Oscar 2011: Don't blame James Franco and Anne Hathaway, blame the writers.

Last year, I wrote a post-Oscar essay that got me quoted in Time Magazine. This year I have no such profundities to offer. But let me simply say that while this truly was the worst Oscar telecast in at least as long as I've been watching (since I was just short of 12-years old in 1992), the blame lies not with the hosts, but with the material. Many have commented that James Franco all-but started the show with a stunning display of apathy and disinterest. While we can all joke about whether he was stoned, or whether he was thinking about one of the 6,000 other activities he is currently involved in, the truth may be much simpler: Franco probably saw the material that had been written for him and Ms. Hathaway, and he damn-well knew he was in for a rough ride. So while Franco seemingly tuned out, Hathaway did the opposite, going absolutely for-broke, refusing to go down without a fight. But while Anne Hathaway and James Franco are excellent actors (and their hosting last night does not change that), not everyone can make lemonade out of lemons.

For whatever reason, the writers of last night's events seemed to think that everyone's favorite part of an awards show is the part where two mismatched presenters ramble through poorly-scripted banter and make painful attempts to appear charming and flirtatious. Because, with few exceptions, the entire show was one piece of awkward banter after another. The whole show reeked of older writers attempting to appeal to younger viewers, with little-to-no idea how to do that. Because if there is anything that young kids love, it's being pandered or condescended to. No, awkward references to smart-phone aps, Auto-Tunes, Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, and 'the Internet' are not going to appear hip/cool to the young kids. And bringing Halle Berry onstage to memorialize Lena Horne is only to make it that much more noticeable that not a single minority was nominated for a major award last night. And spoiling the finales of several nominated films (True Grit, Toy Story 3, The King's Speech) doesn't inspire viewers to check those films out later. You want to try appealing to the young kids, first of all, try not leaving Corey Haim off your 'In Memoriam' tribute. Second of all, and this gets me back to my original point, try giving the kids an entertaining show with jokes that were actually clever and rewarded those who actually followed the movie business with any amount of verve.

The opening monologue seemed to resemble two hosts whose teleprompters broke and left them to fend for themselves. Much of the written material indeed seemed like some older writer writing jokes that he/she knew didn't work, but was sure that 'the kids will think that's funny'. Out-of-left field references to Back to the Future are not funny (I bet they paid Crispin Glover for that clip just to be on the safe side). Implying that the Andy's mother in Toy Story 3 was a lesbian just because she's a single mother isn't funny. Having James Franco arbitrarily show up in drag isn't funny, especially as a caper to an otherwise amusing musical number. Having James Franco and Anne Hathaway's family members stand up and then not say anything funny... also not funny. That you or I could arguably write better material than what was delivered last night is almost without question. What is most shocking is how little genuine material appeared to be written in the first place. Franco and Hathaway are, at heart, not stage comedians. They aren't trained to ad-lib when the material stinks. They don't have a working relationship with each other that they can play off of when the jokes turn stale. And, unlike in their respective Saturday Night Live hosting sessions, they didn't have a stable of reliable improv artists who could salvage a weak skit or know when to go off-page. It's easier to maintain your dignity during a weak piece of comedy when you have Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig watching your back.

These two would-be hosts were chosen as hosts because someone at the top thought they represented 'exciting new stars', never-mind that both of them have been in the industry for ten years. But they are first-and-foremost actors, trained to perform characters and dialogue that was written by someone else on a film set. And not every actor can be an Oscar host. As was painfully evident, not everyone can be Billy Crystal. And in the realm of sketch comedy or improvisation, there is a world of difference between Christopher Walken and Robert De Niro. Anne Hathaway and James Franco trusted their writers to provide them a life raft as they dove headfirst into the water. Little did they realize, until it was too late, that they were diving into an empty pool. In the end, Franco and Hathaway were victims of a misguided strategy that genuinely believed that bringing aboard two bright and vivacious young movie stars would be entertainment in-and-of-itself. Hathaway certainly won a good-sportsmanship award. Franco probably has material for another documentary or short play or PhD thesis or interpretive dance. But the only people laughing last night were David Letterman and Ricky Gervais.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (02/27/11): Hall Pass edges out Gnomeo and Juliet while Drive Angry crashes.

Hall Pass opened with a modest $13.5 million on its debut weekend, giving the Farrelly Brothers their first chart-topper since Me, Myself, and Irene back in June of 2000. The critically-mixed comedy starring Owen Wilson, Jason Sudeikis, Jenna Fischer, Christina Applegate, and Richard Jenkins was their sixth-largest debut, coming in just at the $13.5 million (fourth-place) opening of There's Something About Mary back in July of 1998. The picture was heralded as a return to form for the once-kings of their genre who had seen their audience move on to the likes of Will Farrell and Judd Apatow. Alas, it was not quite to be. The Farrelly Brothers were the arguable kings of comedy in the mid-to-late 1990s, with crowd-pleasing smashes like Dumb and Dumber ($116 million) and There's Something About Mary, which spent months in the top ten and actually topped the box office in its eighth week of release. The latter ended up with $175 million, a huge number for a comedy, let alone an R-rated one. It's still the twelve biggest-grossing R-rated film of all time, and the fifth-biggest R-rated comedy ever.

But the 2000s were not kind, as the Jim Carrey vehicle Me, Myself, and Irene was inexplicably branded a disappointment despite scoring $90 million. Shallow Hal opened in November of 2001 with $22 million and crawled to $70 million, but after that it was a flurry of sub-$45 million grossers. Fever Pitch may have gotten rave reviews, but the Drew Barrymore/Jimmy Fallon comedy was screwed over by real life. The film was a terrific little movie that dealt with Red Sox fandom as a form of unrequited love, and then watched as the Red Sox actually won the World Series just in spike to wreck the ending. Anyway, Stuck On You and The Heartbreak Kid received neither good reviews nor decent box office, and it looks like Hall Pass will do the same $35-$40 million gross that is the new normal. On the plus side, the film cost just $35 million, so longterm profitability is still possible.

In kinda shocking news, the genuinely mediocre Gnomeo and Juliet is still benefiting from the utter lack of real kid-flick competition for one more weekend, barely missing first place with $13.4 million. Dropping just 26% in weekend three, the third-rate toon has still grossed $74 million and has a shot at $100 million. I'm sure Disney is just as flabbergasted by the stunning success of this one as I am. This was basically considered a dump until just a month or so ago. Expect much personal embarrassment if the more costly and high-profile Mars Needs Moms fails to outgross this 'offbrand' cartoon after it opens on March 11th. I don't mean to be petty, but the idea of this movie outgrossing Meet the Robinsons.... I know, I know... don't be bitter, just keep moving forward. We need Rango now more than ever...

Personal anecdote: I actually took my three-year old to this during the week during a day off from preschool. She has been going to the movies with me periodically since August 2009. She has sat through and/or enjoyed 2D screenings of Ice Age 3, G-Force, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, Toy Story 3, Despicable Me, Cats and Dogs: the Revenge of Kitty Galore, The Nutcracker (at a 3D press screening, no less), Megamind, and Tangled. Even during lesser movies, she enjoys the whole 'sitting in the dark and eating popcorn while watching a movie with dad and/or mom' thing. Gnomeo and Juliet was so boring and lifeless that she wanted to go home after the first hour and watch Jake and the Neverland Pirates instead (which we did, after some outdoor play and my sincere apologies).

The other big opener was a genuinely eye-popping flop. The Summit Entertainment acquisition Drive Angry 3D (review) opened with just $5.1 million. The is very nearly the lowest opener for any Nicolas Cage wide-release since the man became a genuine movie star back in 1995. Only The Weather Man, which was a low-budget and low-key character-driven drama, opened with less in ($4.2 million) in 2005. Drive Angry opened with half of what Season of the Witch mustered just under two months ago. Yes, we all know that would-be cult films and/or homages to 1970s/1980s grind-house fare don't necessarily play well with general audiences (the film scored a 'C+' from Cinemascore), and there is a huge disconnect between what overgrown film nerds think is 'cool' (the film played 69% male and 57% over 30) and what regular moviegoers will pay first-run prices to see in a theater. But this is still a stunningly poor opening for Mr. Cage. Here's a list of Cage pictures that opened just a little bit better: Bangkok Dangerous ($7.7 million), Next ($7.1 million), Guarding Tess ($7 million), and Kiss of Death ($5.3 million). For those who care about such things, this is the lowest-opening ever for a wide-release 3D picture (the film played 97% 3D).

On one hand, a film like this was never going to perform like National Treasure or Ghost Rider. On the other hand, we all whine about the lack of imagination, originality, and/or just plain entertainment value in so many mainstream pictures. When we utterly ignore something as off-the-wall zany as Drive Angry (William Finchter is kinda brilliant in it), we have only ourselves to blame when Warner Bros. decides to remake The Bodyguard. We all whine about how 3D is just a gimmick for charging an extra $3 per ticket, but then we ignore the stuff like this or Step Up 3D that actually uses 3D properly. We all scream SELL-OUT when Nicolas Cage signs on for National Treasure 2 or Ghost Rider 2, but then we ignore his more personal genre riffs (Kick-Ass, Drive Angry) or his genuinely good pictures (Adaptation, The Weather Man, Lord of War, etc) and complain that he is no longer a serious actor. Point being, when Nicolas Cage signs on for National Treasure 3, it will be just as much your fault as his (re - In Defense of Nicolas Cage).

In holdover news, the big story was the impressive 29% third-weekend hold for Justin Bieber: Never Say Never 3D. Paramount tried something new this weekend, offering an extended 'director's cut' in the 3D theaters right smack in the middle of the first-run theatrical release. Since the new version only went out on digital 3D prints and the new cut received the same G-rating as the original, Paramount was able to drop it in at the drop of a hat to entice hardcore Bieber fans to check out the documentary one more time. Mission accomplished. What this means for the future of cinema can be debated (imagine seeing the extended cuts of each Lord of the Rings picture in theaters on the tail-end of their respective theatrical releases), but kudos on Paramount for trying something a little bold. At $62.5 million, the concert documentary is about to pass Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds ($65 million) and is just $10 million away from surpassing Michael Jackson's This Is It (review).

Unknown (review) grossed $12.5 million for its second weekend, down 42% from its $21 million debut. The film is certainly not showing the (statistically improbable) legs from Liam Neeson's Taken, but the $30 million thriller has already grossed $42.9 million. So this is a win for Warner Bros even if it only gets to $70 million. I Am Number Four (review) dropped 43% in weekend two, for a $11 million second weekend and a $37 million ten-day total. No franchise here, move along. Just Go With It now sits at $78 million and has a decent shot at becoming Adam Sandler's twelfth and Jennifer Aniston's fourth $100 million grosser. With all the talk about how January and February have stunk up the box office, we could be seeing anywhere from 3-5 $100 million grossers (depending on how Unknown and Justin Bieber: Never Say Never hold up) from these first two months, which is a rare thing indeed (ie - the pundits are wrong). Big Mammas: Like Father Like Son sits at just under $30 million on its tenth-day, which means the under-$35 million picture should be pretty profitable. The would-be Oscar front-runner The King's Speech rose 17% this weekend and will go into Oscar night with $114 million in the bank. Gee Harvey, imagine how much more this high-toned British period drama would have grossed from the teens and young kids had it been rated PG-13 (oh, how I hope Colin Firth or Tom Hooper calls him out on that tonight)...

That's it for this week. Join us next weekend for another packed schedule. Paramount releases a Nickelodeon co-production with Gore Verbinski's Rango, while Matt Damon and Emily Blunt run for love in The Adjustment Bureau. Meanwhile, the much-delayed Take Me Home Tonight finally gets a semi-wide release while Alex Pettyfer tries to salvage what's left of his stardom in the Vanessa Hudgens revamp of Beauty and the Beast: Beastly.

Scott Mendelson

Hope Allison never gets into this...

If you can't get through this whole clip, I don't blame you. For what it's worth, Smallville creators Alfred Gough and Miles Millar are set to script a film adaptation of Monster High for Universal Pictures. It will apparently come out sometime in 2012. Why am I posting this? Well, a few reasons. First of all, a big video booth of this doll/action figure series was set up at the local Toys R Us while I had Allison with me, and she seemed somewhat intrigued by the concept but annoyed at the obviously pandering execution. Second of all, I had never even heard of this property, and I'm genuinely shocked that Mattel is skipping the whole 'animated series' route and going straight for the live-action movie. Yes, because the feature-film adaptation of Bratz brought endless cash for Lionsgate back in 2007. Lastly, and this is something that has occurred to me many times: I cannot wait until Tim Burton and Helen Bonham Carter's children are old enough to 'go Goth' as a form of youthful rebellion. Would there be anything more ironic?

Scott Mendelson

Review: Drive Angry 3D (2011)

Drive Angry 3D
2011
104 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

The problem with a film like Drive Angry is that it doesn't entirely trust the audience to get the joke. Oh sure, most of the people walking into the theater will understand that it is an homage to the drive-in exploitation fare of a generation or two ago. Yet director Patrick Lussier and writer Todd Farmer aren't quite willing to simply let the events play out onscreen without commentary. There is a periodic 'nudge-nudge/wink-wink' effect in play, a need to acknowledge the rule-breaking which transpires, that robs the film of its edge. The overly ironic approach only highlights that Drive Angry is not a genuine piece of filmmaking so much as a film school exercise in grindstone homage. At least Machete had something to say about the anti-immigration hysteria and/or national identity while (the admittedly inferior) Jonah Hex worked as a chilling parable to the fear of Tea Party-fueld domestic terrorism. Drive Angry is merely about itself.

Still, if you can accept that the picture is less an actual film and more of an exercise, there are genuine pleasures to be found. The plot is pretty simple: John Milton (Nicolas Cage, in tongue-in-cheek low-key Con Air mode) escapes from hell to avenge the murder of his adult daughter and rescue his infant granddaughter, who has been kidnapped by a crazed cult leader (Billy Burke) who intends to sacrifice her on the next full moon. He is aided on his journey by an embittered young waitress (Amber Heard), but is hunted by the Accountant (William Fichtner) who means to drag Milton back to hell where he belongs. What follows is the usual gruesome violence, wantin sexuality, and an utter lack of common decency. All of this pretty much plays out as you'd expect, although a third-act appearance by David Morse lends the film a gravity that the movie perhaps does not deserve. Cage plays it cool this time around. While some may yearn for the manic Cage of Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans, but Cage is smart enough to know that the material is zany enough to not need over-the-top theatrics. Truth be told, all of the actors are surprisingly low-key.

Amber Heard tries mightily to be more than a piece of ass/damsel in distress, but the film repeatedly puts her in a position of having to be rescued by Cage. Billy Burke oozes genuine malice and makes a pleasantly hiss-able villain. As for William Fichtner... in a just world, he would be up for Oscar talk come next December. His Terminator-like pursuer easily steals the picture, easily earning laughs with his sardonic disapproval and deadpan intellect. His character is refreshingly complex, as he isn't quite the villain that you might think upon his initial entrance. Finchter provides additional proof that all the 3D effects and gratuitous violence can't top a genuinely great character turn for sheer entertainment value.

As for those 3D effects, Lussier uses the format for as much in-your-face splatter as he can muster. To his credit, his previous picture, My Blood Valentine 3D, came out nearly a year prior to Avatar, so he was playing with 3D well before it was 'cool'. There is an improved quality to the 3D visuals this time around (he's still the only modern director to shoot in 3D twice), and he uses the extra depth to frame flashbacks as a form of forward-projected that we see as Cage drives toward his destination. Unfortunately, shooting in 3D still means we get a dark, glum visual style and that the film still looks like it was shot on the video that it was. For now, 3D remains as HD video was in the early 2000s. Back in 2002, unless you were George Lucas or Robert Rodriguez, your HD-video film just looked like a cheap direct-to-DVD production. 3D is now going through similar growing pains.

Despite the surface-level thrills (and the dynamite character work from Fichtner), the film suffers from a too-cute need to point out how 'extreme' it is. It's not enough to have Cage engage in a shoot-out while having sex with a bar waitress, the film needs to have characters comment on the absurdity of it. It's not enough to have a sympathetic character 'accidentally' kill two police officers during an action sequence, the film constantly needs to reference that moment as if to remind the audience that this film isn't concerned with conventional morality (although that moment of 'immorality' muddies an otherwise hopeful conclusion). My Bloody Valentine 3D may have been a flawed piece of genre throwback, but it was willing and able to stand on its own two feet without commenting on itself.

Drive Angry 3D is never boring and often fitfully amusing. This is certainly a more entertaining 'one-for-me' Nicolas Cage picture than Bangkok Dangerous, and the film does deliver on its promises of trashy thrills. I wish that the film trusted itself and its audience a bit more, but it's worth sampling if only for William Fichtner's wonderful comic creation. And the film earns points by actually ending without the need to leave countless loose-ends for a sequel. Yes, the finale does briefly tease where the surviving characters may go next. And, without giving it away, the idea hinted at is a ride I would gladly take.

Grade: B-

When the MPAA spoils the movie: Rated 'Annoying' for overly descriptive ratings explanations.

While The Adjustment Bureau looks like a pretty mediocre movie on its own, there is now yet another reason it may not be worth checking out. Judging from the trailer, much of the film seems to involve Matt Damon dragging Emily Blunt by the hand as they outrun a bunch of black-suited men who basically want to tune their fates. Yes, it's another movie where the girl is apparently incapable of running away from danger by herself, even when she's a professional ballet dancer. But I digress... the film is theoretically a suspense picture, so we're theoretically supposed to be in suspense when Damon and Blunt attempt to escape their nefarious pursuers. But I won't be. Not because I do or don't care whether or not Damon screws over the ambitions and dreams of a girl he barely knows because he thinks she's pretty. No, it's because, thanks to the MPAA, I know that no harm will actually befall them. The Adjustment Bureau is rated PG-13 for "for brief strong language, some sexuality and a violent image". Yes, just one violent image in the whole movie. So cheer up Damon and Blunt, you're probably going to be just fine.

I understand the need that some parents have for explanations of a film's respective rating. After all, an R-rating for The King's Speech (a bunch of F-words) means something quite different than an R-rating for Black Swan (some super-strong sexual content). But there is a big difference between offering a general description of a film's content ('thar be violence and drug use, and sexual content') and offering the kind of detail that spoils the movie before the trailer even starts ('thar be a rape, six killings, a scene where the lead actress disrobes, and a scene where a teenager tries cocaine!'). If you're wondering why you weren't all that frightened by M. Night Shyamalan's The Village back in 2004, maybe it's because you read the rating description, which stated that the film contained 'a scene of violence'. So once your about halfway into the film and a single scene of violence indeed occurs, you knew that there would be no more violence in this particular picture.

A few examples, if I may SPOIL for a moment... When I'm watching The Roommate, I don't necessarily want to know that a cat gets tossed in a clothes dryer. Merely acknowledging 'violence involving animals' should be enough. If I'm watching Three Extremes, I need to know that it contains graphic violence. I don't need to know that it contains 'abortion and torture', especially as said explanation basically gives away the plot to the first and second respective shorts in this Asian horror anthology. And, true story or not, I don't necessarily need to know that Walk the Line contains 'depiction of drug dependency' before the film starts. "Drug use" would have sufficed. Point being, there is a fine like between explaining in general terms why a film got a certain rating (look out... THEMATIC ELEMENTS!) and actively spoiling the film by detailing specific instances and/or noting the lack of certain elements ('this movie only contains a single image of violence... so relax!').

Scott Mendelson

Bad Teacher gets a red-band trailer.

Cameron Diaz has always an obvious urge to play around in the R-rated comedy sandbox. The Sweetest Thing may not be a great movie, but it's a game attempt at fashioning a fem-driven comedy that was just as filthy and profane as the typical male road-trip farce. So it's good to see her returning to the raunch pool yet again. Director Jake Kasdan has an unfortunate habit of making fine films (Walk Hard, Zero Effect, The TV Set) that absolutely no one sees, so hopefully this could have his shot at mainstream exposure. As for the film itself, it looks pleasantly amusing, with the always winning conceit of a foul and relatively horrible adult being put in charge of kids. I'm sure the film will get some flack over Diaz's profane and generally unpleasant (and her desire to find a man to take care of her), but it's a little refreshing to see a mainstream comedy where the men are mainly saintly pieces of background scenery while the women get to be center-stage assholes. If this and Bridesmaids both become solid hits, we could (hopefully) see a more consistent output of female-driven comedies. And more importantly, they will be prevalent enough where we won't have to analyze every one of them within an inch of their lives in regards to their gender politics. Bad Teacher comes out June 24th. As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

RIP Dwayne McDuffie... the man who saved the DC Animated Universe.

Dwayne McDuffie died this morning of complications from a surgerical procedure performed last night. He was 49 years old. He was the writer and producer of All-Star Superman, which streets today. McDuffie is known for many things: creating Static Shock, forming Milestone Media in 1992, and various runs on various successful DC and Marvel comic books. But for me, McDuffie was the savior of the DC Animated Universe. His first official project in that capacity was writing the two-part episode of Justice League entitled 'The Brave and the Bold'. The Flash and Green Lantern vs. Gorilla Grodd caper stood out by being, quite frankly, the first season one episode of Justice League that was any good. The quippy writing, exciting and zippy action and genuinely engaging humor stood out in a sea of self-serious and overly bland and dull adventures that littered the mediocre first season. It wasn't the only good episode that year (the Justice Society epic 'Legends' was terrific as well), but it was indeed a diamond in the rough. By season two, Dwayne McDuffie was a producer and the show was indeed roaring back to life, and the rest of the five-year run was every bit as good as we expect from the people who gave us Batman: the Animated Series. Point being, if Bruce Timm and Eric Radomski created the DC Animated Universe and Paul Dini and Alan Burnett expanded and improved it, then it was Dwayne McDuffie who kept it infused it with fresh blood. He kept it alive when Paul Dini, Michael Reaves, Boyd Kirkland, and others went on to other pastures. Rest in peace Mr. McDuffie, I can think of no better tribute than the climactic roll call of a universe that you more-or-less saved.

Scott Mendelson

Explaining the allegedly slow start to 2011 box office: A fluke is not a trend.

It's the movies stupid. Stephen Zeitchick is proclaiming that a somewhat slow start to 2011 is a sign of doom to come for the box office. I can make this one really easy for you. January/February 2009 had perhaps the mightiest block of new releases for the first two months of the year in recent memory, if ever. January/February 2010 was boosted by the biggest movie of all-time, plus some awfully strong holdovers from 2009. Would you like to know more? brief look back:

At the start of 2009, you had Taken and Paul Blart: Mall Cop, the only two brand-new January releases (ie- not expansions of Oscar bait from the previous year or a release of a 20-year old classic) to ever cross $100 million (they both did about $146 million). You had solid hits with in January with Bride Wars ($58 million), Hotel For Dogs ($73 million), My Bloody Valentine 3D ($51 million), and the massively successful wide-expansion of Gran Torino ($150 million). In February, you had Coraline ($75 million), Friday the 13th ($65 million), He's Not Just That Into You ($93 million), Madea Goes to Jail ($90 million), and the slow-rolling expansion of eventual Best Picture winner Slumdog Millionaire ($141 million).

But this mass of break-out January/February hits came at a price, as the late-December releases that usually would have bloomed after the New Year got kneecapped by the onslaught of popular January releases. So Marley and Me made $143 million off a $50 million four-day start, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button ended with just $127 million after a $40 million four-day start, Valkyrie failed to top $85 million, Adam Sandler's Bedtime Stories just crapped out at $110 million, and Jim Carrey's Yes Man just missed the $100 million mark (it ended with $97 million). None of these films were flops, but if you know anything about traditionally long holiday-season legs, you know that the studios were all banking on a relatively dry slate of 2009 releases.

So now we're into January/February 2010. Anyone remember what happened in 2010? Anyone remember a big movie opening at the end of 2009 and just breaking every longterm box office record in the book? Yeah, now you remember. Avatar grossed $476 million of its $760 million domestic total in the early months of 2010. One movie grossed nearly half-a-billion dollars over the first chunk of the year, and you don't think that will tip the scales a little bit? Ok, say you can't blame everything on Avatar. Fine, let's also blame the strong and leggy performances of Sherlock Holmes ($209 million), Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 ($219 million), and The Blind Side ($255 million). Point being, you had some pretty massive movies from the prior year that made a large chunk of their grosses in the new year. That's what traditionally happens in January and February, and that's what didn't happen in 2009.

As for new films in 2010, there were pretty slim pickings, just like there usually are in the first months of the new year. You had one bonafide January smash in Denzel Washington's The Book of Eli ($94 million), one big Super Bowl release in Dear John ($80 million), one massively huge opening weekend over Valentine's Day with Valentine's Day (natch and just $110 million from a $63 million four-day start), a too-expensive franchise non-starter in Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief ($95 million), and a massive mid-February hit (Shutter Island with $128 million) that was supposed to open in October of 2009. We're forgetting about the usual dump releases that either failed to ignite or were moderately-budgeted success stories. Films like From Paris With Love, Leap Year, When In Rome, or Legion do not a quality box office year make.

And what do we have this year? We have possibly three $100 million films (The Green Hornet, Just Go With It, Gnomeo and Juliet), a $30 million thriller that just opened to $25 million (Unknown), a $75 million romantic comedy hit (No Strings Attached), possibly the highest-grossing concert film in domestic history (Justin Bieber: Never Say Never 3D), and a handful of small-budgeted minor successes (The Roommate, The Mechanic, Big Mammas: Like Father Like Son). You could argue that there's not a lot of quality at the moment, but that's another story (cough-Cedar Rapids-cough).

What's missing from this equation is a strong slate of late-2010 releases that buffer the first two months or so. The Tourist, Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of Dawn Treader, Little Fockers, and Tron: Legacy were mainly played out by the end of the year. That left True Grit alone to represent 2010 in the opening months of 2011 box office. Just as Barack Obama is taking the blame for a recession started under George W. Bush's watch, and (to be fair) just as George H.W. Bush lost re-election due to a recession that was arguably the fault of Ronald Reagan, the 2011 box office is taken the heat for a pretty shallow pool of big 2010 holiday releases.

But is that really a bad thing? As Zeitchick correctly points out, the positive side effect was the strong grosses of the mainstream Oscar bait. Thanks to a lack of mighty holiday 2010 releases, Black Swan and The King's Speech both crossed $100 million, while The Fighter might just get there if Melissa Leo and Christian Bale win in their respective categories. I think we film pundits should spend more time celebrating those triumphs than whining about why The Dilemma or Season of the Witch didn't set the box office on fire. After all, if we conclude that much of the 2011 output is so-far lacking, then we should be applauding, rather than decrying, the lack of initial box office oomph. So, in closing, the January/February runs of 2009 (uncommonly strong opening releases) and 2010 (the huge run of Avatar) were flukes, and should not be taken as trends. And, since bad movies are generally flopping and good movies are succeeding, why exactly are we complaining? As always, it's the movies, stupid.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Unknown (2011)

Unknown
2011
110 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Jaume Collet-Serra's Unknown is an honest-to-goodness Hitchcockian thriller, a variation on the classic 'innocent man on the run' template. Like William Shakespeare, we discuss Alfred Hitchcock in hushed and overly reverent tones, forgetting that the man made pulpy entertainment for the masses. Hitchcock films, by-and-large, were crowd-pleasing pot-boilers that were intended to thrill, startle, and often amuse. In lesser hands, the filmography of Hitchcock could easily be discounted as a bunch of B-movies. I don't think even Jaume Collet-Serra would argue that his are comparably lesser hands, but the awkward and uneven picture shines brightest when he's willing to engage the audience as a merry prankster.

A token amount of plot: Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) has just awoken in his hospital bed in Berlin. In Germany to attend a bio-science conference, his taxi went off a bridge and he's been in a coma for four days. As he shambles out of bed to find his wife (January Jones), he is beyond startled to discover that no one at the conference recognizes him, including his wife. Even more perplexing, there is another man (Aidan Quinn) who claims to be Martin Harris, and he's doing a pretty convincing job of it. Oh dear...

The good news is that much of this is laid out pretty quickly. The bad news is that means the film has an awful lot of time to investigate red herrings and false leads before finally giving us the answers that we theoretically crave. Speaking of distractions, Neeson is immediately tailed by a couple of goons, which gives us an excuse for gratuitous fighting and a chase scene or two. These are the kind of ruthless bad guys who will instantly slaughter anyone who gets in their way, unless your face is on the poster, in which case they will incapacitate you first and procrastinate the actual murdering until you can escape. Without going into details, if you stop and think about how the various villains in this picture are eventually dispatched, you realize that they are among the least competent group of bad-guys this side of a 1980s Saturday morning cartoon.

I could complain about the uselessness of Diane Kruger as the cab-driver who was involved in the initial accident and now helps Neeson track down answers, but man-on-the-run thrillers almost always have gratuitous female companions. At least she protests a bit more when Neeson's involvement in her life results in the murder of a fellow cab-driver. The only other interesting characters of note are Bruno Ganz as a former spy turned private eye and Frank Langella as well, that would be telling... but you can probably guess that Langella does not play the helpful policeman who shows up in the nick of time with flowers and a puppy. Ganz and Langella actually have an extended scene together, and it is easily the highlight of the film. Jones does her usual ice-queen shtick, while Liam Neeson struggles to appear vulnerable despite being Liam Neeson. Look, Neeson is about twenty feet tall, is still built like a small tank, and has a scowl that could break glass. The very things that made him so effective as a force of nature in Taken makes him less credible as an innocent man on the run from scary forces outside of his control.

Point being, the film doesn't so much slowly unravel the puzzle as kill time before it's all laid out for you. Even with a few token action scenes, much of the middle act of the picture flirts with boredom. But the picture kicks to life in the final half-hour or so, when all is revealed and Jaume Collet-Serra remembers that he's the guy who made Orphan. Once Langella finally enters the picture, Unknown begins to indulge in a bit of batty business, including ludicrous plot revelations and cheerfully silly moments of preposterous violence. But of course, once we find out what's really going on (assuming you're lucky enough to have avoided the thrill-spilling trailer), you'll sit there and count the ways that the film actually functioned according to the Idiot Plot. But if you can turn off said brain, there is a token bit of amusement in the finale, including the funniest bit of violence since the stockholders meeting in Splice.

There is a difference between not taking a film seriously and being almost required to not become emotionally-invested in the narrative. Unknown blurs the line early and often, to its detriment. Still, the cast is game, and there are moments of notable suspense and objectively exciting action. Unknown is truly a Hitchcock film, but even Hitch made the occasional Marnie or I Confess. And he had to make The Man Who Knew Too Much twice to get it right.

Grade: C+

Weekend Box Office (02/21/11): Unknown leads jam-packed President's Day holiday

It was a crowded weekend at the box office for the second weekend in a row, as three major openers squared off against a surprisingly resilient animated feature from the week before. The top flick of the weekend was the Liam Neeson thriller Unknown (review). The film opened with $21.7 million over three-days and $25.6 million over four days, which is about on par with the $24 million debut of Taken (review) two-years ago over Super Bowl weekend. From a marketing point of view, Taken did have some advantages over this new thriller. The concept of Unknown ("I got into a car wreck and when I woke up someone had replaced me and no one knows who I am") isn't quite as relatible or compelling as Taken ("bad guys kidnapped my kid overseas, and I have to get her back"). While Warner Bros tried to sell Unknown as Taken 2, complete with the ridiculous 'take back your life' tagline and a trailer that climaxed with what little ass-kicking the film has to offer, anyone with a brain could tell that this was more of a goofy Hitchcockian thriller from the guy who directed the cheeky Orphan (review) than a hard action picture (there is a climactic moment of violence that is laugh-out-loud hilarious). Still, the film cost just $30 million, and this again proves Liam Neeson's worth as an action lead. He, Jason Statham, Denzel Washington, and Angelina Jolie really need to make a movie together.

The surprise hold-over was the strong performance of Disney's Gnomeo and Juliet, which dropped just 24% over the holiday for a $19.4 million three-days and $24.8 million over four days. Considering that this project was basically a dump until the last month, it is beyond shocking that this second-tier cartoon is blazing past The Princess and the Frog and Meet the Robinsons with a current eleven-day total of $55 million. There will be a flood of animated films over the next two months (Rango, Mars Needs Moms, Rio, Hop, Hoodwinked Too, etc), so it will be interesting to see if A) the success of Gnomeo and Juliet is purely due to the lack of family fare at the moment and B) if these far-more high-profile cartoons can actually match the impressive performance of this would-be lesser animated feature. The Adam Sandler/Jennifer Aniston rom-com Just Go With It grossed $18.2 million over three days (-40%). As far as Sandler comedies go, the respective eleven day total of $60 million is amongst the lowest such in Sandler's history for a mainstream comedy. The Justin Bieber concert documentary Never Say Never dropped about 54% to $13.6 million over the three-day portion and about $16 million over four-days. Still, that gives the $13 million picture $51 million in eleven days, which makes this another win for Paramount.

Back to the openers: Coming it at number two for the three-day weekend and number three for the four-day chunk was the next big opener, the Smallville/Twilight rip-off I Am Number Four (trailer/review). The film is based on a just-recently-released teen science-fiction novel, and Disney and Dreamworks (in their first collaboration) was clearly hoping for a franchise here. Expectations were around $30 million for the four-day holiday, which clearly will not be happening. While the $19.5 million three-day and $22.6 million four-day opening for the $60 million production isn't terrible, it's well below the $31 million three-day/$38 million four-day opening of Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (trailer/review). It's actually more in line with the $19 million three-day/$24 million four-day debut of The Spiderwick Chronicles, which debuted over this weekend back in 2008 (fun trivia: Spiderwick Chronicles co-starred Sarah Bolger, who co-starred with I Am Number Four leading man Alex Pettyfer in Alex Rider: Stormbreaker back in 2006).

Point being, audiences realized they were being sold something that they could see on the CW for free. The film earned a 'B+' from Cinemascore, meaning that the legs will be limited. The film certainly has little replay value, so Dreamworks and Disney were hoping to cash in on the relatively dry marketplace. I kinda thought this would break out this weekend due to the absence of any 'big' movies, but apparently audiences are more patient than I gave them credit for. So there probably will be no sequel, which leaves us with yet-another fantasy film that fails to actually end, in the hopes of a second chapter that will never come. As for director DJ Caruso, he is certainly capable of better this this, as Disturbia and Eagle Eye were both refreshingly-solid Hitchcockian thrillers. I guess Shia LeBeouf really is a genuine movie star after all. And Alex Pettyfer is, as of yet, not. But then we knew that going into the weekend, didn't we (it's not like Alex Rider: Stormbreaker was, cool Three Days of the Condor ending aside, an undiscovered masterpiece)?

The third major opener was Big Mammas: Like Father Like Son. Eleven years after the first installment, Martin Lawrence returned to the one franchise that will still have him (there is no Bad Boys 3 on the horizon). The film opened with $17 million over three-days and $19 million over four. For a $32 million comedy, this is certainly a win, although the opening is far short of the $25 million debut of the first Big Mamma's House back in May 2000 and the $27 million debut of the sequel in January 2006. The first picture grossed $117 million while the sequel grossed $70 million, so expect this sequel to struggle to get to $50 million. It would appear that there is room for only one African-American male dressed in drag, and Tyler Perry rules that particular sub-genre. More pointless six-degrees of separation: Co-star Brandon T. Jackson co-starred in above-mentioned Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief one-year ago this weekend.

In Oscar-bait news, The King's Speech crossed $100 million this weekend, setting the stage for a big win next Sunday. In more shocking news, the Darren Aronofsky ballet/horror/psychological thriller Black Swan (review) crossed $100 million late last week. If anyone say that coming back in November, show of hands please? In limited news, the delightful comedy Cedar Rapids (with Ed Helms, Anne Heche, and John C. Reilly) expanded to 100 screens and earned $909,000 over the weekend. This is easily the best film I've seen this year thus far, and it's really worth seeking out. It doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it's just a warm, enjoyable, character-driven comedy that damn-well should have been a wide release. That a mainstream confection such as this is now confined to the arthouse is a troubling sign of what constitutes a mainstream picture.

That's it for this weekend. Join us next weekend when Nicolas Cage and Amber Heard Drive Angry (in 3D!), while the Farrelly Brothers attempt a comeback with Hall Pass. Until then, take care and keep reading.

Scott Mendelson

Because this never, ever gets old...

To be fair... Masters of the Universe was pretty awesome when I was seven.

I know I've been beating up on Thor for quite awhile, and one of the complaints is that it resembles a big-budget version of Masters of the Universe, which is of course the 1987 He-Man movie that starred Dolph Lundrgen, Frank Langella, Courtney Cox, and Billy Barty. But one thing I've been perhaps forgetting is that when I was seven years old, I kinda loved Masters of the Universe.

Sure, I had my fanboy nitpicks. "Why is most of the movie on Earth? Why are the costumes do different from the cartoon? Where are most of the supporting cast? Why do He-Man and Skelator spend the entire action-finale out of their conventional costumes?" That's actually a bit nit for me, as I've always DEMANDED that costumed heroes and villains actually be dressed in their traditional outfits for the finale. I don't want to see Flash in plain-clothes fighting Professor Zoom/Reverse Flash who's dressed in a winter parka. I want an epic battle where both are in their respective super-suits. But other than those minor points, it was great fun seeing He-Man and Skelator doing battle on the big screen. I loved the opening and closing action scenes, and I thought Blade was one of the coolest henchmen this side of Oddjob. There was just enough action, violence, and PG-rated gore to make it seem like a step-up from the harmless cartoon, and it was just plain silly fun.

I've seen that movie probably two dozen times over the last twenty-three-and-a-half years. I bought the DVD right when it came out back in October of 2001 and listened to the rather heartbreaking director's commentary, where Gary Goddard explained in detail how he ran out of money right at the finale while explaining how much bigger the action climax was supposed to be. When I bought an HDTV just over four years ago, it was the first film my wife and I sat and watched on the 56" DLP Samsung. And should the film come out on Blu Ray, I'll probably buy it then too. To this day, I cannot see Frank Langella in a movie without giggling on the inside ("So you're asking me do I regret going into Grayskull?... No, I don't." "I'm saying that when Skelator does it, it's not illegal."). Point being, I would love if Thor ends up bringing as much goofy joy to our nation's seven-year old boys (and girls?) as Masters of the Universe has brought to me. With that, I bid you, well, 'good journey'.

Scott Mendelson

Review: I Am Number Four (2011)

I Am Number Four
2011
110 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

I Am Number Four is a film that seems to want to be better than it is, but feels hamstrung by the hopelessly generic narrative at its core. Based on a novel by James Frey and Jobie Hughes, the film basically tells a variation on the Rosewell/Smallville/Twilight formula, with all of the reverence that seemingly goes hand-in-hand with such soulful teen outcast stories. But director D.J. Caruso refrains from playing around with the formula for most of the picture, either too lazy or too afraid to put a unique spin on the contrivance at play. After all, Catherine Hardwicke inserted a knowing snark and self-mocking humor into the first Twilight picture, and was fired from the franchise for her troubles. Up until the last act, I Am Number Four is all-too content to merely 'go with the flow'.

A token amount of plot: Nine refugees from the annihilated alien world Lorien have found their way to Earth. Hot on their tail is the murderous species that wiped them out The first three have already been killed, leaving 'John Smith' (Alex Pettyfer) as the next target. On the run with only his protector (Timothy Olyphant) to trust, 'Smith' hides out in a small Ohio town and quickly makes friends with the local outcast (Callan McAuliffe), enemies with the school bully (Jake Abel), and a romantic connection with the local quirky photographer (Dianna Agron). As John finds himself becoming more emotionally invested in his newest refuge, he must decide between fleeing his new love or facing down the enemy that is relentlessly pursuing him.

As you can tell from the plot summary, the storyline is arguably as generic as humanly possible. Agron does what she can with an underwritten role (she has one of the warmer smiles of any actress in her age-range), and the script does give her moments of world-weary intelligence, but in the end her character is merely 'the girl', and the film leaves her absolutely stranded during the action finale. Yes, it's great that she doesn't become a hostage in the climax, but she literally could have been removed from the entire end of the movie without being missed. Our would-be alien savior isn't exactly a well-written character either, as Alex Pettyfer has little to do other than brood and whine about his refugee status to a relatively uncaring Olyphant. And since most of his powers are of the 'make CGI appear out of my hands' variety, he doesn't even get to do much ass-kicking when the time comes.

For much of the first two-thirds of the picture, the only moments of amusement come from the maliciousness of lead-baddie Kevin Durand and a genuinely amusing sequence where Pettyfer is invited for an impromptu family dinner with Agron's parents. Mom (Judith Hoag from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) and dad (Cooper Thorton) are refreshingly written as a genuinely entertaining and loving family unit, and the film briefly lifts itself out of its by-the-numbers stupor when they are doing their best to harmlessly embarrass their daughter. Like the somewhat similar Twilight franchise, the film is at its best when it focuses away from the earnest-but-dull love story that is supposed to captivate our interest.

The film does finally come to life during the third with the introduction of Teresa Palmer as the bad-ass 'number six', who rides to the rescue and precedes to shame the rest of the morose brooders. At this point, right at the end, the film becomes the kind of whacked-out extravaganza it should have been from the beginning. We get bad guys laying waste to the local high school, some gruesome (implied) violence, giant monsters doing battle with our heroes and each other, and Palmer snarkily flying around while basically mocking and/or apologizing for the pretentious self-seriousness that proceeded her entrance. Unfortunately, her overpowering presence just highlights how weak the rest of the main gang is, and casts an even sorrier light on the core romance (IE - Why should Superman settle for Lois Lane when you can have Wonder Woman?).

Of course, the final thirty minutes or so do not redeem a relatively bland and uninspiring picture, but it does end the film in a place where a sequel might actually be worth watching. Had the rest of I Am Number Four had the self-acknowledging cheekiness of its last couple reels, we would have had something worth recommending. Unfortunately, the proceeding 70 minutes are just not good or entertaining enough to give it a pass based on the triumphant ending. The underwritten leads are stranded for most of the film while the more colorful supporting characters (Palmer, Durand, etc) dominate the proceedings. Ironically for a film that is technically about and aimed at teenagers, it's the grownups who eventually need to school these youngins' in proper genre fare.

Grade: C-

As Arnold Schwarzenegger plans his comeback, here is a brief look back at his very best films.

Now that Arnold Schwarzenegger has officially announced that he is returning to acting, it is perhaps as good a time as any to look back at some of his better works of would-be art. Since even his most recent picture (the underrated Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines) is nearly eight-years old, the entire filmography of Mr. Schwarzenegger can almost be considered something of a relic worthy of study. What is worth noting is how succinctly his career can be divided up into three chapters. You've got the B-movie phase which goes from 1982 (Conan the Barbarian) to 1988 (Twins). You've got the Arnold Schwarzenegger: world's biggest movie star phase, which was from 1990 (Total Recall) to 1997 (Batman & Robin). Then, following a nearly three-year break due to heart surgery, you have the last act of Schwarzenegger's career. This lasts from 1999 (End of Days) to 2003 (Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines) where he attempted to remain relevant in an era where respected young actors (Nicolas Cage, Matt Damon, etc) were becoming action stars. There are hits and misses in each era, as the B-movie phase gave us The Terminator while the 'world's mightiest hero' middle-act gave us Jingle All the Way. Let us take a moment to remember the very best that 'Ah-nuld' had to offer, even if he doesn't have the sense to quit while he is somewhat ahead.

5) Collateral Damage
This film is best known for being delayed following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But it has aged relatively well and gives us one of Schwarzenegger's better performances. Andrew Davis is best known for The Fugitive, but he is also known as the only man to get decent work out of Steven Seagal (Above the Law and Under Siege) and elicit a single compelling performance from Chuck Norris (Code of Silence). And the Davis-touch can be seen in the moments of silent grieving as Schwarzenegger sits in a hospital bed after his wife and daughter have been killed in a terrorist bombing. Schwarzenegger has never been good at overly emotional acting, and comparing these moments with the laughable grief scenes from Batman & Robin and End of Days is almost revelatory. But aside from being a case study in what good directors can do for Arnie, the film works as a compelling and thoughtful action thriller that features fine character work from Cliff Curtis and Elias Koteas. What's most worth pointing out is that the film's token acknowledgement of the complexity of geopolitics ("You see a peasant with a gun, you change the channel. But you never ask why a peasant needs a gun.") would have been taken as just a bit of shading at any other time, but came off as uber-liberal in the immediate post-9/11 era. Collateral Damage is arguably the last time that an action film could delve into politics without being political.

4) True Lies
Speaking of movies that got screwed by 9/11... We may never see a Blu-Ray/DVD special edition of this picture, let alone the long-promised sequel. The film was controversial in its time, both for its depiction of Islamic terrorists and the creepy relationship between Schwarzenegger's Harry Tasker (as a spy who's family thinks he's a boring banker) and Helen Tasker (Jamie Lee Curtis, as a bored and neglected housewife who considers infidelity). I never found the film to be racist in any real way. The film features a Grant Heslov as one of the good guys without feeling the need to comment on his middle-eastern ethnicity (probably to avoid the fact that the actor/director is actually Jewish). And as far as Art Malik and his evil minions, they are both allowed to un-ironically express their ideological reasons for their would-be terrorism and presented as almost comically incompetent (not a single 'good guy' is killed in the entire film). It won't win any awards from UMMAH, but films like Executive Decision are arguably far more useful as anti-Muslin propaganda than this cheerfully silly action-thriller.

Ironically, the film's sexual politics hold up rather well. Sure, Harry's (hidden) interrogation of his own wife, and the bit where he makes her do a strip-tease for his viewing pleasure is a little disconcerting, but the film actually has the respect for its characters to actually be about their relationship at least as much as it's about the explosions and gunfights. The film never shies from pointing out that Harry is a lousy husband and that Helen wants and deserves more adventure in her life. Oh, and the film remains one of the best pure shoot-em-ups in modern history, with countless classic set-pieces (the horse chase, the bridge attack, the jet rescue finale) which climaxes with one of the coolest deaths for a main bad guy in cinema history. The film is often called politically incorrect, but it instead shows James Cameron's refusal to merely make an empty-headed piece of entertainment.  It's a relic of a bygone age where major stars weren't afraid to play unlikable and/or deeply flawed characters in popcorn entertainment. Oh, and it probably contains Arnold's most fully-rounded performance.

3) The Terminator/Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Ironically, playing a robot suited Schwarzenegger awfully well, because his expressive face allowed an understated and obviously monotone performance to shine where verbal histrionics would have failed. I know I'm cheating, but both of James Cameron's Terminator pictures are about equally good. And while I will defend Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines unto death (the finale is unsparingly powerful), Jonathan Mostow's third picture is merely a good sequel to two great installments. The first film has the advantage of being first, and the benefit of withholding information lends the opening act a genuine sense of dread and terror as Schwarzenegger's ice-cold cyborg slaughters one innocent person after another. While the sequel did much of it bigger, the original film is genuinely scary, operating as much as a horror film as an action thriller. The Terminator remains a lean, brutally violent and deeply cynical science fiction chase that still holds up as one of the better action pictures of the 1980s.

Some may argue that the sequel is basically an uber-expensive and expanded remake of the first picture, and there may be some truth to that. But the second film still plays as a strikingly BIG and openly emotional adventure story; one that deals with some unpleasant questions (Would you murder one innocent person to save all of humanity?) and a genuinely dim view of humanity overall. And of course, we have Robert Patrick as the T-1000 (still one of the coolest villains in modern cinema) and Linda Hamilton as Sarah Conner (arguably the true lead of the picture), who give the performances of their careers. Patrick, in particular, never got the credit he deserved for delivering a knowingly-sly performance while having to hit every mark perfectly for the CGI and practical effects that revolved around his character. The film was the first to cost $100 million, and it still holds up at least partially because so little of it was actually CGI. The practical stunt work and effects showed off a whole new scale of action filmmaking, and it remains an excellent plea for world peace wrapped in a pulse-pounding chase thriller.

2) Total Recall
Before Dark City, before The Matrix, before Inception, there was Total Recall. Arnold Schwarzenegger delivers a rare turn as an alleged 'everyman' thrust into an action-adventure scenario. Just as Schwarzenegger has flourished as an actor under James Cameron and Ivan Reitman, Paul Verhoeven served him well this time around. This was also an astonishingly-huge action thriller (only Rambo III cost more at the time), and it's arguably one of the most pervasively bloody and violent R-rated films ever released to mass audiences. It also continues Verhoeven's relentless satire of the growing fascism that he saw in America (good thing he was way off there...), expanding from corporations controlling Detroit, Michigan to corporations controlling an entire planet. But more than that, it's a stunningly wonky little head-trip, arguably kick-starting the whole 'your world is not the real world' sub-genre that soon came to dominate science fiction thrillers. The mid-film 'here's what's really going on' speech remains a wonderfully twisty bit of unreliable, yet painfully plausible exposition that also paved the way for countless science-fiction fans to question the reality of their respective favorite TV shows (Buffy the Vampire Slayer's "Normal Again", Lost's "Dave", etc). That the success ofInception spurred a remake of Total Recall is not without irony. The intelligence of Total Recallwas arguably taken for granted back when popcorn thrillers were allowed to be thoughtful and twisty, while Inception was hailed as a ground-breaker in an era when smart blockbuster films are considered works of art instead of merely superior craftsmanship.

1) Kindergarten Cop
If you think I'm kidding, watch it again. This film is almost a miracle, as it's a combination of several ingredients that shouldn't work together but somehow form a remarkable cocktail. Because (or despite) the fact that the film takes each element seriously (the violence, the classroom comedy, the romantic drama, the tragic back stories, and the morbid humor), the film gels into a nearly flawless bit of popcorn entertainment. Schwarzenegger gives what is easily his warmest and most heartfelt performance, never forcing the emotion or exaggerating his fish-out-of-water-ness for comic effect (his scene where he explains to his kids where his family went is touching in its understatement). As a result, his somewhat quick transformation from standard movie-cop to emotionally-open educator of children is completely convincing. Richard Tyson plays villain not as a criminal mastermind, but as an often stupid and thus extraordinary dangerous murderer (the finale is genuinely gripping due to its low-key plausibility). Yet the film still gives Tyson the funniest line of the picture, in a moment that more-or-less breaks the fourth wall.

But the key to the film is the women that surround these two arch-foes. The best film from the most macho action star of this generation is his most openly sincere and almost feminist picture. Sure, Penelope Anne Miller gets stuck playing the relatively humorless romantic-lead, but the other women in this picture are uncommonly colorful and vibrant for an action comedy. Linda Hunt gets another rare turn at comedy and runs with it. Carroll Baker oozes condescending menace as Tyson's domineering and patronizing mother. Best of all is Pamela Reed, who takes what could have been the stock role of the 'touch female partner' and is allowed to create a full-blooded comic creation. She gets most of the broad comedy, a full back-story, and the final rim-shot. The women that surround Schwarzenegger's John Kimble, as well as the kindergarten classmates themselves, do most of the heavy lifting, leaving Arnold to deliver a rock-solid straight man. All that, plus arguably the best Arnold one-liner of all-time, during an exchange with a young child who questions Arnold's self-diagnosis of a headache. You know the line, or you wouldn't be reading this in the first place.

The best of the rest:

Eraser still holds up as a $100 million variation on his mid-80s actioners, but it is a vastly superior movie to Commando, Raw Deal, or Red Heat (the last of which is a painful rip-off of Walter Hill's own 48 Hours). Eraser (click accordingly for a somewhat embarrassing review from when I was just sixteen-years old) is simply a rock-solid action picture that just-plain works. Ironically, its use of duplicitous corporate arms dealers as the bad guys would today get the picture tagged as liberal propaganda. Speaking of liberal propaganda, The Running Man may be weak sauce as an action picture, but the 1987 Stephen King adaptation was well-ahead of its time as a piece of social satire. The use of exploitationist reality-television competitions as a distraction for the masses from the presence of fascism is downright chilling today. Finally, I must again defend the dynamite action set-pieces, terrific special effects, and thoughtful character development in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. The robots are indeed a little campy, but the human leads (Nick Stahl and Claire Danes) shine, and the film remains a dark and uncompromising piece of adult entertainment. For those asking, Predator loses me a little in the third act, and Twins loses points with the insertion of a needless action/crime subplot.

And that's a wrap for this particular rundown. Which of your favorites did I miss? Which of my picks did you disagree with? Feel free to share below:

Scott Mendelson

Thor gets a final, more Earthbound theatrical trailer

This second Thor trailer (the third if you count the Comic-Con footage) seems like a whole different movie from the previous sells. Call this the 'general sell', but it basically tells the film from the point-of-view of the Earthlings as they discover this muscle-bound Australian who seems to have fantastical powers. The good news is that there is more screen-time for Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings (who seems to be the only one having fun) and less screen time for the flat Chris Hemsworth and the terribly-bored Anthony Hopkins. It still makes the picture look awfully small-scale, but it's more narratively-coherent than the prior trailers.

But this actually makes the film feel more like well, I Am Number Four (which this trailer will likely debut in front of tomorrow). In this sell, we get a strange, super-powered hunky dude who magically comes to Earth, courts a hot earth-girl, and finally defends new friends from those on his home-world who wish us harm. Sound familiar? The film has always given off a Masters of the Universe vibe, with most of the film taking place on cheap Earth sets with a bare minimum of Eternia (or in this case, Asgard) action. More importantly, the action beats actually set in Asgard don't feel the list bit real, both in their overtly green-screen-ish look (See Thor attack CGI monsters against an obviously CGI backdrop!) and their stilted choreography. And I'm a little tired of trailers that end with 'Hey, look at the giant monster we've got in reserve for the finale!' (ie - the 'Release the Kracken!' moment).

This trailer is indeed an improvement over the confusing and horribly paced initial sneak-peaks. As it is, the trailers have been so jumbled that their really is a certain amount of mystery regarding what kind of film it's going to be. As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Burying the lead: Justin Bieber is against abortion, but he may not be 'anti-choice'.

This is the first, and hopefully last article I'll be writing about Mr. Bieber that doesn't involve his present and future film projects. I have nothing against the kid, but I have no more business discussing Bieber's worth as a musician than I do discussing LeBron James's first year on the Miami Heat. But there is much huffing and/or puffing about released excerpts of his Rolling Stone interview, including one bit that deserves a bit of analysis. First off, kudos for him for his defense of Canada's single-payer government-run health-care system. It's what we damn-well should have gotten last year, as it's the right moral thing to do (health should be classified under 'commons') and it would have solved the unemployment crisis in a heartbeat (quick, how many older people do you know who are still working purely for the health insurance?). But his thoughts on abortion are a little trickier, and the condemnation that followed is yet another example of how hard it is to express a nuanced opinion in the era of the one-sentence soundbite.

On the topic of abortion, he stated "I really don't believe in abortion," Bieber says. "It's like killing a baby?" The reporter brought up the question of rape, to which Bieber stated "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that." Most of the commentary has focused on his general disapproval with abortion, and his apparent belief that rape victims shouldn't be an exception to an anti-abortion stance. But notice that last sentence: "I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that."

That, ladies and gentlemen, is called empathy. It's what separates 'us' from 'them'. Mr. Bieber may in fact be opposed to abortion, and he very well may believe that life begins at conception. But unlike the folks who are trying to redefine rape or those who want to give citizens the right to murder abortion doctors, Bieber is not trying to impose his personal opinions about a (currently legal) medical procedure on anyone else. If we are to take that last sentence at face value, then Bieber, however much I may disagree with his core values on abortion and/or predestination ('everything happens for a reason'), shows a willingness to concede that not all things are black and white and one cannot condemn what you do not understand. It's a sign of maturity that isn't so much wise-beyond his years as it is a sign of maturity far behind the likes of those currently feverishly at work to revoke a woman's right to choose.

Justin Bieber being against abortion and casual sex doesn't make him an iron-clad conservative anymore than being for single-payer healthcare and homosexual rights make him a flaming liberal. It doesn't make Justin Bieber a hero or a genius, but it makes him a thinking and feeling human being who is willing to acknowledge that his opinions are not set in stone and perhaps not meant to be inflicted on others as a matter of public policy.

Scott Mendelson

Curveball admits lies that led to Iraq war. Yet those who doubted back in 2002 are still marginalized as less credible than those who believed.

In this article in The Guardian, Iraqi defector Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, nicknamed 'Curveball' admits that he made it all up. By 'all', he is referring to the various stories of Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction program that was the primary reason that the Bush/Cheney administration used as justification for invading and occupying Iraq in 2002 and 2003. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and nearly 5,000 American soldiers are now dead. The war will end up costing American taxpayers $3 trillion when all is said and done. Whenever the GOP blabs on about the insanely high national debt, we never hear about the two wars fought on a credit card. But the Iraqi occupation is a big reason why the country is going broke, deprived of blood and treasure on a damned crusade that was founded on the falsehoods of a now-admitted liar. Which is what many of us, those you ridiculed and mocked, have known for the last nine years.

None of this should be shocking to most of you. Even the most hardened hawk has admitted years ago that the Iraq occupation was either a terrible idea or was conducted poorly, and that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction with which to threaten us or its neighbors. But here's the rub. There were quite a few of us who knew all of this way back in 2002. We smelled a con right from the get-go. We smelled a ruse to win GOP seats in the 2002 midterm election by whipping of war-fever as a distraction from the Enron-battered economy. But we unbelievers were mocked, ridiculed, called unpatriotic and treasonous. Meanwhile, over the last decade, those who believed the lies and then came around are held up in higher esteem than those who never believed in the first place. Why is that? Why does the media and the political circles hold in such high esteem those who voted for war or supported invasion and then changed their minds, and why does it still ridicule or ignore those who knew the truth from the very start?

In a sane world, wouldn't those who were not conned be considered wiser than those who fell for the it only to change their minds only when the wool could no longer cover their eyes? Why are those who failed and then admitted failure given more credibility on the national stage than those who saw the truth and fought like hell to expose the lies in the first place? Why indeed...

Scott Mendelson

Blu Ray review: All-Star Superman (2011)

All-Star Superman
2011
75 minutes
rated PG (violence, action, sensuality, language, and brief innuendo)
Available from WHV on February 22nd on DVD, Blu Ray, iTunes, and OnDemand

by Scott Mendelson

If you ask most casual comic book fans to name their favorite Superman story, they are likely to choose one of the countless origin stories (A Superman For All Seasons, Superman: Birthright, Superman: Red Son, etc) or the handful of stories that deal with 'the end of Superman' (The Death of Superman, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?, etc). Frank Miller would tell you that it's because Superman is such a godlike character, that the only story worth telling is his origin, since most other tales inevitably deal with how a god deals with the puny problems of mankind. But, without knocking many of the fine stories that take place in the middle of Superman's career (Superman: Peace On Earth, Lost Souls, etc), the character is such a primal piece of American myth-making that it makes sense that the most powerful narratives would be the two distinctive Campellian archetypes: the hero's journey and the old man coming to terms with death. All-Star Superman is a solid example of the latter, even if it loses much of the impact of the original source material.

A token amount of plot: Superman (James Denton) is dying. After rescuing an imperiled space shuttle that was sabotaged by Lex Luther (Anthony LaPaglia), the Man of Steel has received a lethal dose of radiation from the very yellow sun that gives him his powers, and his days are indeed numbered. With time running out, the last son of Krypton tries to make the most of the time he has left, which includes getting serious with Lois Lane (Christina Hendricks), making some genuine decisions about the contents of his Fortress of Solitude, and making some kind of peace with Luthor. But unexpected complications ensue and the final days of Superman's life may hold the key to his greatest triumph.

First of all, if you've ever read a Grant Morrison comic book, you know that this is not necessarily a film for complete newbies. The film is a condensed adaptation of his acclaimed twelve-issue stand-alone story arc that was published from 2005-2008. Grant Morrison does not generally do street-level, real-world comic book storytelling. Morrison pushes the fantastical elements of these characters as far as he can get away with and often goes out of his way to include characters and concepts that go way back in the Superman mythos. Even with a token amount of streamlining (there is quite a bit left out of this 76-minute feature), there is a fair amount of offbeat and heavily science-fiction-y elements still intact. Point being, if you're just a casual Superman fan, you might be a little confused by much of the film. Still, the picture works best when it focuses on the core relationships that Superman shares with Lois Lane and Lex Luthor.

In fact, the film's core flaw is just how much is missing from the original story arc. Dwayne McDuffie and director Sam Liu have cut much of the smaller-scale humanity from the story, omitting character beats and somber meditation while keeping most of the wham-bam spectacle. The original comic series was basically a series of 'things that Superman wanted to do before he died', and many of the issues were nearly stand-alone. Most of the 'challenges' have been cut in order to focus on the portions of the story that more easily gel into a complete narrative. The film plays less like a Cliff Notes version of the story than a heavily abridged variation that often feels cut to the bone.

Still, there is much to appreciate in what made the cut. Despite the PG rating, the film is full of intense action scenes and occasionally jolting violence (it's no less violent than the PG-13 DCAU films, just lacking in blood and gore). A mid-film rampage by the Parasite is gripping, even as it seemingly shows Clark Kent committing murder (when you freeze someone and leave then frozen in the path of rampaging monster, that's on you). And the final battle, which I won't reveal, is rooted in character and relationships more than pure superhero smack-downs.

The vocal cast is solid all-around, with James Denton and Christina Hendricks making a compelling romantic duo. Anthony LaPaglia makes a fine Lex Luthor, but I could not shake the sounds of Clancy Brown, especially has Luthor's arc has more than a little in common with the dynamite Mark Miller story "How Much Can One Man Hate?" (Superman Adventures 27). The animation is peerless in the direct-to-DVD realm, as usual, with the color scheme and character models accurately reflecting the original comic book.

Overall, All-Star Superman is a suitably epic look at the would-be final days of 'Earth's Greatest Protector'. If I miss certain portions of the story that didn't make the film (such as the Smallville flashback sequences and the creation of Earth Q), I must concede that the film more-or-less works as an often weird and occasionally goofy standalone action picture. The finale reaches an emotional crescendo that makes up for some of the more outlandish moments in the middle portion of the film, and it's certainly a more artful effort than Superman/Batman: Apocalypse and Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths. Just remember that this is a Grant Morrison story, so it is not what anyone would call 'casual viewing'. But if you're willing to treat this film as more than just a random rental, it's worth the effort.

Grade: B-

The Blu Ray:
The picture and sound are pretty terrific, as is the norm for the DC Animated Universe DVD features. Alas, the bonus materials are a bit slim this time out. On the plus side, for the first time since Wonder Woman back in March of 2009, there is a commentary track. The participants are Grant Morrison and producer and unofficial 'king of the DCAU' Bruce Timm, and it's a pleasant and entertaining chat. The other main feature is a 33-minute documentary entitled 'Superman Now'. It is basically Grant Morrison explaining where the original story ideas came from and how he created the original twelve-issue comic book series. There is an additional nine-minute featurette, 'The Creative Flow: Incubating the Idea with Writer Grant Morrison', that highlights the visual components of Morrison's work. Along with the usual sneak-peak of the next animated feature (Green Lantern: Emerald Knights, a compilation of short films that will arrive just in time for the Green Lantern live-action feature film), we get two Superman: The Animated Series episodes that (at best) tangentially tie into the narrative of All-Star Superman. Blast From the Past is the two-part episode that started the second season of the show and introduced Jax-Ur and Mala into the series. Let's just say they do not represent the show's finest hour. Oh, and you also get a digital comic copy of the first issue of All-Star Superman, as well as a digital copy of the feature.

So, in closing, the movie is pretty solid and generally compelling, even if it trades pathos for action. But the technical specs are terrific and the film looks and sounds great on Blu Ray. The extras are a bit slim (there is no DC Showcase Presents short film this time around), but there is enough to chew on. This is a rental for the casual fan, but it is worth a purchase for the DC completest.