Review: Black Swan (2010)

Black Swan
2010
110 minutes
Rated R
Opens December 3rd in select theaters

By Scott Mendelson

Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan is a dazzling and often intoxicating horror story. No, it's not a body count slasher picture or a supernatural spook story, but it is every bit as unnerving as the best in traditional horror. It is at the core a character study of one woman striving for perfection in a severely competitive field and the various people around her who may or may not be looking out for her best interests. But the film is told in such a dazzling fashion that it often resembles a fever dream. It is scrumptious entertainment and a remarkable bit of cinema. It also contains a remarkably full-throttle performance by Natalie Portman, one that will likely win her an Oscar next year.

A token amount of plot: Nina (Natalie Portman) has recently been chosen as 'prima ballerina' for her New York ballet company, replacing the recently retired Beth Macintrye (Winona Ryder). The first show up for the season is a stripped-down and emotionally raw retelling of Swan Lake, and although artistic director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) is completely confident in Nina's abilities to handle the 'white swan', Nina finds herself unable to channel the darkness and sensuality found in the 'black swan' character. As Nina struggles to satisfy her demanding and mentally taxing instructor, she finds herself at odds with her mother (Barbara Hershey) and confused about the intentions of the troupe's newest dancer, Lily, who may or may not be gunning for the top slot. But is Nina's greatest threat external or internal?

First and foremost, Natalie Portman delivers a truly defining performance. It's a brave and passionately committed piece of acting, with a character that is in nearly every frame of the picture. Portman's talent has never been in question, but this is a shattering 'leave nothing on the table' star turn. This is not a film full of monologues or big speeches, but Portman sells a most complicated leading lady with a dynamic physical presence that none-the-less is completely at the service of the film. But Black Swan has more to offer than just Portman. What's most refreshing about the film is the refusal to stereotype characters that could easily be played to a type. Vincent Cassel does subtle work as his ballet director never quite lets on just what his relationship is with his prize pupils. Oh, we might assume that he has a carnal eye, but everything he does is seemingly about pulling out the best performance possible from his pupils.

Mila Kunis, in a rare purely dramatic turn, does solid work as someone who stands out from the pack by refusing to commit every fiber of her being to dancing. While the story could have gone the All About Eve/Showgirls route, we soon realize that Lily genuinely just wants to be friends with Nina. If she leads Nina into a reckless situation or two, it's only from a desire to show Nina how to live a bit outside the dance studio (to answer your question, yes they do, it's about 2/3 of the way through the film and it's quite explicit). Of course, certain moments are open to interpretation, but it is refreshing to see a film centered around females where all of the women aren't constantly at each other's throats. On the other side of the spectrum is Winona Ryder's enraged, if brief, performance as the seemingly scorned woman. We presume that Leroy was engaged in an affair with the once prima ballerina and then discarded her when she got too old, but there is no evidence to support that aside from our own preconceptions. Nina's mother too appears to be a standard dominating stage mother, but Barbara Hershey instead plays a woman who genuinely supports her daughter's ambitions, perhaps to a fault.

The surprisingly complicated characters lend a quirk to the dark and claustrophobic story being told. This is a fiercely intimate drama, with few scenes leaving the ballet studio or Nina's cramped apartment. The film is almost leisurely paced, but we constantly get subtle signals that something beyond our understanding is afoot. There is an air of menace and malevolence lurking in every scene, so when the film truly ramps up the tension in the third act, it's almost a relief from the anticipation. What transpires in that third act I wouldn't dream of revealing, but the film becomes a feverish rush of high emotion and genuine dread. It doesn't quite reach the rush of the Requiem for a Dream, but it's not for lack of trying. When it's trying to be, Black Swan is a surprisingly scary film.

If Black Swan has a flaw, it is that it is not as emotionally engaging as Darren Aronofsky's prior works. It lacks the open-ended despair of above-noted Requiem for a Dream, the heart-ripping grief of The Fountain, or the sorrowful mourning of The Wrestler. Black Swan, while visually dazzling and brilliantly staged and acted, is more of a technical exercise than an open-hearted tale of doom. On the other hand, it won't leave you drained either. Nonetheless, it is a truly impressive motion picture, with stunningly good performances and difficult-to-label characters. So if Black Swan is not Aronofsky's best work (Requiem is probably one of the best films of the last decade), it is more artistically inspired than the somewhat contrived The Wrestler and more coherent than the comprised The Fountain. It is another sign that Aronofsky is one of this generation's most potent cinematic artists. In more ways than one, Black Swan is a hell of a movie.

Grade: A-

Winter's Bone wins Best Feature at the Gotham Awards, starting the awards derby on the right note.

The first major awards show of the year started the season on just the right note. Winter's Bone, easily the best live-action picture of the year so far, scored the Best Feature Award, while also winning Best Ensemble Performance (yay for John Hawkes). Somewhat surprisingly, Jennifer Laurence did not win the Best Breakthrough Performance award (she lost to Ronald Bronstein), but she'll have to make due with a surefire Oscar nomination in a month or so (if I had my way, she and Natalie Portman would just both win the Best Actress Oscar and call it a night). The film and its cast and crew landed seven Film Independent Spirit Award nominations this morning, including Best Picture, Best Female Lead (Jennifer Laurence), Best Director (Debra Granik), Best Screenplay (Debra Granik, Anne Rosellini), Best Supporting Male (John Hawkes, who damn-well better win), Best Supporting Female (Dale Dickey), and Best Cinematography (Michael McDonough). Winter's Bone is the best film of the year that isn't Toy Story 3. Glad to see the awards season on the right track from the get-go.

Scott Mendelson

The Adjustment Bureau gets two awful posters.

These may be two of the lamest pieces of poster art in a long time. Aside from the fact that Emily Blunt apparently cannot run without the help of Matt Damon (she plays a ballet dancer, which means she's probably in much better shape than he is), the entire layout looks poorly photoshopped and not the least bit serious. If this movie is somekind of jokey nod to Hitchcock's man-on-the-run thrillers, then so be it. But the trailer seems to be selling this as a serious thriller. I don't think anyone can look at these posters, especially the tall one with its 'okay, pose for the camera and pretend to run... now!' character shots, and do anything but giggle. Poster fail.

Scott Mendelson

Smoke, but no fire: Bosnian activist group 'Women Victims of War' attacks Angelina Jolie over made-up concerns of her new film.

The headlines scream "Jolie called insensitive to Bosnian rape victims!" and "Angelina Jolie called ignorant by Womens Victims of War". But if you read the story, and read their statement, it becomes quite clear that this group (however noble their work is up to this point) has used the media's obsession with smacking down big celebrities as a way to get their name in the newspapers. The gist is that Jolie is directing a drama set during the Bosnian war, around 1992-1995. It concerns a romantic plot involving a Serbian prison guard and a Bosnian captive, a woman who was once his girlfriend (sounds like the plot of the first 'Sayid episode' in the first season of Lost). This tidbit has been tossed about as 'proof' that Angelina Jolie is making a film about a rape victim who falls in love with her rapist. They have not seen the script and prior attempts by Jolie to set up a meeting with the group have been unsuccessful.

I'm guessing they haven't seen the script because the released the critical statement before they asked to see a script. The statement released seriously trashes Jolie (calling her ignorant and asking for her goodwill UN ambassadorship to be stripped) for making a movie that COULD contain insensitive and/or inflammatory material and COULD 'make light' of the plight of Bosnian rape victims. This may just be an attempt for the group to gain free attention and/or get a donation from Jolie or the studio funding her picture. GLAAD pulled the same prank on Kevin Smith back in 2001, inexplicably calling (the otherwise lousy) Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back homophobic because its brain-dead lead character uses 'gay' as an asexual negative slur (nevermind that he is explicitly called out on that in the film). Smith quickly cut them a check and the matter was never brought again. Extortion: 01, Honest examination of the issue at hand: 00.

And since the media jumped all over a story that let them spin a headline to the effect of 'Jolie called insensitive to Bosnian rape victims', they fell for it without realizing that there was no meat to the story. The crux of their protests is that Jolie should have been expected to keep this specific group informed in every part of the filmmaking process, from screenwriting to casting to location scouting. Nevermind that Jolie tried to set up a meeting in Hungary, but the group refused, wanting the meeting to take place in Bosnia (which is ironic, since such earlier 'controversy' prevented the film from actually shooting first-unit footage in Bosnia). Furthermore, even if the script does not contain a 'rapist and rape victim fall in love' subplot (which it allegedly does not), the group is still adamant that simply presenting a film involving a romantic narrative set in such a camp is unacceptable and has caused the group "mental suffering". So they won't accept a meeting with Jolie because they don't like the location, then they criticize Jolie for not meeting with them. Then they attack the screenplay for allegedly containing a sympathetic Serbian rapist, then they state that even if it does not contain said element, than the movie as its described is still not appropriate because its existence causes 'mental suffering'.

Angelina Jolie has every right to make whatever movie she wants. As we critics and scholars always say, it's not 'what it's about', but rather 'how its about it'. Let's be honest, had Internet culture existed in 1993, Spielberg would have been roasted by groups demonizing Schindler's List sight unseen because it 'was alleged to contain' a subplot involve romance between a Jewish camp laborer (Embeth Davidtz) and her Nazi captor (Ralph Fiennes). Is that an accurate portrayal of the movie? Nope. But it's close enough to the truth to make a scandalizing story out of it. It's tough to criticize something called 'Women Victims of War' and the work they theoretically do, but the group is currently playing dirty pool.

To somewhat viciously attack someone who has been a 'get-your-hands dirty' advocate for refugees around the world because of their (at this point) fabricated concerns about sympathetic treatment of rapists contained in a film they haven't seen from a script they haven't read is absurd and counter-productive. Unless of course, the purpose is not honest activism but merely using Jolie's celebrity as a way to get extra media attention. If that's the case, then it's Free Publicity From a Sensationalist Media: 01, Honest Examination of the Issues at Hand: 00.

Scott Mendelson

RIP: Leslie Nielsen (1926-2010)

On the opening night of Scary Movie 3, when Leslie Nielsen paid homage to his 'want want to tell you all good luck, we're all counting on you' bit from Airplane!, my friend and I were only ones in the theater who laughed. I cannot describe to you how old I felt in that moment on October 24th, 2003. Rest in piece Leslie Nielsen. We'll try not to call you Shirley. Most of tonight's obituaries will (justifiably) focus on his legendary deadpan comic work in Airplane!, The Naked Gun, and non-Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker spoofs like Repossessed, Spy Hard, and Superhero Movie. But for those who only know Mr. Nielson as 'that guy from all of those spoofs', take a moment to relish Leslie Nielsen: horror film villain. After the jump, go about 5 minutes into the first clip for this second segment in the 1982 horror anthology Creepshow. Farewell Mr. Nielsen, you'll always be Shirley to us.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (11/28/10): Tangled and Harry Potter 7 face off over crowded Thanksgiving. Burlesque, Faster, Love and Other Drugs open soft.

Like a combination of Thanksgiving holidays past, it was a combination of Harry Potter holding down the fort against all newcomers, while a Disney animated property broke out of the gate. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I still won the three-day and five-day weekend derby, but Disney's Tangled had a smashing debut that set a record for a three-day opening weekend for a standard Disney cartoon (IE - not Pixar). The Disney fairy-tale scored $48.7 million over the Fri-Sun portion of the weekend and amassed a whopping $68.7 million since opening on Wednesday. Inflation and 3D price-bump aside, this best the $42 million opening of The Lion King way back in summer 1994 (which was one of the top-five opening weekends ever at the time). It's also the second-largest Thanksgiving opening weekend in history, behind the $80 million five-day and $59 million three-day opening weekend of Toy Story 2 back in 1999 (that $57 million debut was the third-biggest ever at the time). The lesson here is a simple one: Disney REALLY should have opened The Princess and the Frog in wide release over Thanksgiving last year.

Considering that Disney's most recent animated features (Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, The Princess and the Frog) had opening weekends of around $25 million, the opening sprint for Tangled is all the more impressive. I took issue earlier in the year with Disney's marketing campaign, which tried to make the film look less like a princess empowerment adventure and more like a boy-friendly action picture involving a roguish thief who sweeps Rapunzel off of her feet, but something obviously worked. I still contend that part of the success was about the release date, as Disney was in a better position to treat their 50th cartoon as a prime attraction of the holiday season. They shot themselves in the foot last year, opening A Christmas Carol at the beginning of November, thus causing them to put off the wide opening of The Princess and the Frog until December 12th. Frankly, most of the press attention for The Princess and the Frog occurred on Thanksgiving weekend, when the film was playing in just four theaters. By the time the film went wide, everyone was talking about Avatar.

Tangled opened on Wednesday with $11 million, giving the film a solid 6x five-day weekend multiplier. The legs on this picture are going to be about as long as Rapunzel's hair (sorry...), and it has a solid chance of becoming Disney's first traditional cartoon to cross $200 million since The Lion King. And yes, the film looks gorgeous in 2D, so the eventual loss of 3D theaters to The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Yogi Bear, and Disney's Tron: Legacy shouldn't be too much of an issue (56% of ticket sales were for the 3D version). The picture played 61% female and 57% over-25. The film scored a very rare 'A+' from Cinemascore. That's genuinely refreshing as A) the film is pretty darn good and B) it is indeed a 'chick flick' false advertising be damned. With numbers like this, I seriously doubt that this is the last we see of the princess/fairy tale genre from the Mouse House.

The actual number-one film of the long weekend was still Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I, which scored another $74.9 million over the long weekend. With $49 million of that coming from the Fri-Sun portion (a reasonable for Harry Potter 60% drop), the film scored the second-biggest Thanksgiving holiday weekend ever, behind Toy Story 2 ($80 million), Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ($81 million), and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone ($82 million). At ten days, the seventh Harry Potter picture has amassed $219 million, which makes it (so far) the fastest-grossing Harry Potter film yet (the sixth picture had $222 million in twelve days). While the film still trails the 10-day total of Twilight: New Moon ($230 million), it has already begun to outpace the Twilight sequel on a day-to-day basis. That's not to say that the film will make it much farther than the $302 million earned by Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, but it's not going to completely collapse either, which was the fear following its severely front-loaded opening weekend.

The three remaining wide-openers had middling-to-weak debuts. Burlesque, a musical variation on All About Eve/Showgirls opened with $11.9 million over the Fri-Sun weekend and $17.3 million since opening on Wednesday. It's not a terrible number, and it's about in line with low-end expectations, but the Christina Aguilera/Cher melodrama cost $55 million to make (does Stanley Tucci get $20 million a picture now?), so this soft opening means that the film has to play overseas to avoid financial failure. This was an oddly costly project for the usually cheap Screen Gems, and as such will be the rare commercial misfire. Love and Other Drugs inexplicably opened on Thanksgiving weekend and paid dearly for it. The $30 million would-be Oscar bait Ed Zwick romantic dramady (starring Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal) opened with just $9.7 million over three days and $13.9 million over five. Fox sold this one pretty hard, with much free press regarding Hathaway's plentiful nudity while carefully hiding the fact that she plays someone afflicted with Parkinson's. It's not a terrible opening, but surely the film would have been better served going out wide next weekend, with a single new wide release (The Warrior's Way) rather than trying to be a date night/girl's night out option on a family-centered holiday weekend. The film scored only 42% on Rotten Tomatoes and B- from Cinemascore, so prospects are pretty grim unless Anne Hathaway gets that much sought-after Oscar nomination

There has been an unofficial tradition of releasing lower-budget action pictures as counter-programming over the holiday (Ninja Assassin, Hitman, Transporter 3 etc), and this year's entry was Dyawne Johnson's Faster. The film was old as both a lean and mean R-rated action picture and The Rock's return to pure action after spending his time making family entertainment like The Game Plan and The Tooth Fairy. The surprisingly thoughtful little movie opened with just $8.5 million over three days and $12 million over five. Alas, that's a new low for The Rock as in a starring vehicle, although it's his first stand-alone film to boast an R-rating (even Doom had the video game tie-in factor). Faster played 57% 25 and older and 57% male. To be fair, in a crowded weekend such as this, Faster was all but guaranteed to get the smallest auditoriums amongst new releases, and CBS Films hasn't exactly been a marketing powerhouse. Budgeted at just $24 million, the George Tillman Jr. picture should squeak to around $25 million and have a healthy life as a rental and/or cable curiosity.

There were two limited release openings, and they were a study in contrast. The King's Speech opened on just four screens, and ended up with a stunning $88,863 per-screen average (the 17th-biggest ever and the 4th-biggest for four or more theaters). The Colin Firth vehicle/Oscar front-runner will expand over the next couple weeks. The last new release was The Nutcracker 3D, a Freestyle release that spawned some funny (and somewhat unfair) pans this weekend. The revisionist Nutcracker musical, which cast the classic ballet as a Holocaust parable set in 1920s Vienna, debuted on 42 screens and grossed just $65,944 three-day and $87,539 five day take. That's a miserable $1,570 per-screen average. This one is supposed to go wide next weekend, so we'll see if that actually happens. There has been talk that the picture (filmed in 2007 and held back for a mediocre 3D conversion) cost around $90 million. If that's true, then this could be one of the biggest money losers in cinema history.

In holdover news, Megamind had a slight rebound, grossing $17.3 million over five days and crossing the $130 million mark. The expensive cartoon is now gunning for the $160 million total of A Shark Tale and will still need major overseas success to justify the would-be franchise starter. As hoped and expected, Unstoppable was a popular choice for general moviegoers with large families, as the terrific Denzel Washington thriller pulled in $16 million over five days (with a three-day comparative drop of just 12%) and has now crossed the $60 million mark. Due Date used the holiday to break its tumble, as the comedy has now grossed $84.6 million. 127 Hours is now at $4.4 million, Waiting For Superman is at $6.2 million, Fair Game sits with $5.9 million, and The Social Network crossed the $90 million mark.

That's it for this weekend. Next weekend will have but a single new wide release (The Warrior's Way), expansions galore (The Nutracker 3D, 127 Hours, etc), and the 19-screen limited release of the exhilarating Natalie Portman Oscar-bait Black Swan (review coming tomorrow or Tuesday). For a look at what happened over Thanksgiving weekends past, click for 2008 and 2009. Until next time, take care and keep reading.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Tangled: the 2D 35mm Experience (2010)

Tangled
2010
100 minutes

Rated PG (for 'brief mild violence' - this one really should have been a G)

by Scott Mendelson

The most impressive thing about Walt Disney's Tangled is that it manages to incorporate nearly every standard element of the classic Disney fairy-tale/90s cartoon without being about any of those things. It is, at heart, a rollicking buddy picture. It works as a comedy because it never tries too hard for laughs. It works as an occasional action picture because it doesn't go out of its way to be 'action-packed'. And it works as a romance because it makes no effort to tell 'the greatest love story every told'. It is a clever and charming adventure that just happens to be the 50th animated feature from Walt Disney Studios. And, quite frankly, they make it look easy this time around, fashioned an genuine chick-flick fairy tale that effortlessly fixes many of the creepy gender undertones found in both the old films (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty) and the more recent animated fables (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast). It's a shame that this is allegedly to be Disney's final fairy tale adaptation

(we'll see...)

, because they've finally perfected the formula.

A token amount of plot: Young Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) is a kidnapped princess, having been snatched from the castle as an infant due to the healing and de-aging powers contained in her hair. The woman she calls mother is in fact her abductor and Gothel (Donna Murphy) keeps Rapunzel hidden from sight in her tower and uses Rapunzel's ever-flowing magic locks to keep her forever young. As Rapunzel's 18th birthday approaches and her desire to see the outside world increases evermore, fortune smiles as roguish thief Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi) takes refuge in the hidden tower. Rapunzel quickly gains the upper hand over the desperate criminal, and a deal is struck: Flynn will be Rapunzel's tour guide for her first journey to the outside world, and he will get back the precious crown that he had stolen. But what first appears to be a simple excursion turns into a life-changing journey for both of them, as secrets are revealed and destinies are forever altered.

First of all, whatever qualms you may have had in regards to the boy-friendly advertising campaign, it does not fairly represent the film. The picture is absolutely about Rapunzel and her quest to live a life beyond her tower doors. Yes Flynn narrates the story and he does engage in a token amount of swashbuckling, but he exists as a means to an end, a way to get Rapunzel out of her tower and a companion to give her someone to talk to. What's most refreshing is that this would-be couple does not spend the majority of the film sniping at each other, seething with sarcastic contempt that masks a mutual attraction. Once they enter the outside world, they basically get along for the entire film. Sure, they have disagreements and occasionally mock each other's flaws (he uses cocky arrogance to mask self-esteem issues, and she is far more world-weary than she realizes), but it is a friendly and sporting relationship is rooted in mutual cooperation for the sake of mutual reward.

Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi have a genuine and truly unforced chemistry that makes us truly care about how their relationship will end up. While it goes without saying that a romance between them eventually develops, it is held off for as long as possible, so when the sparks reveal themselves they feel like an organic byproduct of their unfolding friendship. It's also worth noting that said relationships is not particularly rooted in physical attraction. Yes, both Rapunzel and Flynn are drawn and animated as the beneficiary of good genes (IE - they are both hotties), but little is made of it and its never a driving force in their budding love story. They like each other (and we like them) because they are both funny and intelligent and inherently decent people at the core.

Of course, the rest of the classic Disney elements generally hold up as well. The computer animation is genuinely gorgeous, with stunningly bright colors and exquisite detail. Most intriguingly, the film is animated in a manner to suggest the style of classic hand-drawn animation. I cannot vouch for the film's 3D effects, because I chose 2D. The film indeed pops off the screen with three-dimensional splendor with or without the glasses and $4 surcharge. Like pretty much every respective Disney musical since, oh, The Little Mermaid, the songs are pretty weak and represent the low point of the film (let's be honest, most Disney musicals have a couple truly great songs amidst the filler). With the exception of one witty number involving a group of seemingly bloodthirsty ruffians confessing their hidden ambitions (itself a knowing riff on the first High School Musical's "I've Got a Secret"), the songs are needless character exposition and pretty bland and redundant to boot (an early number where Donna Murphy explains the dangers of the world is so similar to "Out There" that I expected the late Tony Jay to join the second verse). While the poor songs are not by themselves an issue, they succeeded in padding the film and turning a lean 85-minute adventure into a somewhat padded 100 minute picture.

The supporting characters are amusing per usual. Once again, the animals do not talk. But that does not mean that Rapunzel's lizard sidekick and the Inspector Javert-like horse who hunts Ryder lack personality. It never fails to astound me what animation can do with just the face, be it the comic reactions of annoyed animal sidekicks or Rapunzel's real parents, who deliver a performance a crippling grief and morning without a single line of dialogue. Donna Murphy makes a suitably loathsome antagonist, disguising her selfish desire as a form of exceptionally poor mothering. Murphy stands out just a bit as the only ham in the whole cast. It's fitting for the part, but it's worth noting that pretty much every character is played as relatively low-key. Ron Perlman is genuinely menacing as one of Ryder's less merciful partners in crime, while Brad Garrett, Jeffrey Tambor, Richard Keil, and Paul F. Thompkins score big laughs as the above-noted group of ruffians.

While the story is not terribly original, and the movie is pretty lightweight, Tangled succeeds as a genuine entertainment and a refreshing throwback. Coupled with The Princess and the Frog, Tangled represents a new course (should Disney decide to make more) for Disney's invaluable fairy tale franchise. Rather than go out of their way to present 'strong, independent, progressive' female heroines who none-the-less are all about finding true love, the last two animated films simply present compelling leads who just happen to be young women. While both characters (no spoilers) have the potential to find love and become princesses, that is completely beside the point for these characters and their respective journeys. Rapunzel is indeed a worthwhile addition to the Disney Princess line, and she in fact surpasses most of them because she cares so little about being a princess and/or finding a stereotypical happily ever after. And the film succeeds partially because it cares so little about pointing that out. Advertising campaign and altered title aside, Tangled is a pretty terrific 'chick flick'.

Grade: B+

Explaining the fates of Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: Alternative/cult films are, by definition, not mainstream.

There has been much discussion over the last few months over the relative box office failures of more cult-ish genre properties. But, the fact remains that films based on cult properties or inherently aimed at cult audiences are almost designed not to break out beyond the pre-established audience. In the end, the real victories for (among others) Watchmen, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, and Kick-Ass is that they got made and were released to a wide audience. Expectations were out of whack for all three, but those that wanted to see them had ample opportunity and will enjoy them accordingly. The problem is, at heart, an entertainment media that treats the niche as mainstream.

The issue is treating films that are adapted from a comic book as one long-running franchise as opposed to separate entities. Kick-Ass was, taken on its own, a $30 million, R-rated, very violent, mostly star-less action comedy released by Lionsgate (a studio that with the exception of The Expendables, cannot open genre films other than Saw/Tyler Perry past $21 million). By that token, it's $96 million worldwide gross and healthy DVD life makes it a solid moneymaker. Alas, the pundit crowd (and internet geeks) treated it as some kind of mainstream comic book adaptation and expected it to perform at Ghost Rider numbers. More importantly, with Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, they mistook cult-geek interest for mainstream appeal and expected these films to perform like mainstream superhero pictures. Say what you will about Watchmen (which never should have cost more than $90 million), but a 2.5 hour, R-rated political parable with NO stars still pulled off a $55 million opening weekend. Let me rephrase that, Watchmen had a bigger Fri-Sun opening weekend than the last Superman picture. That it crashed after that is more about the inherent mainstream limitations of the film than the inherent appeal of the project in theory.

We fall into this trap with animated films all the time, treating Madagascar as a sequel to Shrek 2 and so-forth. We might laugh about it, but this ridiculous concept did serious damage to Dreamworks's stock after Memorial Day weekend 2005 when Madagascar 'only' opened to around half of Shrek 2's $128 million five-day total . All cult-level pictures that happen to be based on a cult comic book should not be expected to perform like uber-mainstream superhero adventure stories. The studios are not immune from this criticism, as it is this kind of thinking that lets Warner Bros. spend $130 million on Watchmen or Universal spend $60 million on Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World. Kick-Ass was not a sequel to The Dark Knight and Watchmen was not a sequel to 300. Every comic book film based on a vaguely known property is not going to perform like Iron Man. And, most importantly, just because you and I (film bloggers with certain geek mentalities) care about a project doesn't mean that anyone else does.

Scott Mendelson

If you're wavering on seeing 127 Hours, you CAN handle it.

There has been much discussion regarding the slow expansion of Danny Boyle's dynamite drama 127 Hours. Much of it has revolved around a certain moment that occurs towards the end of the picture. Sure, the film is based on a somewhat publicized true story, so this might not count as a spoiler, but I'll try to be vague for those not in the know. Anyway, in the same way that The Cove had to deal with people who were generally interested in its content (an expose on the practice of dolphin slaughter in Japanese waters) but didn't particularly want to sit through images of dolphins being graphically killed onscreen, 127 Hours has a major handicap in regards to both its mainstream box office success and its Oscar hopes. In a just world, the film will end up scoring at least a Best Actor nomination (if not win) for James Franco, who dominates the film in no less a potent manner than Natalie Portman owns every moment of Black Swan (review for that one coming after the holiday). But there is a genuine concern that enough people will pass on the terrifically engaging and intense character study because they know what happens and are not sure they can handle it. So for those on the fence, here's the scoop:

I cannot imagine what on-screen imagery has caused people to allegedly pass out during pre-release screenings. The big scene was actually far more 'tasteful' than I was expecting. Like any number of classic gross-out sequences that aren't (Se7en, the 'Home' episode of The X-Files, etc), it's edited in a way to make you think you're seeing far more than you're actually seeing. Point being, when the film comes to FX, the network will probably have to edit around six shots give-or-take. The idea of what trapper climber Aaron Ralston attempts to do in order to save himself is much more disturbing than the actual footage of him doing so. And by the same token, the idea of what he is willing to do to survive is what the film is about, not you the audience actually sitting there eyes stretched open Clockwork Orange-style watching every moment of said scene. For what it's worth, it's far less graphic than the opening scene of Saw VI, which has a token similarity (yeah, that's a spoiler by association, but if you're a fan of the Saw films, you're probably not squeamish about seeing 127 Hours).

And, yes, if you want to see the movie but don't want to deal with said moment of intense violence, then you can close your eyes and your ears for about thirty seconds and be done with it. Sure, you'll be cheating yourself just a little, but you'd be cheating yourself more if you miss out on one of the better films of 2010 because you're afraid that you won't be able to handle it. 127 Hours goes into wide release next weekend. If you're considering seeing the film but worry that it will be too much for you, don't sweat it. Like many of the most intense and/or scary moments in cinema history, it's more about what you think you're seeing than what you're actually seeing.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Faster (2010)

Faster
2010
95 minutes

rated R

by Scott Mendelson

The most surprising thing about Faster is that it's not. It's not a thrill-a-minute action romp, nor does it even qualify as trashy exploitation fare. It's a genuine drama and a thoughtful, occasionally moving character study. It is, at its core, a look at three damaged souls who must choose whether to cling to their convictions or let it go for the sake of their humanity. Faster may not satisfy hardcore action junkies and/or gore hounds, but it earns points for being a real movie with a token amount of substance.

A token amount of plot: Dwayne Johnson plays 'Driver', a man who has spent the last ten years in prison over a botched bank heist that resulted in the murder of his own brother. Despite a token lecture from 'Warden' (Tom Berenger), Driver immediately embarks on a spree of vengeance, targeting those personally responsible for his brother's demise. His killing spree has caught the attention of two others. 'Cop' (Billy Bob Thornton) is just weeks away from retirement and wants to just make it to retirement without any ugly parts of his drug-addled past coming to light. Finally, one of the men likely on Driver's list has put out a contract on the relentless hunter, and 'Killer' (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) ends up with the job. But as the bodies and complications pile up, all three men must decide what they are willing to sacrifice in order to do what they believe they must as a matter of duty.

What separates Faster from the more conventional vigilante picture is the emphasis on those around our three main characters. For the first two thirds of the picture, Dwayne Johnson is less a fleshed-out character than a force of nature. He comes, he kills, he leaves. What is interesting is the screen-time allotted to his would-be victims, as some of them seem less worthy of being murdered than others. The supporting cast is filled out nicely by a number of notable veterans, including the aforementioned Tom Berenger, Zander Berkley, Mike Epps, Maggie Grace, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. If it needs to be stated, Billy Bob Thornton once again shines at taking what could have been a stock character and making him into a genuine human being. Oliver Jackson-Cohen has less to do, but he provides a genuine humor to the proceedings, while never forgetting to take his character and his situation seriously.

The picture basically takes three classic archetypes (the seemingly righteous avenger, the hard-bitten and seen-it-all cop, and the reluctant hit-man who wants to quit) and sends them on a collision course with each other, and peeling back the layers to expose all three men as more than they appear. Helping matters is a certain contemplative tone that allows the picture its moments of quiet amidst the bursts of violence. This really isn't an action picture per-se, as there are only a couple pure action sequences (two car chases - one in a flashback) and a handful of brief violent confrontations to enliven what is basically a mediation on duty and obligation.

Yes, Thornton's cop has to choose between his family and his job, but even that choice is not as simple as it might seem (it helps that his wife has just as many issues as he does). And yes Thornton is teamed with a more on-the-ball female detective (Carla Gugino), but she is a full-fledged supporting character, and said female cop (for once) isn't wounded right before the finale so she can sit out the climax. There is a certain humanity to all of the characters in George Tillman Jr's crime story, and it elevates the material past its pulpy surface-level thrills.

In the end, Faster is a B-movie that earns its stripes by making an effort to be a real film. It's strongly acted across the board, as Thornton once again dominates the proceedings and Johnson again proves how much he can communicate with only his face. I wouldn't call it exciting or even particularly fun, but it's a thornier, more intelligent picture that the sort of action picture that usually gets dumped on Thanksgiving weekend. Compared to the likes of Hitman and Ninja Assassin, it's a genuine work of art.

Grade: B

Yep, Gore Verbinski is directing The Lone Ranger, with Johnny Depp as Tonto.

Confirming something that has been rumored for literally years, Disney announced that Gore Verbinksi will be helming a feature-film retelling of The Lone Ranger. And yes, Johnny Depp will be playing Tonto. For what it's worth, Johnny Depp does have is 1/4 Native American, with a Cherokee maternal grandmother and a partial-Cherokee father. As to who will be playing the actual Lone Ranger, that is still up in the air, although I'm pretty sure that perennial favorite George Clooney has outgrown the part. Jerry Bruckheimer will be producing for a planned 2012 release.

The story is pretty simple: a young Texas ranger who is the lone survivor of an ambush; nursed back to health by the mysterious Tonto. How you tell that story and what embellishments you add, well that's what will make the movie. We haven't had a feature film version of this story since The Legend of the Lone Ranger in 1981. That would-be epic actually had a pretty strong first two acts, which detail the backstory of 'that masked man'. Christopher Lloyd brought a cold, clinical menace to the lead villain (longtime nemesis Maj. Bartholomew 'Butch' Cavendish). But the film peters in out in the finale, with most of the Lone Ranger's heroic initial exploits being devoted to just sneaking around the villain's compound and occasionally punching someone. Still, the structure of the film reminded me not a little of Batman Begins, and I'm willing to bet that the Nolan Batman reboot is the template that Disney will be playing off of for this new version.

Aside from casting John Reid and whatever villain they pick, the key is tone. While I'm sure we'd all love to see a Lone Ranger movie with the tone of The Proposition, that's not going to happen. Best case scenario, we see a western in the vein of Silverado, which combined gee-wiz western adventure with a darker and character-driven revisionism. It's an interesting project, and one of the few new franchises that I'm actually interested in. Gore Verbinski is a pro through-and-through (this is the guy who gave us Mousehunt, The Ring, The Weather Man, and the whole Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy). That Johnny Depp would agree to team up with him for a fifth time speaks to the apparent quality of their upcoming animated film Rango. Tim Burton must be getting jealous. Anyway, more on this one as it develops.

Scott Mendelson

For those who care: The Hangover 2 gets first image, synopsis.

In the follow-up to the record-breaking hit comedy The Hangover, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and Doug (Justin Bartha) travel to exotic Thailand for Stu's wedding. After the unforgettable bachelor party in Las Vegas, Stu is taking no chances and has opted for a safe, subdued pre-wedding brunch. However, things don't always go as planned. What happens in Vegas may stay in Vegas, but what happens in Bangkok can't even be imagined.

On the plus side, the above synopsis is not what you'd call spoiler-heavy. On the other hand, it does appear that this sequel feels like a globe-trotting remake of the first film. I adored the first picture, finding it to be a sharply written mystery with humor that flowed organically from the twisty narrative. But I'm not sure the world needs a Hangover II. Regardless, expect a record opening weekend for a comedy when the film debuts on November 26th, 2011.

Scott Mendelson

Review: The Nutcracker 3D (2010)

The Nutcracker 3D
2010
105 minutes

rated PG

Opens Wednesday, November 24th in select theaters.

by Scott Mendelson

The Nutcracker 3D is one of the strangest cocktails I've seen in a long time. It's technically a kids adventure story, yet it eventually becomes, of all things, a striking Holocaust parable. Yet during the shockingly vivid second act, the film still finds time to deal with a Peter Pan-like subplot about how adults eventually outgrow their childish pursuits. The problem with the film is not-so-much that it's bad (it's not), but that I have no idea what audience it was made for.

The first act of the story follows what I presume is a pretty traditional Nutcracker story (it's been ages since I saw the play, I was actually one of the Sugerplum Fairies in Kindergarten). It's 1920s Vienna and Young Mary (Elle Fanning) lives with her brother Max (Aaron Michael Drozin) in a house filled with everything but friends. Their parents (Richard E. Grant and Yuliya Vysotskaya) have left them on Christmas night, heading off to a social function and leaving them in the care of their charming and eccentric uncle Albert (Nathan Lane). Albert gives Mary a very special present, a nutcracker shaped like a toy soldier. Sure enough, the wooden toy (Charlie Rowe) quickly comes to life and whisks Mary away on a seemingly charming little adventure where toys have human forms and the world is to scale of a small toy. So far, so good right?

But about forty minutes into the picture, we meet the Rat King (John Turturro, looking and acting exactly like Jonathan Pryce). And, quite frankly, he's Hitler, right down to his grand plan to ethnically cleanse the population so that only rats remain. His rat soldiers? Goose-stepping soldiers dressed in somewhat generic Nazi uniforms. The next act of the picture deals with stark explicitness in the Rat King's desire to hunt down the rebellious Prince, who was turned into a nutcracker as a way to destroy morale amidst the rebellion. We see giant factories that keep the sky drenched in black smoke, we see dissidents being captured and tossed into forced labor camps, we even see countless moments of children being forced to give up their toys as said play items are tossed into giant fire pits. No one gets tattoos on their arms, no one is forced to wear yellow stars on their jacket, and (I promise...) no one gets stripped naked and led into gas chambers, but the implications are pretty obvious for anyone with even a token knowledge of 20th century history.

That this seemingly innocuous family picture is in fact a pretty grim survival story with obvious historical relevance is of course not a flaw. I've certainly championed films aimed at kids that dare to be socially relevant, scary, and dramatic. And it certainly is all three. The film's second and third act is paced like a genuine thriller, with spirited chases, miraculous escapes, and tensely-edited action sequences. And the film does not sugarcoat the emotional impact of these events on our heroes. There is a nice moment where Max is temporarily seduced by the Rat King's promises of power. When he realizes what he's supporting, young Drozen reacts with a genuine horror that resonates. And while (slight spoiler) there is a bare minimum of out-and-out violence in the picture, Turturro plays his Rat King as if he were playing a deadly-serious super-villain. The Rat King makes it perfectly clear that his ultimate ambition is lethal purification ('Ratification') of the world (the burning of the toys throughout the picture allows the picture to symbolize mass murder without actually producing a body count). Point being, this movie is rated PG for a reason.

Okay, aside from the unexpectedly dark themes, how is the movie? It's, well, okay. The film drags a bit in the second act and becomes a bit rushed in the third, but the technical credits are all pretty solid and the actors all take this material very seriously. Richard E. Grant and Nathan Lane share a fine moment around the halfway mark where they reminisce about their childhoods (by the way, Uncle Albert sings a song pretty early on concerning the theory of relevant, in case there is any confusion as to Albert's last name). Elle Fanning gives an engaging performance, which compensates for the wooden (sorry) work of Charlie Rowe. Rowe isn't bad per se, it's just that his Nutcracker Prince is more a symbol than a genuine character. Turturro delivers the evil goods, as expected.

The Nutcracker 3D is a bizarre concoction, mixing childish fantasy with real-world horrors in a way that almost works. I wish the film had spent more time on character and less on frenetic action, but it's certainly a unique bit of 'family filmmaking' in a season dominated by animated films and CGI-infused adaptations of classic cartoons. The film gets points for its ambition, as well as its willingness to risk alienating parents even if their kids are unaware of the broader implications of the story being told. As for the 3D, it wasn't shot in 3D, it doesn't really benefit from the 3D, so see it in 2D if it's available. For those who want something to take their family to over the Thanksgiving holiday that isn't animated, The Nutcracker 3D serves its purpose. Just make sure to take note of the whole 'parental guidance suggested' bit.

Grade: C+

Because it IS the best film of the year. Disney aims for Infinity and Beyond with Toy Story 3 Best Picture Oscar win.

With the Oscar-bait not exactly setting the world on fire, and with no real front-runner yet anointed, Disney is taking a serious shot at making sure that Toy Story 3 becomes the first animated film in history to win the Best Picture award at this year's Academy Awards. The campaign will center on a serious of mock posters, with the cast of Toy Story 3 emulating Oscar-winning films that were somewhat unique (IE - The Godfather part II - the first sequel to win, The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King - the first fantasy film to win, Silence of the Lambs - the first horror film to win, etc). Since they likely already have the Best Animated Film award more or less locked, why not go for the big prize? And, quite frankly, it damn well deserves to win. Not because it would be a groundbreaking achievement, the first animated film to win Best Picture, but because it is, with just a few weeks to go, the best film of the year... period.

The film has a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes, with an average rating of 8.8 out of 10. It's far and away the best reviewed picture of the year. It has grossed $414 million in domestic dollars and has scored $1.062 billion worldwide. While box office doesn't necessarily equal quality (re - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and/or Alice in Wonderland), Toy Story 3 scored a 3.76x opening weekend-to-final gross multiplier, indicating strong legs. That means audiences liked it, they told their friends and/or came back for repeat viewings. More importantly, this 'family cartoon' was a more thoughtful and nourishing piece of entertainment than anything else this year. The gang at Pixar somehow fashioned a bitterly haunting Holocaust/Exodus parable while still remaining light on its feet, laugh-out-loud clever, and utterly charming. They completed their unofficial death/rebirth trilogy (along with Wall-E and Up) with style and capped off their signature franchise with a grace and dignity that deserves more than just a polite golf clap. Toy Story 3, was the most powerful movie of the year and deserves to be acknowledged as such.

More importantly, there is a weird catch-22 in the realm of popular entertainment. We constantly whine about the often low quality of mass-market films. Yet, when something comes along that bucks the trend, be it Casino Royale, The Dark Knight, or Toy Story 3, we refuse to place it alongside the more 'appropriate' Oscar bait material, declaring it unworthy by virtue of its original goal as populist entertainment. If we aren't willing to acknowledge when an action film becomes a work of pure art, when a comedy scores on all cylinders, or when an animated film puts live-action dramas to shame, what message are we sending to the studios? We ghettoize our mainstream motion pictures, treat them as less than worthy, and then sit back and wonder why so many of them don't even try to achieve a superior quality. When we thumb our noses at Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, we deserve Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.

So three cheers for Disney for going after the big prize. There is certainly a risk, as voters may think that Toy Story 3 has a shot at Best Picture and vote for (the terrific) How to Train Your Dragon for Best Animated Film. It would be nice for for Oscars to actually award the Best Picture trophy to the actual best film of the year more than once or twice a decade. The less we stigmatize popular genres (animation, fantasy, etc), the less we'll be willing to tolerate sub par entries in those respective genres. As for those who bemoan that Toy Story 3 is just a kiddie cartoon, well it's not Pixar's fault that the live-action dramas can't keep up. Let's be honest, animated films have had a superior batting average to any other genre over the last several years, producing varied top-notch entertainments like Spirited Away, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Persepolis, Meet the Robinsons, Ratatouille, Up, Waltz with Bashir, and How to Train Your Dragon. Besides, the usual Oscar bait can have their shot next year. I seriously doubt that I'll be writing a similar article of this nature in November 2011 in praise of Cars 2.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (11/21/10): Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I scores $125 million. Next Three Days tanks.

I don't generally like to brag, but my math yesterday concerning a likely poor weekend multiplier for the seventh Harry Potter film was dead-on. After opening with $24 million in midnight showings, the film pulled in $61 million on its first day, and just $38 million on its second, which was a 39% drop. In other words, it pulled in on Saturday almost EXACTLY what it pulled in on Friday without those midnight screenings. Said Friday-to-Saturday drop will put it squarely in the top-ten for the biggest such plunges. The actual weekend estimate is $125 million, which gives the series both its biggest three-day opening weekend and its lowest weekend-multiplier ever (2.04x). It also makes Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I the most front-loaded midnight movie ever for its opening weekend, as it did 19% of its weekend business on 12:01am showings (go here for a rundown of notable midnight numbers). The good news is that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I scored the sixth-biggest opening weekend of all time. The bad news is that it also scored the sixth most front-loaded opening weekends in history as well. Is that a box office equivalent of a palindrome?

What this all means is that, as suspected for awhile, the Harry Potter franchise is playing pretty much identical to the much-compared Twilight Saga. Both franchises had had massively front-loaded sequels. Both franchises play almost exclusively to the fans, with few converts jumping on-board this late in the game. The last three Harry Potter films had grossed $290 million, $292 million, and $301 million respectively. As you can see, when you add in inflation and a random variable or two, the films have basically the same attendance level. There is no reason to expect anything different from this seventh chapter, so factoring in inflation and the added IMAX ticket-price bump, we can expect this penultimate Harry Potter adventure to gross around $310-320 million (the series high is still the original, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, with $317 million). Regardless, you can bet that the eight and final film, which opens on July 15th, will get a big box office boost from being the series finale.

Of course, there is a reasonable concern that this film could play EXACTLY like Twilight Saga: New Moon, which opening on the same weekend last year and had an almost identical weekend pattern (18% in midnight screenings, 1.972x weekend multiplier). That film dropped by 70% over Thanksgiving weekend, actually dropping a full $100 million for its opening weekend gross, and ended up with $296 million. Should Harry Potter 7 follow a similar pattern, expect a $260 million domestic total, which will make it the second-lowest grosser in the franchise. Obviously, the key will be Thanksgiving weekend, where it will have to fend off Disney's Tangled as well as the (correct) perception that while it's the best film of the series, it's not really a family film. If it can hold its own next weekend, it should be just fine and in shipshape to handle The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader on December 10th and Tron: Legacy on December 17th.

The only other new release was the Russell Crowe vehicle, The Next Three Days. The 'husband breaks his wife out of jail and ruins his son's life' thriller grossed just $6.8 million, making it one of Russell Crowe's lowest opening weekends ever. Lionsgate really screwed the pooch on this one, wrongly thinking that counter-programing against Harry Potter would yield results. The Next Three Days is not Walk the Line, the acclaimed Johnny Cash biopic that opened to $22 million on the same weekend Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire opened with $102 million five years ago this weekend. Had this picture come out in October or even early next year, it would have been a viable adult-thriller option. But the Harry Potter franchise basically appeals to everyone. The only moviegoers who genuinely don't like the franchise are (let's be honest...) film snobs who have probably never seen the series (why else would they be so against a character-driven adventure series filled with Britain's best actors)? Point being, if they went to the movies this weekend, they were probably seeing one of the many Oscar bait films currently available such as Fair Game ($1.5 million weekend, $3.7 million cum) and the terrific 127 Hours ($915,000 this weekend on 108 screens, for a $1.9 million cumulative gross).

Or, if they were just red-blooded moviegoers who just don't like stories about boy wizards (fair enough), and they wanted a good thriller, they were (smartly) seeing Unstoppable, which dropped 42% for a $13.1 million second weekend. It's not a great hold, but it's the smallest second-weekend drop for a Denzel Washington thriller since Man on Fire back in 2004. I still think this movie is going to play for awhile, as it's just damn good and I can't imagine anyone not recommending it. If audiences need an all-ages option for a 'big family goes to the movies' day over Thanksgiving weekend, this is it. It's not a G-rated cartoon (Tangled), it's not an R-rated action picture (Faster) or R-rated romantic comedy (Love and Other Drugs), it's not a remake of Showgirls (Burlesque), and it's not part 7 of a long-running franchise (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I). It's a ripping PG-13 thriller with no real objectionable content, and several rock-solid movie star performances (Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, Rosario Dawson, etc), and a script that lets nearly every character be at least as smart as those in the audience.

Last week's other two openers were studies in contrast. Morning Glory dropped 45%, which is pretty high for a female-driven comedy, but not completely fatal ($5.2 million second-weekend, $19 million cum). Skyline on the other hand, plunged 71% for a $3.4 million second weekend. The 'tentpole on a dime' experiment alienated moviegoers and anyone curious showed up last weekend. If this holds up, it will be the one of the 40 biggest second-weekend plunges in history. Still, the film cost just $10 million, so the film is already in the black with $17 million in ten days. In other holdover news, Megamind crossed the $100 million mark, ending weekend three with $109 million. The Dreamworks cartoon is far behind Monsters Vs Aliens, How to Train Your Dragon, and Despicable Me at their respective 17-day points ($140 million, $133 million, and $161 million), and it will likely struggle to cross $150 million. Red has now grossed $83.6 million, formally passing Paranormal Activity 2 ($83.5 million). Jackass 3D is at $116 million. For Colored Girls dropped another 63% and now sits with $34 million. And finally, Saw 3D now sits with $45 million, meaning it will not surpass the $55 million gross of the first Saw film back in 2004.

That's it for this weekend. Join us over the long Thanksgiving weekend as we get a boatload of new releases. Other than the aforementioned wide-releases (Tangled, Burlesque, Faster, Love and Other Drugs), we get the limited release of The King's Speech and The Nutcracker 3D (check Mendelson's Memos for a review of that one on Tuesday night). Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Scott Mendelson

Friday Box Office (11/19/10): Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I scores $61.2 million on first day.

It's a $61.2 million Friday for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I. That's the fifth-biggest single day of all time, behind the opening days of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($62 million), The Dark Knight ($67 million), Twilight Saga: Eclipse ($68 million), and Twilight Saga: New Moon ($72 million). It's the third biggest Friday of all, as Transformers 2 and Twilight Saga: Eclipse both opened on a Wednesday. The number surpasses the $58 million that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince earned on its first day (a Wednesday), and it clobbers the $40 million that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire earned on its first Friday in November 2005 (the last time one of these films opened on a Friday). For a bit of perspective, nine years ago this weekend, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone broke the record for a single day gross with $32 million on its first Friday (it would break that record again with $33 million the next day). Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I nearly doubled that.

Some pundits are hollering about a $140-150 million weekend, and while I'd love to see that, the math doesn't make it a guarantee. The seventh Harry Potter film pulled down $24 million in midnight screenings, meaning that 39% of its daily take came from those 12:01am showings. That's even more than the midnight-to-first day ratio for Twilight Saga: New Moon, which grossed 36% of its first day ($26 million) in midnight showings. It also makes Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I the most front-loaded midnight-to-first day picture of all time. So if Harry Potter 7 performs like Twilight 2, that would give it a $121 million opening weekend.

Yes, Harry Potter is more of a family franchise but A) the prior sequels were pretty front-loaded too and B) this film is absolutely not pitched towards small kids. On the other hand, the last two Friday-opening Potter films had 2.5x opening day-to-weekend multiplier (Goblet of Fire - $40m/$102m) and a 2.4x multiplier (Prisoner of Azkaban - $38m/$93m). Neither of those are mind-blowing holds, but they are better than the under-2x that the Twilight Saga is famous for. It Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I can pull off a Dark Knight-like 2.3x multiplier (no guarantee with such massive midnight front-loading), then the seventh picture can score a $141 million opening weekend.

Obviously the magic number for the weekend is $142.9 (2.33x), which will allow the boy who lived to tell the former Cedric Diggory to get the hell off of his lawn. Of course, even if boy who lived fails to overtake New Moon's opening weekend, I'm pretty sure Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I won't lose $100 million over its second weekend either. But, alas you will probably NOT hear about it here first, as I have family commitments for much of tomorrow. But I assure you, what I sacrifice in punctuality, I shall make up for in quality.

Scott Mendelson

"How to talk to your kids about Star Wars."

She already enjoys the Jedi Academy stage show at Disney Land, and she already has an unhealthy preference for the Dark Side (she perks up when Darth Maul and Darth Vader show up). As for what order to best introduce her to the movies when the time comes, I'm thinking doing it in the vein of Stephen King's It. In other words, it'll be The Phantom Menace, A New Hope, Attack of the Clones, The Empire Strikes Back, Revenge of the Sith, and then Return of the Jedi.

Scott Mendelson

Deleted scene from The Last Airbender even more racially-incorrect than the film.

Yeah, I can see why they cut this one... Of course, the fact that the movie was so lousy just makes it easy for me to play "Mr. Racebending is wrong!". Had the film been really good, I'm not so sure I would have cared all that much about the cultural issues.

Scott Mendelson

First look at Karl Urban as Judge Dredd.

This one comes out from Lionsgate in 2012, and this still comes from Aint It Cool News. Looks pretty convincing to me. I've always had a soft spot for the original Sylvester Stallone Judge Dredd from 1995. Sure, it's kinda terrible, but it's amusingly progressive for an action picture (Dredd learns that compassion and due process are pretty cool), and it's insanely violent. I'm pretty sure that, save our three heroic leads, every single character with a speaking part dies onscreen. I love that Stallone apparently thought that it had a shot at a PG-13 at the time, but then Harrison Ford thought the same thing about the blood-soaked Air Force One.

Scott Mendelson

The Tourist introduces Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie with a witty, knowing clip.

'The Tourist' Exclusive Clip

Trailer Park Movies | Myspace Video

I don't generally view clips, let alone post them, but this relatively spoiler-free introduction for The Tourist made me chuckle. For what it's worth, I've had similar conversations with my wife when we discussed traveling by, or sleeping in, trains. Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp both seem to be having fun, and this looks like a pleasantly old-fashioned little caper.

Scott Mendelson

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I scores $24 million in midnight showings.

It looks like when it comes to midnight fan frenzy, there's Harry Potter and the Twilight Saga, and then there's everyone else. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I scored $24 million in midnight shows last night, which puts it number three on the all-time midnight list. Ahead of it for 12:01am screenings sits only the last two Twilight films. New Moon pulled in $26 million for a $72 million day (still a record for a single day) while Eclipse scored $30 million towards an eventual $68 million first day (still number two for single days). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince previously scored $22 million in its midnight showings, which means Deathly Hallows part I set a record for the series. It does appear likely that the seventh Harry Potter film (and, yes, the best one so far) will surpass the $58 million that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince grossed in its first and biggest single day. We'll know in twelve hours whether or not Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I can surpass Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and its respective $62 million single-day mark (likely) or even The Dark Knight's $67 million opening day tally (quite possibly). More as we get the word...

Scott Mendelson

First Looks: From X-Men to Green Lantern, ten years of comic book-film trailers.

It's hard to believe that it's been ten years since the modern comic book movie revival kicked off with X-Men and (kinda-sorta) Unbreakable. With the lukewarm response to the trailers to Thor and Green Lantern, and the Nolan Batman franchise wrapping up, we may just be on the tail-end of this particular run. For the sake of my own amusement, let us take a quick trip down memory lane with the most memorable trailers in the current comic book explosion. After all, in many ways, getting that first glimpse was often more exciting than seeing the actual film. For the record, this list will only include originals; no sequels (with one exception that I'll point out). And away we go...

X-Men (2000): Technically, this was the second trailer, but I'm posting it here because the first glance at X-Men was an infamously awful tease, a confused, jumbled mess of random images set to techno music. This vastly improved trailer, released relatively quickly after the first one to deal with the fan backlash, actually did the job. There is a clear sense of what the plot was, a roll-call of major characters, and a compelling third-act montage of action and incident, set to music from X-Files: Fight the Future. The first tossed-off teaser nearly killed the franchise before it even began, and this second trailer saved it. I still remember being uber-excited for this trailer, both at its overall quality and a sense of deep relief that that upcoming X-Men movie had a shot at being a winner after all.

Spider-Man (2002): Again, this was the second piece of marketing, but it was the first real look at the movie itself. As you likely recall, the first teaser was released over summer 2001, and it was a stand-alone sequence that had Spidey stopping bank-robbers by trapping their chopper between the Twin Towers. Post-9/11 controversy aside, this full-length trailer was a stunningly-effective sell, showcasing every major character (Peter, Mary Jane, the Green Goblin, etc) and presenting the film as a living-breathing 1960s comic book come to life. Even if the trailer gave a bit too much away (the climax and the last moments in the film), it sold itself as a kicky, colorful blast, the antithesis to the dark and gloomy world of Tim Burton's Batman. Sony certainly has its work cut out for it whenever it decides to cut a trailer for Marc Webb's upcoming Spider-Man reboot.

The Hulk (2003): I was in the minority the day after the 2003 Super Bowl. I adored this kitschy and violent little tease for Ang Lee's Hulk. I'm not sure what people were expecting, but the tease I saw was a loud, chaotic, and insanely colorful preview that gave people exactly what you'd think they wanted: a giant green monster wrecking everything in sight. Obviously the final film was more tone poem and character-driven mood piece than action-adventure. Ironically, the very people who trashed the film itself for not being 'fun' were the same who ridiculed this campy little smash-a-thon.

Batman Begins (2005): I couldn't find an embeddable copy of the very first teaser, which doesn't even announce that it's a Batman picture until the final moments. A second teaser was released in December 2004, and it was equally cryptic in its own way. The 75-second tease showed off realism over spectacle, promising a Batman epic that would feel every bit as plausible as a more conventional spiritual journey picture. The marketing campaign was a somewhat honest one, giving us character and narrative over money shots and spectacle. Heck, the film didn't even look remotely 'fun' until the 2005 Super Bowl spot. It only faltered right at the end, with a misleading full trailer which positioned Rachel Dawes as a Mary Jane-like love interest and implied that Bruce's quest was all about impressing his childhood sweetheart (it also contained a sped-up version of the eventual 'Batman theme music'). Frankly, the somewhat uneven sell had me worried about the film's quality, a worry that only dissipated when I actually saw the thing. Whatever faults the marketing team made when advertising the first Nolan Batman film (which resulted in a lower-than-expected opening weekend), they certainly fixed the problem three years later.

Superman Returns (2006): One could argue that this Bryan Singer-reboot was a sequel to the first one or two Richard Donner Superman films, but all things considered, this is indeed a first look at a would-be new Superman series. As I wrote back in July, this is a beautiful, stirring, soulful little teaser. It was the perfect piece of marketing to entice the new and old to go on yet another adventure with the Man of Steel. Using the most emotionally-powerful piece of music from the original Richard Donner picture (the 'Krypton theme') and sampling relevant bits of Marlon Brando's narration from the 1978 classic, this brief and silent glimpse at the new world that Bryan Singer had created was genuinely jaw-dropping, reaffirming Clark Kent as the definitive American hero of the last 100 years. Obviously the movie didn't live up to the tease, but that's beside the point. This is a powerful piece of stand-alone art.

Iron Man (2008): This initial tease at Marvel's first stand-alone film was just that, a 2.5 minute tease. The first 110 seconds basically spelled out the first act of the movie, climaxing with twenty seconds of images. We were given a brief glimpse of Terrance Howard's Jim Rhodes, a handful of shots of Jeff Bridges's villain and his respective super suit (you can clearly see it's him in a few shots), Terance Howard, and Gwyneth Paltrow fleeing in terror a few times. Then we get an extended look at the traditional Iron Man suit as Stark plays chicken with fighter planes. Like Nolan's first Batman teasers, the primary concern was establishing a real and recognizable playground for Tony Stark and friends, and on that count, it was a success. We don't even see the recognizable Iron Man costume until the very end of the teaser. Like Nolan's The Dark Knight (which of course came out the same summer), this was a comic book adventure that took place in our world.

Thor (2011): I've written at length about how poor I think this trailer is, how it fails even as a fan-targeted highlight reel as it feels stagy, dull, and inexplicably cheap. Obviously, unlike the above examples, we do not have the benefit of hindsight, but this was not a very persuasive initial tease. And that brings us to...

Green Lantern (2011): As you might have guessed, this underwhelming teaser is what inspired this article, as I'm still shocked that the studio would allow something this poor to be released as their first-impressions marketing tool. As I wrote on Tuesday, the pacing is ghastly, the thing feels edited with broken scissors, and the whole enterprise feels inexplicably claustrophobic and earthbound, quick trips into outer space aside. Like the Thor trailer, we might all be laughing in seven months about how wrong we were, but two of the four major comic book adaptations have released their previews (X-Men: First Class and Captain America have yet to release teasers), and neither of them look very good at all.

But for now, a parting thought. The modern comic book film was arguably started by Superman and kicked into overdrive by Batman and revived by X-Men. Maybe the finale of Chris Nolan's Batman series, the prequel to X-Men, and one last shot at reviving Superman is as good a place as any for this run to end.

Scott Mendelson