along with? We would have gotten months of hand-wringing over whether or not Todd Phillips and the gang should be helping in the image-rehabilitation of relatively unpopular celebrity, and whether or not said protests were hypocritical in light of (convicted rapist) Mike Tyson's casting in the first picture (one could argue that the cast had no leverage the first time around, so even if they disapproved it wasn't their call). Every press conference would invariably have taken a defensive tone, as those amongst the cast and crew who disagreed with the casting would have had to defend the choice without endorsing it. Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis would have become supporting players in their own movie, as the press junket rounds would have invariably focused on everything Gibson-related, at the expense of the movie itself. All for a brief scene that would have not added one dollar to the box office gross of the already sure-to-be-massive summer tentpole.

For whatever reasons that Mel Gibson's cameo was junked in favor of a Liam Neeson appearance, the film truly dodged a bullet. To an even greater extent that the attempted casting of Lindsey Lohan in the first film, this bit of celebrity stunt-casting would have diluted the reality that these films attempt to exist within (think the absurd cameos of Jay and Silent Bob in Scream 3). Now the makers of The Hangover 2 can concentrate on simply making their movie. I don't think that there particularly needs to be a sequel, and (allegedly) repeating the original premise in Thailand reeks of laziness. Plus the unceremonious dumping of Heather Graham, implying that the women in the first film are disposable, makes it that much harder to defend the original against accusations that it was just an obnoxiously sexist frat-boys comedy (it was an intricately plotted mystery narrative that didn't depend on gay panic and misogynistic stereotypes for its humor). But for those eagerly awaiting the next installment, the news of Gibson's departure is good news. Mel Gibson will be fine in the long run (provided he wants to be fine, I can't imagine that Jodie Foster or Richard Donner will give up on him anytime soon), and The Hangover 2 can continue to primarily be about The Hangover 2.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office Review (10/24/10): Paranormal Activity 2 scores record $41.5 million. Hereafter nets $12 million. Holdovers hold strong.

Paranormal Activity 2 blasted into the record books over the weekend, grossing $40.6 million in its first three days. That's the biggest opening ever for a supernatural horror picture, the second-largest debut for any kind of horror picture (behind Hannibal's $58 million debut in 2001), the biggest horror debut in October history, the fifth-biggest October opening on record, and the 19th-largest R-rated opening ever. Costing just $3 million, the Paramount sequel capitalized on the much-buzzed about original, which had a stunningly successful platform release over last September and October. If you recall, Paranormal Activity grossed $7.9 million on just 160 screens over the second weekend in October, and eventually went wide over the weekend before Halloween, where it famously kneecapped the long-running Saw franchise. If the original film's box office run slightly mirrored the run of the original Scream (small opening weekend, slow jog to $100 million+), then Paranormal Activity 2 is definitely Scream 2 (the Wes Craven sequel also came out a year after the original and scored an eye-popping $33 million debut in December 1997).

Of course, the famous 'word-of-mouth' sensation (actually a marketing triumph, aided by Paramount not having anything else to spend money on that quarter) may give way to one of the least-leggy blockbusters ever. Paranormal Activity 2 also holds the unpleasant distinction of having the fourth-worst weekend multiplier on record, with a mere 2.02x weekend multiplier from its $20.1 million opening day. In fact, the film pulled in 15% ($6.3 million) of its weekend numbers just during its Friday 12:01am screenings, a feat exceeded only by The Twilight Saga: New Moon, which pulled in 18% of its $142 million weekend in midnight showings. So depending on how the film handles direct competition from Saw 3D next weekend and whether or not it survives past Halloween (the original pulled in an additional $23 million after Halloween), we may not even be talking about this one in three weeks. Still, a $3 million picture with minimal advertising (the best promotion was just attaching the trailer to Jackass 3D last weekend) just opened with $41.5 million. So we can expect Paranormal Activity 3 in a year or two.

The only other major opener was Clint Eastwood's Hereafter, which went wide after a weekend on six screens. The Matt Damon 'what happens when we die?' drama opened right in Eastwood's customary wheelhouse, with $12 million. Aside from flukes like Gran Torino ($29 million), Clint Eastwood pictures (Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers, The Changeling, etc) generally open wide in the $9-12 million range, so this is business as usual. Of course, the film cost $50 million, so it will need strong and leggy business to make a profit. That it opened this well despite the downbeat marketing campaign (complete with the creepy Invasion of the Body Snatchers poster) and mediocre reviews is a testament to Eastwood's fan loyalty and Matt Damon's box office pull. In limited release land, the Hillary Swank drama Conviction expanded to 55 screens, but only mustered $300,000.

In holdover land, Jackass 3D weathered the direct-demo competition of Paranormal Activity 2, dropping a mere (for this franchise) 57% and grossing $21 million, or about what the original Jackass made on its first weekend in 2002. This one has pulled down $86.6 million in ten days, easily besting the $72 million gross of Jackass part Two. It would seem that Jackass 3D is on track to crossing $100 million, if not the $119 million needed to surpass Fahrenheit 9/11 as the highest-grossing documentary ever. As for why Paramount decided to open two youth-skewing R-rated pictures within a week of each other, Paramount likely felt the need to open both sequels in the same general period if not the same weekend that the respective originals opened on. Both films were dirt cheap so all they had to do was open. And, intentionally or not, they fed into each other. The R-rated Jackass 3D was able to attach a trailer for Paranormal Activity 2, which means the $50 million worth of people who saw the former were fully aware of the latter opening right at the prime awareness period (week before release). Since neither of the films needed to be remotely leggy, it was a smart strategy for huge short-term earnings. The two films cost about $25 million to make, both with limited marketing budgets, and they will make around $225-250 million in domestic sales alone. With numbers like that, who needs Iron Man?

Red held up as the grown-up film of choice, as it dropped just 30% for a $15 million second weekend and a $43.5 million ten-day total. The film will surely surpass the $53 million gross of Letters to Juliet to become Summit's second-highest non-Twilight grosser, although surpassing the $79.9 million gross of Knowing is an uphill battle. With little fanfare, Red is about to become Bruce Willis's fourth highest grossing live-action vehicle in ten years, coming only behind Sin City ($74 million), Unbreakable ($96 million), and Live Free or Die Hard ($133 million). Despite losing IMAX screens to Paranormal Activity 2 (because nothing screams IMAX like glorified home movies), Legends of the Guardians dropped just 23%, ending its fifth weekend with $50 million. It's still an $80 million production, but the solid holds have to count for something, right? Life As We Know It has rebounded from a soft $14 million opening to reach $37.6 million, meaning the $38 million comedy will soon surpass 3x its opening weekend, which is considered leggy in this day and age. In fact, everything held pretty well this weekend, which I'm sure has nothing to do with the two biggest movies being massively popular R-rated pictures. I cannot imagine why all of those PG-13-rated (The Social Network, Easy A, Wall Street 2) and PG-rated (the obscenely leggy Secretariat, Legends of the Guardians) fare is doing so well this weekend, can you?

That's it for this weekend, folks. Join us next weekend for (sniffle-sniffle) the end of an era. The sole new wide release over Halloween weekend is the seventh and allegedly final chapter of the Saw franchise. But for those not feeling nostalgic for the John Kramer saga, enjoy these bits of Halloween lore, with the 10 scariest horror films of the last 20 years, the 10 best direct-to-DVD horror films, and the very worst horror films that my wife has forced me to see over the years (films so bad... they're scary!).

Scott Mendelson

Friday Box Office (10/22/10): Paranormal Activity 2 grosses $20.1 million while Clint Eastwood's Hereafter grosses $4.1 million.

After scoring a record $6.3 million in midnight showings alone, Paranormal Activity 2 ended its first day with $20.1 million. For what it's worth, that means that Paranormal Activity 2 had one of the lowest 'midnight-to-opening day' multipliers in history. Only Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince ($22m midnight/$58m opening day), The Twilight Saga: New Moon ($26m/$72m), and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse ($30m/$68m) had a larger percentage of their opening day grosses from their respective midnight debuts. So there's a good chance that this horror sequel will end up just as front-loaded as, ironically, the Saw sequels. Still, a $3 million sequel with minimal advertising just scored $20 million in a single day, or about what the original made on its first weekend of wide release ($21 million) exactly a year ago. I'm sure no one at Paramount is shedding tears over the math regarding midnight sneaks. The film bested the $14.8 million opening day of The Ring Two (the previous record holder for supernatural horror), and scored the biggest opening day in history for an R-rated horror film. 2.2x weekend multiplier would give the picture about $45 million, which sounds about right. Anything above $39.1 million would top The Grudge and give Paranormal Activity 2 the biggest opening weekend for a supernatural horror picture.

Clint Eastwood's Hereafter grossed with $4.1 million on its first day, proving that Eastwood's pictures are pretty much guaranteed to open to around $11 million no matter how good or bad the reviews are. Jackass 3D grossed $7.5 million on its second Friday, dropping a whopping 65% from its opening Friday, which is to be expected considering the nature of the franchise and the direct-demo competition with Paranormal Activity 2. We can wonder why Paramount chose to open them back to back, but again, with numbers like this, who really cares? Red had a solid hold, grossing $4.5 million on its second Friday with a mere 37% drop. The Hilary Swank legal drama Conviction expanded to fifty-five theaters but grossed just $77,000, so expect a weak $220,000 weekend with a $4,500 per screen average. More details when the weekend numbers come in.

Scott Mendelson

Paranormal Activity 2 scores $6.3 million in midnight screenings, a record for an R-rated film. What does it mean for the opening weekend?

Beating a week-old record, Paramount's Paranormal Activity 2 grossed $6.3 million in midnight screenings last night. That beats the R-rated midnight record set by Watchmen ($4.6 million). Using midnight totals to tabulate a film's opening weekend is a risky gambit, but here are some numbers to chew on. Midnight showings can run around 5-8% of the opening weekend take (Jackass 3D, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Spider-Man 3, and Iron Man 2). But more frontloaded films can mean more frontloaded midnight showings, as suggested by Watchmen (8%) The Dark Knight (11%) and The Twilight Saga: New Moon (18%). Not helping matters is that many of the more frontloaded pictures to do significant midnight damage (the last two Harry Potter films, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, The Last Airbender, the Transformers films, the entire Star Wars prequel series) did not open on a Friday, which makes them almost useless as comparative examples.

If that $6.3 million represents just 7% of its opening weekend, then Paranormal Activity 2 is on its way to a $90 million opening weekend. So, if we can't wrap our brains around the idea of Paranormal Activity 2 pulling down a near-$100 million opening weekend, we have to assume that the film's genre and history make it heavily (REALLY heavily) slanted to appeal towards a midnight audience (to say nothing of how well it will do in afternoon showings this weekend). If it plays as frontloaded as The Twilight Saga: New Moon (probably the largest midnight-frontloading for a Friday opening on record), then that means that $6.3 million in midnights means a $35 million opening weekend, which is about what the pundits have been predicting. Obviously we'll know for sure which way the wind blows in about ten-to-twelve hours, but I do enjoy doing the math when the opportunity arises. Anyway, so if Paranormal Activity 2 ends up with a $25-30 million opening day, don't be too shocked. But hopefully Paramount will eventually release more stills, so I don't have to keep recycling the single screen-shot from the movie that the studio has thus far released.

Scott Mendelson

Just in Time for Halloween: Ten of the Scariest Horror Films of the Last 20 Years.

Last Halloween, we discussed the very best direct-to-DVD horror films. The year before, we dealt with the very worst horror films that my wife ever forced me to watch. This year, we're dealing with the new classics. The goal of this list is pretty simple. I'm sure we're all sick and tired of seeing countless 'scariest movies of all time' lists every Halloween that basically include some combination of the same several movies. Among the movies that will not be on this list: Psycho, Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Jaws, Halloween, Alien, and The Shining. Nothing against those films, but I'd imagine that any film nerd who cares enough to read a list of great horror movies has probably already seen them. By limiting the list to the last twenty years, we automatically discount most of the staples that usually fill up such 'best of' lists for Halloween. Oh, and another thing, this is purely about theatrical movies that actually scared me, regardless of how high they rank in the quality totem pole. The Silence of the Lambs, Se7en, and The Sixth Sense are among my all-time favorite movies, but they didn't particularly frighten me in the traditional sense. So, without further ado, let's dive in.

Candyman (1992)
Based on a short story by Clive Barker, this genuinely disturbing fairy tale concerns an urban legend that haunts a poverty-stricken housing project in Chicago. As a grad student (Virgina Madsen) investigates the legend of Candyman, the hook-handed murderer who can be summoned by speaking his name into a mirror three times, Helen Lyle finds herself affected by the unending violence and desperation that grips Cabrini-Green. Effortlessly weaving in ideas involving class and race without aggressively preaching, director Bernard Rose crafts a mournful little picture where the underprivileged find it easier to blame their misfortunes on a ghostly hook-handed psychopath than accept the random misery and violence in their midst . Deftly dealing with the core power of urban legends (they only have power if you believe them), the film resists revealing the truth about the mythical Candyman until the last possible moments. Personified by a foreboding but sensual Tony Todd in a star-making-but forever typecasting performance, the world of Candyman is one where it's easier to fear the boogieman than to fear your neighbors.

Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)
This one is Wes Craven's masterpiece, bar none, and easily the best of the Nightmare On Elm Street series. The picture works as a deconstruction of the slasher genre, an emotionally wrenching portrait of grief, and a genuinely terrifying piece of horror of its own right. On the surface, the movie basically unleashes horror icon Freddy Kruger into the real world, where he terrorizes the real actors (Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Robert Englund) and filmmakers (Wes Craven, Robert Shaye) who brought him to life. In a deeper sense, this film operates as Freddy Kruger's The Shootist and/or In A Lonely Place. Like those films (as well as Jim Carrey's The Cable Guy and Adam Sandler's Punch Drunk Love), Wes Craven takes an iconic and beloved figure and places him in a more real-world environment, where we are forced to face just how unpleasant he really is (and thus acknowledge our guilt for cheering on his prior killing sprees). Freddy Kruger isn't the least bit funny this time around, and he's not dispatching half-naked teenagers for our blameless entertainment. Kruger's murders here have devastating consequences that will ripple throughout the lives of our lead characters long after the credits role. Wes Craven's New Nightmare does something astonishing: it makes us fear and hate Fred Kruger for perhaps the first time.

Event Horizon (1997)
You won't find me calling this a great movie (even the director admits that it was heavily cut by Paramount), and it kinda falls apart in the last fifteen minutes. But for the first 75 minutes or so, Paul W.S. Anderson's haunted-house remake of Solaris scared the living daylights out of me in theaters. The cast is uncommonly top-notch for this kind of material (Laurence Fishburne, Sam Neill, , Kathleen Quinlan, Jason Isaacs, Joely Richardson, and Richard T. Jones), and they bring a genuine conviction and believability to the opening expository sections. Once they are sent to retrieve the mythical Event Horizon, a ship that disappeared into deep space seven years ago, Anderson quickly establishes an anything-can-happen ethos which leaves the viewer as uneasy and confused as our heroes. The horrifying imagery, meant to antagonize the boarders with their darkest fears and most guilt-ridden moments, creates a genuine sense of discomforting dread. Again, it's basically a slickly-made b-movie sci-fi horror picture, but it's well acted, gorgeous to look at (it cost $70 million back when that was a lot of money) and scared the crap out of me on a greater level than any film I can remember seeing in a theater.

Halloween: H20 (1998)
This reboot/sequel to the ongoing Michael Myers saga isn't going to give anyone nightmares, and there's nothing particularly horrifying about it. But director Steve Miner does something exceedingly rare and surprisingly effective: he doesn't give the audience what it wants. After a blood-drenched prologue, the film takes its time getting to the promised mayhem. We know Michael Myers is on his way to find Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), and we know that those around her are in grave danger. But then... nothing happens. This is not a standard slasher film where someone gets gruesomely bumped off every eight minutes. This one makes the audience wait, which in turn makes the audience sweat and squirm. Miner knows full well that anticipation of violence is what's scary, so by keeping most of the carnage in the last reel, he crafts an uncommonly suspenseful little chiller that does the 1978 original proud.

Joy Ride (2001)
This little-seen thriller stands alongside the original The Hitcher and Steven Spielberg's Duel as one of the scariest movies ever made about cars. This John Dahl-directed chiller concerns a college kid (Paul Walker) who set out on a road-trip to pick up a longtime crush (Leelee Sobieski), who needs a ride back home after recently having broken up with her boyfriend. Alas, he is forced to make a detour to pick up his trouble-making brother (Steve Zahn) out of prison. As the two brothers make their way to their original destination, Zahn decides to use his newly-purchased CB radio to play a cruel prank on a random trucker. Said trucker does not take kindly to the humiliation and sets out to make them pay. The result is a classic 'what would you do?' suspense tale, as the genuinely guilty young men try to survive retribution from an unseen driver (voiced with genuine sadness by Ted Levine) of an eighteen-wheeler. The film falters a bit at the very end, but it's a genuine bruised-forearm classic of the genre.

Frailty (2002)
If backed into a corner, I'd probably name this one as the scariest (and best) horror film of the last decade. This emotionally-wrenching and uncommonly disturbing chiller comes from director Bill Paxton, who stars as a normal single father of two young boys. Everything is fine and dandy until he sees a vision of a religious nature and wakes up his children to inform them that God has chosen him to be a slayer of demons. Told mostly from the point of view of the oldest son (a devastatingly-good Matt O'Leary), this modern-day fable brings about timely issues of the nature and limits of religious devotion, and how our standards for sanity have changed over the centuries. It features fine work from all involved, and it shows how good an actor Matthew McConaughey can be when he's not slumming. It's also disturbing and scary as hell. It will leave you feeling thoroughly creeped out and not a little sad.

Signs (2002)
While The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are M. Night Shyamalan's best films, Signs is easily the scariest film he has yet made. It's also, ironically, his most straight-forward and/or conventional picture. He personally coined it his 'Wal-Mart film' after the artier and more personal Unbreakable was ill-received by mass audiences, but it's still a potent and often terrifying piece of work. Mel Gibson stars as a guilt-ridden former reverend, who still mourns the accidental death of his wife some years earlier. While technically an alien invasion shocker, the film feels more like the original Night of the Living Dead, with the entire world-shattering incident being seen entirely through the eyes of Gibson's family as they hide in their farmhouse (it spawned a whole sub-genre of 'through their eyes/ears only' horror films, such as Cloverfield, Pontypool, and Legion). The film has a far-too literal ending, with the concept of concrete predestination negating the whole 'crisis in faith' character arc, but Signs uses a minimalistic approach to terrify us with the slightest bit of physical evidence (a single finger poking under a door, a fuzzy image recorded at a child's birthday party) to peak our interest and our fear. Those involved (Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, M. Night Shyamalan) have since tumbled into artistic collapse or personal disgrace in the eight-years since, but Signs remains a high-water mark for all involved.

Dark Water (2005)
I have not seen the original, but the Walter Salles remake is an emotionally devastating character study that gets under the skin because the characters earn our sympathy. This too features a fantastic cast, with such pros as Jennifer Connelly, John C. Reilly, Tim Roth, Dougray Scott, Pete Postlethwaite, and Camryn Manheim grounding this spook story in a reality that is as frightening as any ghost. The story revolves around Dahlia (Connelly), who rents a somewhat slummy apartment after winning custody of her young daughter in a bitter divorce. Soon the apartment begins to suffer inexplicable water damage, along with the usual ghostly visions and sounds. Is the apartment haunted? Is her ex-husband trying to scare her into taking action that would help him regain parental rights? Or is Dahlia's family history of mental illness finally catching up to her? All three seem equally plausible and equally frightening possibilities, and that's not even counting the teens outside her complex who always seem to be watching and leering. The film works because Salles makes the everyday world of a working-poor single mother every bit as frightening and exhausting as dealing with the supernatural.

Idiocracy (2006)
Okay, so this Mike Judge cult item isn't exactly a horror film, but anyone who has seen it knows full well how terrifying it is. Lucas Wilson stars as an average man, frozen in 2005 and reawakened 500 years later. To his shock, he discovers that not only is he now the smartest man on Earth, but humanity's collective intelligence has sunk to a level where they cannot even provide for their own existence. While technically a comedy, the film is both hopelessly chilling (there is no real way out for the doom humanity finds itself in, nor any humane way to prevent it) and uncommonly bold in pointing the finger directly at us. It reeks of studio interference, and it's not really all that funny, but Mike Judge's Idiocracy is one of the scariest films ever (barely) released by a major studio.

The Mist (2007)
This may be the most out-and-out frightening Stephen King adaptation ever released into theaters, in the same year that also saw the wonderfully scary/funny 1408. Directed by Frank Darabont, this genuinely plausible horror show concerns a couple dozen small-town folk trapped in a grocery store as the town (and the world?) is besieged by horrifying creatures of all shapes and sizes that just show up and start devouring those in their path. The actors (Thomas Jane, Andre Braugher, Marcia Gay Harden, Toby Jones, William Sadler) keep the material grounded as the film eventually becomes a meditation on how fear leads to religious extremism. Toss in some truly spine-tingling, horrifying imagery (the monsters are really scary folks, be it in color or the black and white version available on DVD/Blu Ray), plus one of the most obscenely-grim endings in cinema history, and you have the makings of a genuine horror classic.

And that's a wrap for this year. There are several worthy pictures that almost made the list (Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, The Descent, etc), but I had to limit it somehow. I'm sure I left off a favorite or two of yours, so let's have at it in the comments section.

Scott Mendelson

Eddie Murphy reviews Paranormal Activity 2.

The obvious gender double-standard of GQ's Glee photo shoot.

Look, Glee's Lea Michele is really hot, and Dianna Agron isn't too bad either. So as a heterosexual male, I have no objection if they choose to partake in a somewhat risque photo shoot for GQ Magazine, although I do wish they had arranged for Jayma Mays to participate as well. There are others who may partake in a certain amount of finger wagging on the whole principal of the matter, but I've always been of the live-and-let-live philosophy. But what I do find annoying, if not a little disturbing, is the obvious differences in how female leads Michele and Agron are shot versus how male lead Cory Monteith is photographed. The pictures above are the most obvious (and least risque) examples, and they arguably speak for themselves. But just in case you need the obvious pointed out: the women are shot in overtly salacious poses in a state of semi-undress. Monteith is photographed fully clothed and (in his solo photos) engaging in relatively asexual behavior such as playing the drums or goofing off in the gym. I certainly don't need or want to see Moneith's bare ass or the man who plays Finn in any kind of compromising positions, but why is it that the women must be photographed with imagery out of a pornographic fantasy, while the male lead (and in fact most male actors in glossy photo shoots) get away with not doing so much as unbuttoning their top buttons? If you were going to do an entire shoot with Michele and Agron playing off the 'naughty schoolgirl' fantasy, wouldn't it have been a little bit fair to at least have a couple shots of Monteith with his shirt removed? Again, I'm not trying to get on a high horse about sexism and the double-standard of how men and women are photographed in Hollywood, but well, once you glance at the Glee pictorial, it kinda makes the point for me.

Scott Mendelson

Scream 4 gets a mediocre, generic teaser.

This thing, or a version of it, premiered last week at the 2010 Scream Awards, which are airing tonight on Spike TV. I wish I could say that this teaser gave me a renewed confidence for a project that was made purely as a money grab, and has been plagued by all kinds of studio tinkering from the get-go (the Weinsteins interfering in a horror film... no!). But this frankly looks as generic as can be, feeling less like a genuine sequel than a remake that they really wanted to make but didn't have the guts to. It feels like a mishmash of all three Scream films (high-school murder spree, tie-in movie being filmed/released, Sydney suffering from survivor's guilt), with a token nod to the last ten years of grindhouse-type horror. I'll happily eat crow if this turns out to be as good as the first two films, and the final bit with Lucy Hale is worth a chuckle. But with Lauren Graham leaving because her character had allegedly been dumbed-down, with Hayden Panettiere allegedly furious that her character had been bimbo-ized, and with original writer Kevin Williamson being tossed off the project and replaced by Scream 3-scribe Ehren Kruger, this feels like a cold-hearted cash grab for all who remain onboard. Oh, and unless they do what I thought they were going to do in Scream 3 (make Dewey the killer), my money is on Allison Brie. She currently stars on Community and co-stars on Mad Men, how much time will she have to become a cornerstone of the new Scream series?. This nostalgia-fueled retread opens April 15th.

Scott Mendelson

Why did Paramount sell off distribution rights for Avengers and Iron Man 3 to Disney for a mere $115 million?

Just how much money trouble is Paramount in these days? Or, just how bad is Thor and/or Captain America? Or is Paramount in the middle of a major change in the kinds of films they make? The Wall Street Journal reports that Paramount plans to sell the distribution rights to The Avengers (due May 4th, 2012) and Iron Man 3 (just announced for May 3rd, 2013) to Disney for just $115 million. As you all know, Disney bought Marvel Studios for $4 billion a year ago, but we were told it would be a good-long while before Disney had the distribution rights to the characters they really wanted, the ones held by Fox (the X-Men, Daredevil, Fantastic Four) and Paramount (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, anyone associated with the Avengers), and Sony (Spider-Man). Well, Paramount just gave up its stake for a measly $115 million. Paramount will still distribute and market the 2011 summer tentpoles Thor and Captain America, but after that, it appears that Paramount's role in the Marvel universe is pretty much done.

There was speculation last year that Paramount was having cash-flow issues after they moved Shutter Island and The Lovely Bones from 2009 to 2010 and more or less stopped sending out review copies of their high-profile DVDs and Blu Rays. The word is that the DVD crunch had hurt them more than other studios, and they were waiting on the income for the DVD/Blu Ray sales of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra to replenish the coffers for 2010. The strategy seemed to work, as the relatively empty end-of-2009 schedule allowed Paramount to market the cult horror film Paranormal Activity into a $107 million sensation. Furthermore, they pulled off a solid year-end gross ($83 million) for the multiple-Oscar nominee Up in the Air, turned Shutter Island into a blockbuster ($128 million), and changed their marketing course for The Lovely Bones ($44 million), allowing them to avoid a complete disaster on the costly, but generally unsatisfying thriller.

Moreover, they had a solid 2010, with the expected smashes (Iron Man 2, How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek Forever After), some cheap surprises (Jackass 3D), and some solid hits that were a bit costly (Dinner For Schmucks, The Last Airbender). Sure, Paramount only received distribution fees for Iron Man 2 and the Dreamworks deal is all kinds of complicated, but money is money. And the year will end with the sure-to-be profitable Paranormal Activity 2 and the Dreamworks cartoon Megamind, the allegedly audience-pleasing Morning Glory, and the mid-budget awards bait (The Fighter, True Grit). And next year was no slouch either, with Thor, Captain America, Transformers 3, Kung Fu Panda 2, J.J. Abrams's Super 8, and the sure-to-be cheap and profitable Justin Beiber: Never Say Never. Point being, Paramount seemed to be doing okay, so the question becomes why did they basically give away the distribution rights to two sure-fire smash hits?

Again, much of this is complete speculation, but is there a reason that they felt that they didn't want to spend the money to market The Avengers and/or Iron Man 3? They apparently have the money to market Thor and Captain America, and whatever they'd spend on marketing and distributing all four Marvel films is sure to be less than the production budgets and marketing costs for upcoming mega-movies like Transformers 3 (a Dreamworks co-production), Mission: Impossible IV, and Star Trek 2. Without the Marvel 2012 tentpole, the summer 2012 schedule looks a little barren, with only Madagascar 3 (of course, another Dreamworks animation title) and the Star Trek sequel to hold up the proverbial tents. Or is this a question regarding the quality of the upcoming Marvel films? The Thor trailer is pretty terrible, and there's been no real word on Captain America thus far. Could Paramount have simply seen the writing on the wall and taken the quick cash rather than risk untold millions on the massive question mark that is The Avengers and the sure-to-be complicated Iron Man 3? For the record, my concerns about The Avengers have more to do with the unwieldiness of the project and those at Marvel than it does with Joss Whedon's capabilities as a filmmaker. After all, Favreau is likely gone from Marvel after the tinkering on Iron Man 2, and the third film will have to deal with whatever wackiness occurs in The Avengers (to say nothing of how popular the whole franchise might be if The Avengers wipes out).

Or maybe, just maybe (I know, more speculation that I usually engage in), this is a sign that Paramount wants to try to return to its 1990s heyday of mixing the occasional mega-budget tentpole (the aforementioned Star Trek 2, the theoretically rejuvenated Mission: Impossible series)with a catalogue of star-driven thrillers that don't cost as much, don't need to gross as much, and are rented forever on DVD or whatever medium we'll be watching movies on in a half decade or so. If Paramount picks up the rights to the newly-announced Alex Cross franchise, it will be a sign that Paramount may be leaving the all-tentpoles, all-the-time game to Disney and Warner Bros. Lots of maybes, but the fact that Paramount would basically give away the distribution rights to two of the more heavily anticipated films over the next three years is a bit of a head-scratcher. Feel free to share your theories below.

Scott Mendelson