Friday box office (04/29/11): $33.2 million for Fast Five, $79-83 million weekend debut likely. Prom and Hoodwinked Too under-perform.

With an opening day that is bigger than all-but two live-action opening weekends this year (Battle: Los Angeles's $36 million opening and The Green Hornet's $33.5 million debut weekend), Fast Five kicked off the summer movie season in high style. The film pulled in just 11% of its opening day tally in midnight screenings. If the picture performs with the same 2.4x weekend multiplier as Fast and Furious ($30m/$72m), it's got an $80 million opening weekend on tap, bigger than the two largest opening weekends of 2011 (Rio and Rango) combined, nearly $10 million higher than the last picture, the record for an April debut, and the biggest three-day opening in Universal's history (the prior record holder is The Lost World: Jurassic Park with $72.3 million). Obviously we'll know how it plays tomorrow, but I'm personally expecting a less frontloaded picture than the previous entry, if only because it's a much better film (although that may not be a factor until next weekend). There's nothing breathtaking about a well-marketed sequel in a popular franchise performing in line with expectations, but it's still nice when a good genre film opens well. Prom made just $1.8 million while Hoodwinked Too grossed just $1.1 million. I don't know how much Dylan Dog: Dead of Night made on just $270,000 on 875 screens.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Dylan Dog: Dead of Night (2011)

Dylan Dog: Dead of Night
2011
107 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Unlike some critics, I take no joy on trashing the work of other people. A bad film is not an invitation to try to come up with the cleverest or snarkiest way to verbally condemn it. As my readers hopefully notice, I do try to find something nice to say even about the worst films, and I usually can succeed. And it is one thing to openly tear apart the failures of a $150 million Hollywood product and/or the belabored attempts of a once-fine filmmaker gone to pot. But it is another to openly tear into a small picture that may or may not be a labor of love. So with sincere apologies to all involved, it should be noted that Dylan Dog: Dead of Night is one of the worst films I have ever seen in a theater.

A token amount of plot: Dylan Dog (Brandon Routh) was once a detective to the hidden supernatural element of New Orleans. But after his fiancee was murdered by vampires, he quit the business and now spends his days as a low-level private eye. Happenstance of course brings him back into the game, as he's brought onto a case of an antique collector apparently murdered by a werewolf. But not all is at it seems, and what starts out as a simple case of murder may soon plunge Dog into a conspiracy involving an ancient prophecy to bring about mass destruction.

There is no need to criticize the generic film noir plot, as the film (based on a comic book which I can only hope is better) is obviously trying to make a traditional detective picture with the added supernatural elements. But the execution fails in nearly every conceivable way. The most obvious problem is the direction by Kevin Munroe. This is his live-action debut, having previously helmed the mediocre but visually-dynamic TMNT four years ago. Right from the get-go, the film is a hideous and ugly visual disaster. The entire film is underlit and shot in extreme closeup. I'm not sure if its to hide the small budget or because Munroe and company think the film should be viewed on a cell phone, but the entire picture is a series of visually drab narratively-damaging closeups. It's often difficult to make out what is going on because the key action appears to be occurring just out of frame.

While the film does occasionally provide worthwhile visual effects, its obvious that the $20 million budget was stretched beyond the breaking point. Since the film is a twenty minutes too long anyway, they should have just cut some of the repetitious and useless chase scenes. When a major promised supernatural event does occur (trying to be vague here), it's almost laughable how not impressive it actually is (let's just say that it's not very imposing for something that is supposed to be a force for mass genocide). Even if the rest of the film had passed muster, it is challenging to enjoy or appreciate the elements of a film that is this openly unpleasant to look at.

But the rest of the elements do falter. Brandon Routh does what he can, but is hamstrung by some of the worst voice over this side of Wanted. Yes, voice over narration is a staple of the genre, but it is constant, revealing emotional beats that are painfully obvious and even revealing crucial plot information before it is presented to us. Routh also delivers said tough-guy narration in what can best be described as 'gee-wiz Clark Kent' (I don't like using actors' prior characters against them, but it does apply here). Routh is stranded by a supporting cast that seems determined to give the worst performance of their careers.

Taye Digs has a few moments of charm as the current vampire leader, and he at least looks like a professional who doesn't look like he's awkwardly reading cue-cards. Peter Stormare doesn't fare as well, as he gives a painfully stilted performance. Sam Hunington is painfully obnoxious as Dylan's assistant and Anita Briem provides neither heat nor personality as Dylan's client and/or love interest. The writing doesn't fare much better, with painfully on-the-nose dialogue and a narrative that drags on without any real drive or tension. Writers Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer are likely to blame for this, although they did write the script to Sahara, which I happen to adore.

With bad acting, poor writing, mediocre special effects, a lack of tension or any kind of forward momentum, Dylan Dog: Dead of Night would be a failure even without its astonishingly unpleasant direction and/or shot structure. Rare is a film that is physically painful to watch, but the claustrophobic visual structure genuinely makes you feel like you're trapped in a very small space. Routh deserves better and fans of the comic do as well. But this is a nearly worthless film, and that brings me no joy to say. In all my years of moviegoing, I have never walked out of a film of my own volition. But I very nearly walked out of Dylan Dog: Dead of Night and I very much wanted to for much of the running time. So consider this negative review a public service announcement. I sat through it so you don't have to. You're welcome.

Grade: D-

See it first or don't see it at all part II: Robert Redford's The Conspirator gone from 16-screen theater in just 14 days.

I made a comment in the box office review two weekends ago regarding the decent per-screen average for Robert Redford's The Conspirator. Basically, my wife wants to see the picture, but we had decided to wait until our preschool's monthly 'babysitting night'. Babysitting night is indeed this evening, just two weekends since The Conspirator opened on about 700 screens to moderate success. Not good enough it seems, as the picture is already gone from the AMC Promenade 16. Now we're not quite out of luck. We are lucky enough to live within driving distance of a Laemmle theater (an arthouse theater), which is still playing the picture this evening. Still, this moderately successful character-driven historical drama, with a relatively high-toned cast and a major director at the helm, is gone from art least a healthy chunk of its theaters in just two weekends. This is the price for the infusion of 3D and IMAX product on a regular basis. With every major tentpole this summer taking advantage of either IMAX and/or 3D ticket prices, many megaplexes will have no choice but to offer such films on that many more screens to offer the various options. When Thor, Kung Fu Panda 2, and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides opens over the next month, they will be on at least three screens in the biggest theaters: 2D, 3D, and IMAX 3D. It will be the smaller 2D films that lose their precious screens that much faster as the summer progresses.

Scott Mendelson

Fast Five scores $3.7 million in midnight screenings, could open between $19 million and $82 million for the weekend.

Fast Five (review), unofficial summer 2011 kick-off film, has grossed $3.7 million in midnight screenings. It's the biggest midnight debut in Universal history, so they have that going for them. What that means for the opening weekend is somewhat up to debate, but this is the kind of franchise that plays more to the general 'wait until the weekend' moviegoer than the hardcore 'must see it NOW' genre fans, so this number is pretty promising. With the exception of uber-frontloaded genre films, midnight screenings generally account for 5-6% of opening weekend business. Under that best-case scenario model, Fast Five is on track for a $74 million opening weekend. If it plays like Avatar (4.5%), then it gets an opening weekend of $82 million. However, for insanely anticipated films and/or heavily geek-centric franchises (think Twilight or Tron), the midnight numbers can account for 11-19% of the weekend box office. Under that worst-case scenario, Fast Five would only gross $19-34 million. In this case, I think we're clearly looking at a popular franchise that fans didn't quite feel the need to rush out and see right at midnight, meaning that the former scenario should apply. Of course, the last picture, Fast and Furious pulled a 2.5% midnight screening haul, turning a $1.8 million midnight showing into a $72 million opening weekend. That COULD happen here ($148 million opening weekend if it does), but I think we can presume that this fifth film is a bit more anticipated and front-loaded. We'll know soon enough once the Friday numbers start trickling in, but it appears that, pardon the obvious conclusion, Fast Five is off to a fast and/or furious start. For those who want a detailed look at the math regarding midnight screenings, go here.

Scott Mendelson

Review: 13 Assassins (2011)

13 Assassins
2011
125 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Tashaki Miike's 13 Assassins is an oddly old fashioned and traditional bit of action storytelling. While Miike is best known (in the states at least) for his often outlandishly gruesome horror pictures, this newest epic instead aims for Akira Kurosawa. 13 Assassins does not reinvent the wheel when it comes to character or even plotting, but it tells its story with polish and style to spare. Oh, and it also climaxes with an astonishingly lengthy all-out action sequence that would make John Woo, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron stand up and applaud. One can argue that the last third of the film may not be worth sitting through the first eighty minutes or so of somewhat generic, but character-driven, set-up. But the film absolutely rewards viewer patience and takes its place as a terrific action picture that does its genre proud.

A token amount of plot: Towards the end of Japan's feudal era, thirteen unemployed samurai are recruited to take out the corrupt and sadistic lord Naritsugu (Gorô Inagaki) who would otherwise soon take the throne and plunge the land into chaos. One-by-one the not-so merry band of hit men join the cause, recruited by Shinzaemon Shimada (Kôji Yakusho) to carry out this morally gray assignment. As the group travels onward, it is revealed that the evil lord is being guarded by Hanbei (Masachika Ichimura), who is now the tyrant's chief samurai protector. Questions of loyalty versus morality are eventually answered in blood as (obviously) swords eventually cross and the fate of a nation is decided.

The first two acts are pretty much all set-up, with a refreshing emphasis on character over visceral imagery. The film obviously looks gorgeous, shot in glorious widescreen and with top-notch technical credits to match. Miike quickly establishes the moral justification for what is basically a political assassination and/or coup, as the first reel has just a few horrifying examples of Naritsagu's arbitrary disregard for human life and/or general decency. But Miike does not revel in graphic violence, showing us just enough right at the start to make sure we understand just what is at stake. Still, the moral implications for all parties are not ignored and remain a notable subtext right up to the end.

But for most viewers, the big question is how the film pays-off its various strands. Well, the finale is basically one 45-minute long action sequence, a mass battle between our thirteen warriors and about two hundred of Naritsugu's men. To put it simply, this is an all-time classic bit of action filmmaking, shot and edited with long, fluid takes and constant sense of geography. But even during the seemingly unending mayhem, Miike never loses sight of the emotional investment and practical consequences for what is unfurling before our eyes, which of course makes it that much more invigorating.

13 Assassins is an often glorious adventure film, refreshingly holding back the spectacle until the audience is given a chance to care, and then unleashing a breathtaking climax that is truly one for the ages. Heck, even if you find yourself not terribly involved for the first two-thirds of the picture, it's worth it for the pay off. It is a fine, accomplished picture that does its genre proud. That it happens to contain an all-time great action finale is both a defining reason to recommend it and almost beside the point in the grand scheme of its storytelling. Point being, it absolutely earns its all-out finish and it absolutely delivers.

Grade: A-

Transformers: Dark of the Moon gets a dynamite second trailer, full of long, fluid takes. Although it will make you miss Megan Fox.

Although it's not surprising, it's still impressive just how massive the third (and final?) Transformers picture seems to be. Granted, I'm betting most of the action footage in this trailer is from the last act of the film, but it still is a truly eye-popping piece of marketing. Bay swears up and down that this latest installment is (pick one or all) better, darker, less campy, better written, etc than Revenge of the Fallen, and at this point we have no reason to doubt him. This does appear to be the full-on alien invasion/monster movie epic that many of us thought we were getting with the first sequel, and there is nary a hint of camp or even much humor of any kind in this 150 second clip. One promising thing, which Bay has hinted at, is that shooting in 3D has forced Michael Bay to use longer and more fluid takes, and the results are readily apparent. The best part of the trailer is how long Bay seems to be holding his takes, so we really get a sense of geography and can actually appreciate his full-scale destruction.

A few demerits: most of the dialogue is pretty mediocre, including the Optimus Prime 'don't stop believin'!" speech that I'm guessing is the very last scene in the film (I'm presuming that the film ends with the earth saved and the Autobots leaving the planet for good). And must every action trailer now use some variation on the Inception theme? I did cringe every time the film flashed to Shia Labeouf's 'insert a chick' love interest, as the marketing seems to be almost advertising how little personality/charm/humanity Rosie Huntington-Whiteley possesses (the term 'doll's eyes' comes to mind). Megan Fox may too have been cast for her looks and she may not be the world's best actress, but she at least has a face that moves, a genuine personality, and the presence of a soul. Still, no one is seeing this for the humans or even the allegedly improved acting and/or writing. Bay is second-to-few when it comes to grand-scale action spectacle, and this looks like his best attempt at telling James Cameron (and Justin Lin by the weekend's end) to get the hell off of his lawn. This one debuts on July 1st and as always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Another business SHOCKER! IMAX makes less with Green Hornet and Sucker Punch than with Avatar and Alice in Wonderland!!!

Yet another 'no shit, Sherlock!' business story this morning, as IMAX has announced a $1 million quarterly loss for the first chunk of 2011. Yes indeed, The Green Hornet, Mars Needs Moms, and Sucker Punch were just not enough to equal the money-making muscle of Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, and How to Train Your Dragon. And once again, I'm sure this particular company will be just fine as the summer season starts. They have a deluge of major new product over the next three months debuting in IMAX on an almost weekly basis starting tomorrow. They've got Fast Five (April 29th), Thor (May 6th), Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (May 20th), Kung Fu Panda 2 (May 26th), Super 8 (June 10th), Cars 2 (June 24th), Transformers: Dark of the Moon (July 1st), and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II (July 15th). Green Lantern (June 17th) and Captain America (July 22nd) are forgoing IMAX at the moment, but that could change as the summer goes on. Point being, I'm pretty sure IMAX is going to be just fine.

Scott Mendelson

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II gets a terrific, but spoilery, trailer.

If you've read the book you know what to expect and will get that much more of a chill out of certain moments. If you haven't, you might want to think twice about watching this surprisingly spoiler-filled trailer. You might especially want to avert your eyes at the 1:02 mark (and 1:28 hints at a major crowdpleasing moment to boot). Either way, it's another knockout piece of marketing selling the grim finality that is most certainly in store. The sheer scale on display is impressive, especially for the series that generally didn't thrive on larger-than-life action scenes. As I've said a zillion times, this franchise was about character and relationships, something not forgotten in the grim voice over that plays in this 110-second piece. If part II matches the heartbreaking bleakness of part I with the big-scale action that the book demands, then we may be looking at a serious Oscar contender as this one-of-a-kind franchise wraps up its decade-long run. It truly is the end of an era in more ways than one, and the Harry Potter series is truly one of the ages. This one finishes up on July 15th.

Scott Mendelson

Thor, a comic book adventure, is kid-friendly? You speak madness! Just how 'dark and gritty' do we want our fantasy pictures, anyway?

There was talk last week of Paramount moving its all-media press screenings for Thor in several cities to a this Saturday at 10am. The reason was pretty simple: in research and arguably in practice (the film has been open in Australia for nearly two weeks), the big-budget comic book adventure film was playing pretty well to surprisingly young audiences. I don't know if this came to pass anywhere (I'm seeing the film on Tuesday the 3rd), but it brings to mind an interesting observation. There was a certain amount of surprise when it was revealed in one review or another just how kid-friendly the larger-than-life action picture turned out to be. I confess that I've been hard on the film based on the footage we had thus far seen, and it frankly never occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, this 31-year old father of one (with another on the way) might not be the intended audience for Kenneth Branagh's Thor.

It's no secret that the various comic book/action figure epics are marketed towards a dual audience. It's a constant double-play, aiming at audiences young and old, as well as general moviegoer versus hardcore fan. And since Bryan Singer revived the genre eleven years ago by taking the world of X-Men very very seriously, the modus operandi for big-budget fantasy films has been to go as dark, violent, and 'real' as you can justify. The irony of course is that the proceeding decade has been dominated by young-adult or outright grownup fanboys, still stung by the aftertaste of Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin, demanding that their big-budget comic book adaptations and action figure-based action films be pitched to their level. Thus we get a Fantastic Four series that gets slammed for, among other reasons, being too kid friendly and campy. We get promises of a darker, gritter GI Joe sequel after the first film was slammed for (again, among other things) being too much brightly-colored larger-than-life fun? We get promises from Michael Bay that Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon will be darker and more violent than the campier first two films. I wanted such darkness and monster-movie carnage from the second film and was initially intrigued by Bay's promises this time around. But is that really what we need?

Do we want a Transformers picture that is violent and bleak enough that parents have to question whether or not they can take their younger kids to a film based on a series of 1980s action figures? Do we want a GI Joe film that basically plays out like The Kingdom on steroids? Yes, I know, I grew up on the Burton/Schumacher Batman series, a franchise whose Burton-helmed installments took enormous lumps for their violence and sexual kinkiness. And I distinctly remember rolling my eyes back in 1991 at all the reviews that attacked Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves for being too bloody and violent. So, at the risk of becoming one of those annoying parents who changes how he sees the world after having kids, I suppose I simply believe that there needs to be a happy medium. And in this current 'everything must be dark and uber-serious' climate, where even Teen Wolf is being remade as a morose horror drama, we need to be reminded of something.

We were once kids ourselves. We discovered these properties as youngsters because the available media avenues were, if not geared toward kids, appropriate for them. Most of us discovered the X-Men thanks to that 1990s Fox cartoon or the Konami arcade game. We discovered the DC Comics universe through the Super Powers cartoon and action figures and then through the DC Animated Universe that began through Batman: the Animated Series. We discovered Superman from watching the kid-friendly films, from Lois and Clark: the New Adventures of Superman, and/or from Smallville. But those properties, while often PG-13 or TV-14, were family-friendly enough for our parents to allow us to discover those worlds. Those TV shows and films were gateway drugs. They were our introduction to the vast world of DC and Marvel comics and the pleasures that they contained. But had those films or TV shows been pitched to appeal to the hardened and cynical thirty-year old, with the adult content and violence that comes with that, do you think any of our parents would have let us watch them at a young age?

We don't like to admit it, but George Lucas knew exactly what he was doing twelve years ago. While the overgrown original fans carped about the kid-friendly tone and juvenile antics of The Phantom Menace, Lucas just sat back as that PG-rated adventure hooked an entirely new generation of youngsters on the Star Wars mythology. And nine years after that, he did it all over again, crafting an animated television show that hooked the generation after that into the Star Wars franchise. Star Wars turns 35-years old next year, and it's the one wholly original film franchise that has never died, never gone out of style, and never become uncool to the core fanbase of youngsters. If Lucas had given the hardcore fans what they wanted back in 1999, a dark and gritty Phantom Menace with Darth Maul slaughtering innocents left and right and/or a relentlessly bleak Attack of the Clones with a psychotic Anakin Skywalker raping Padme to conceive Luke and Lea, do you really think kids would still be playing Star Wars games on the playground this very day?

There can be a happy medium when the content calls for it. Chris Nolan's Batman Beginsolds (even The Dark Knight was very careful about its onscreen violence). The first X-Men film opened with a grim concentration camp prologue but maintained a single-digit body count throughout the narrative. Fantastic Four told a kid-friendly story of recognizable family dysfunction that just enough shots of Dr. Doom blowing holes in people's chests and faces to make the kids feel like they were getting away with something. And Kenneth Branagh's Thor seems to recognize that a story about Norse gods beating the hell out of each other with giant hammers might be something that kids would enjoy more than adults.

Point being, these properties will only get new fans if they are enjoyed and embraced by the younger audience. And they will only be enjoyed and embraced by the younger audience if their parents let them see these movies in the first place. And that may not happen if something like Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon, a film based on action figures, is not pitched to the young, but merely to the young at heart. Just because it's what I want to see in such a movie doesn't mean its what I deserve to see. After all, I'm a grownup. I probably shouldn't be all that interested in Transformers 3 at all, right?

Scott Mendelson

X-Men: First Class gets another solid trailer.

With Fast Five unofficially starting the summer in just under 48 hours, we should expect to see a deluge of major trailers over the next couple days. First out of the gate is a longer, more plot-centric trailer for 20th Century Fox's X-Men: First Class. And once again, Fox is shrewdly selling this as a low-key, character and story-driven alternative to the more razzle-dazzle entries this summer. This will still be a pretty tough sell. Much of the appeal of the original X-Men movies rested on selling the most popular characters, the ones that casual moviegoers may have remembered from the 90s Fox cartoon and/or the Konami arcade game. They also depended on the audience-pleasing super-heroics from Wolverine and the comparative all-star cast (Patrick Stewart, Halle Berry, etc). Without those core elements and stuck with a cast of less visually-dynamic superheros, Fox is selling story-story-story. I don't know what this picture cost, but if it was significantly cheaper than at least the last couple X-Men pictures then Fox should be fine. There is little chance that X-Men: First Class will win the comic book-movie box office war of summer 2011. But with its sharp cast, intriguing real-world narrative and an emphasis on tone over spectacle, it is clearly the front runner to win the critical battle.

Scott Mendelson

Updated: Green Lantern gets extended TV spots, sells cosmic scale to general audiences.

This TV spot ran over the weekend in various high-profile locales. It's 120 seconds long and, unless you're a nerd who looks up Wondercon footage, this is the first you've seen of the film since the disastrous trailer back in November 2010. As such, this extended spot is all about selling the scale of the picture and the intergalactic stakes. And on that note, it is a success. Reynolds is featured prominently, but mainly as an observer. In fact, the main problem with the spot is when the narrative returns to Earth for the last action montage, it feels less impressive than what came before. The only shots of Hal Jordan in action both come from the same scene of him beating up Peter Sarsgaard in a lab. Obviously this is marketing and Warner may be hiding at least some of the third act stuff (we already see what appears to be the death of a major villain) so we can hope that Jordan does more than stop a crashing helicopter and beat up a deranged scientist. I'm still impressed and cautiously optimistic thus far. As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

STUNNER! Animated film studio makes LESS money when it doesn't have new animated film in marketplace!!!

In a 'no shit, Sherlock' development, Dreamworks Animation is reporting a 60% drop in profits for the first quarter of 2011, when compared to the first quarter of 2010. What could have caused this astonishing statistic? Dreamworks Animation was most burdened this quarter by the lackluster box office performance of... oh wait. That's right... Dreamworks Animation had a surprisingly strong first quarter of 2010 when they were feasting on the unexpectedly strong box office performance of How to Train Your Dragon, which grossed $494 million worldwide. And in the same quarter of 2009, Monsters vs. Aliens had a robust worldwide take of $381 million. But for the same quarter of this current year, Dreamworks saw softer-than-expected grosses from the theatrical release of... NOTHING!!! They didn't have an animated film out this quarter!! They haven't had a theatrical release since Megamind back in November of 2010. Los Angeles Times calls that one a 'misfire', which I suppose is what you call a $130 million picture than grosses $321 million worldwide (it was much cheaper than the other recent Dreamworks animated films, which all cost about $170 million). Point being, let's not sell off your Dreamworks stock and/or demand that the company be sold yet again. I'm sure once the theatrical animation film studio will be just fine once they actually have a theatrical animated film (such as Kung Fu Panda 2 opening in exactly one month) to offer.

Scott Mendelson

Review: African Cats

African Cats
2011
85 minutes
rated G

by Scott Mendelson

There's not really much to say about the newest in the Disneynature series of documentary pictures. It looks absolutely gorgeous, with a nice mix of the intimate and the epic. Like March of the Penguins and the other nature documentaries that have followed in its wake, African Cats is basically non-fiction footage with a narrative attached via narration and judicious editing. Samuel L. Jackson narrates the proceedings, and its a suitably hammy and exciting delivery. The issue of course is that, like many nature documentaries aimed at mainstream audiences, there is an all-too obvious attempt at anthropomorphizing the pride of lions and the single-mother cheetah and her cubs at the center of the story. Behavior that may be cold animal instinct is constantly attributed to maternal affection and recognizable human emotional motivations. The story itself, a turf battle between two male lions and the cheetah family caught in the middle, may in fact be what happened as the cameras rolled over a two-year period. But, when even the makers of the seemingly silently-observant Winged Migration admits to staging, I cannot help wondering how much of the 'story' was wholeheartedly manufactured for the sake of heart-tugging.

It's a double-edged sword of course. On one hand, we decry the apparent fictionalization of this real-world document. But, if the purpose of this documentary and others like it is to acquaint younger viewers with the basic idea that animals have brains, hearts, and 'souls', then the first step of that process is more-or-less convincing these youngsters that animals are 'just like us'. But even if we acknowledge the necessary evil of humanizing these wild animals, did the process have to be so melodramatic? Going into the film, I was worried that my three-year old would be disturbed by the whole 'animals eating animals' as well as the periodic moments of emotional distress (there is a bit of that, but the film earns its G rating). Jackson's narration does its best to amp up the tension and suspense, arguably creating drama where none may have actually existed onscreen. As it turns out, the only thing my daughter was really frightened by was the overbearing music (score by Peter Cobbin), which was only slightly less overbearing than Jerry Goldsmith's score for The Omen III: The Final Conflict. My daughter is at that age where loud noises frighten her (automatic-flushing toilets are a constant problem), so the needlessly melodramatic and overpowering score was a little annoying, to be frank.

As for the actual onscreen content, she did ask the occasional awkward question ("Why is that zebra no longer alive?", as a zebra was being eaten by several cheetahs), but by the time a cheetah takes down an antelope in a triumphant end to her hunger (the herds have returned from migration), Allison literally clapped her hands and happily (and quietly) exclaimed: "Yay! Tasty horse!". So while Allison enjoyed the movie overall (she liked the cheetahs, but not the lions) and my wife pretty much welled up at all the appropriate emotional beats (she's one of those people who has turned to emotional jelly since having kids), I can only count myself as moderately satisfied. Point being, there is a cost to the rampant anthropomorphization that occurs in films such as this. Because the film is so reliant on an emotionally-tinged and seemingly constructed narrative, I had to remind myself that I was watching documentary footage throughout the running time. But the footage is dynamic and gorgeous, worth the price of admission if you're a fan of wild animals and/or untouched frontiers. But I can only imagine how this movie (and others like it) would play without the endlessly manipulative narration and musical score.

It's a tough call. It's obvious that March of the Penguins (a much bleaker and more depressing film, a 'trail of tears with penguins' if you will) and the likes of African Cats depend on a certain 'Gee, look how lions love their babies just as much as people do!' pandering in order to get general audiences invested in the picture. But perhaps that investment is a small price to pay for instilling a love of nature and/or animals in the younger audiences at a crucial age. African Cats delivers on what it promises and works as a solid gateway film for young audiences to learn about the world just outside their front door.

Grade: B

Weekend Box Office (04/24/11): Rio holds strong, Madea and Water for Elephants open well on Easter weekend.

It was another 'everybody wins' at the box office this Easter weekend, as every major new release opened at or above expectations, while most of the older movies had strong holds. 20th Century Fox's animated adventure Rio was number once again, as it fell just 32% for a $26.3 million weekend. The $90 million Blue Sky production has so far amassed $80 million domestically, while already grossing $286 million mark worldwide. It has already surpassed the $234 million worldwide haul of Rango to become 2011's top international grosser, if only for a week or two. The success of Rio exemplified the hidden good news in this first 1/3 of 2011. While others complained about the lack of massive opening weekends and the smaller cumulative weekend box office compared to last year, there was a flood of comparatively cheaper films that had slightly smaller opening weekends but displayed solid legs all season long. Money is money, and studios will take it over the first weekend or over the first ten days or so either way. Besides, considering that the theaters themselves get a larger cut (50/50 vs. around 30/70) after the first few weekends, you can bet that they'd greatly prefer smaller opening weekends but leggier exhibitions.

Coming in at a very close second place was Tyler Perry's Madea's Big Happy Family. Primed to take advantage of the more religious segment of the Easter crowd, Perry's latest spiritual dramedy opened with $25 million. This is the fifth Tyler Perry film to prominently feature Madea (she also had a climactic cameo in Meet the Browns), and it's right in the middle of Madea's respective opening weekends. It was higher than Diary of a Mad Black Woman ($21 million) and I Can Do Bad All By Myself ($23 million), but lower than Madea's Family Reunion ($30 million), and Madea Goes to Jail ($41 million). This makes sense, as the newest film had Madea's name in the title (YAY!), but no real indication of what the movie was about (Boo!). As with all Madea films, Madea is in a supporting role; the real star was Loretta Devine as a matriarch dying from cancer. Anyway, the film cost the usual $25 million and should be gone in a flash like most of Perry's entries, profitable as always to the one-man media empire. Whether or not this is indeed the finale of the Madea saga (Perry has a whole bunch of other projects line up) or whether we'll see her again after Perry finishes a dark and dramatic picture like The Family That Preys or For Colored Girls (as has been the pattern), this solid opening proves that Tyler Perry is one of the most consistently bankable filmmakers in the business.

In a refreshing surprise, 20th Century Fox's Water For Elephants opened in third place with $16.8 million. The $38 million romantic drama about a depression-era circus is just another example of the other great trend this season, the return of the moderately-budgeted star-driven adult movie. We can debate about who gets the most credit for the opening (Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, and/or the original novel itself), but this is just the kind of movie that pundits like to claim is no longer bankable. When you make pictures for grownups, grownups tend to go to the movies. Adult women were predictably the main demo for this one, and the film earned an 'A-' from Cinemscore. With summer kinda-sorta starting next weekend (don't tell me Fast Five isn't a summer blockbuster...), Water For Elephants is in prime territory to be the adult counter programming picture of choice for the next few weeks, so a leggy and profitable run should ensue. The last of the openers was Disney's African Cats (review), another in their annual series of nature documentaries. The film opened at $6 million, or equal to Oceans ($6 million) and a bit below Earth ($8.8 million). However, the film pulled off a terrible 1.8x weekend multiplier, doing $3.3 million of that on Friday alone. It actually has the lowest weekend multiplier on record. Oceans cost $80 million, and grossed $19 million in America while pulling in $63 million overseas. Expect African Cats (which my three-year old quite enjoyed, even if it made my wife cry) to follow suit. These projects are basically longterm investments, as Disney should expect African Cats to be shown in classrooms and on the Disney Channel for decades to come.

In holdover news, Hop rose 13% over the Easter weekend and crossed $100 million in the process. Scream 4 (radio review) dropped a massive 62% in its second weekend, compared to 57% for Scream 2 and 53% for Scream 3 in their respective second weekends. The mediocre horror sequel has pulled in just $7 million and ending day ten with $3 million. In other words, Scream 4 is ending weekend two with less than Scream 2 and Scream 3 earned in their respective opening weekends. In other words, unless overseas business is huge or the film rents a billion times, don't expect a Scream 5. Source Code (-18%) and Insidious (-22%) both sit at $44 million, which is doubly impressive for the $1.5 million horror picture, which will likely outgross Scream 4 (review) domestically. Soul Surfer had another strong hold (-25%) and now sits at $28 million, while Hanna (-27%) crossed the $30 million mark in weekend three. In purely foreign debuts, the first two summer heavyweights bowed early outside the US. Thor (opening May 6th stateside) debuted in Australia and pulled in a mighty $5.8 million in its first full week. Fast Five (opens next week here) pulled a terrific $24 million on its first international weekend, setting the shockingly good action picture up for a huge domestic debut.

That's it for this weekend. Join us for the unofficial start of summer, as Universal debuts Fast Five (review), Disney debuts Prom, while Weinstein Company unleashes the not-so-eagerly awaited sequel Hoodwinked Too. Until then, take care and keep reading.

Scott Mendelson

Scott Mendelson on SlashFilm's /FilmCast, discussing Scream 4.

As usual, it's harder to import audio files than video files, so you'll just have to click on the photo to go straight to the /Film site. But I did about an hour worth of chit-chat with the fine folks at Slashfilm, where we discussed Scream 4 both as a stand-alone film and as part of the series. My part comes in right at the 44-minute mark and continues right till the end. The first half of the discussion is spoiler free, while the second half dives into pure spoiler territory. As usual, I sound a bit nasaly and you can tell that I recorded this in my office. This will likely take the place of a spoiler-filled essay on Scream 4, since most of the points I wanted to cover are discussed in this hour of discussion. Enjoy...

Scott Mendelson

See the best scene in Donnie Yen's Legend of the Fist: the Return of Chen Zhen

This doozie of an opening occurs about five minutes or so into the prologue of this Friday's limited release, Legend of the Fist. It's a Donnie Yen action vehicle, arguably operating as a sequel to Bruce Lee's Fists of Fury. When Yen isn't fighting people, the picture is pretty dull, although Andrew Lau deserves credit for going full-on nationalistic in this tale of 1920s-China being subjugated by the Japanese between the two World Wars. The story is pretty basic (Donnie Yen returns from war and dons the alias of a wealthy playboy and becomes a vigilante by night), but the telling isn't particularly inspiring. When Yen isn't kicking righteous ass (which isn't as often as you'd think) or we aren't being treated to hilariously violent montages of public officials being murdered, the film slows to a crawl. To be fair, the closing fight scene (where Yen takes on an entire dojo of baddies by himself) is pretty spectacular, but this opening bit is the best reason to see the picture. And since Well Go USA and/or Variance Films saw fit to put this sequence up online just days before the limited theatrical release, and Film School Rejects was nice enough to embed it. So they have saved you the trip to the theater. Legend of the Fist is not a terrible film. Yen is potent in a way that the less physically imposing Jet Li or the more comedic Jackie Chan never was (even Chan knew his better, as he let Yen kick his ass in the terrific Shanghai Knights back in 2003) and the production values are stylish. But it fails the primary test of a solid martial arts film: am I entertained when the fists and feet are not flying? Alas, the answer in this case is no.

Grade: C+

Scott Mendelson: Quote Whore!

You say SLUMP, I say 'smaller movies with legs'. Why the first months of 2011 were good for box office, good for studios, and good for moviegoers.

If Fast Five and/or Thor fail to open to $50 million or more, then I'll start to worry. If Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides doesn't open anywhere near $100 million and doesn't clear $250 million, I'll start to be concerned. If Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows part II grosses under $260 million, I'll maybe start panicking. But until any of those things occur, let's stop whining about the week-to-week comparisons at the box office. We're not in a 'slump'. Yes, weekend-to-weekend figures have been consistently down behind last year's respective weekends for much of 2011. But when you look at the numbers on a movie-by-movie basis, you actually notice something wonderful. A flood of mid-budget, adult-skewed movies have opened at or above expectations, and many of them have had the kind of legs you just don't see anymore. That's the Hollywood we claim we want, so why are we complaining?

The key thing to remember here is that studios don't care about the total weekend box office figures. They care only about how well their films did in relation to expectations and cost. And quite frankly, this has been a very cheap first 1/3 of a year. Alice in Wonderland may have grossed $332 million domestic, but it also cost $200 million. There are only two films this year that have cost even $100 million, the $120 million-budgeted The Green Hornet (which was supposed to open late last year) and the $130 million-budgeted Rango. One could argue that Rango will struggle financially due to its cost and marketing expenses (it's cleared $234 million so far worldwide), but it's also the best film of the year, so there's that... The Green Hornet was such a surprise success ($228 million worldwide thus far) that we'll probably get a sequel if Sony can keep the budget at under $90 million.

But Battle: Los Angeles didn't cost $150 million, it cost just $75 million. And Sucker Punch didn't cost $175 million, it cost $85 million. Sure, both of those films may have underperformed somewhat. Sucker Punch ($78 million worldwide) was an arty experiment that no one understood, while Battle: Los Angeles ($192 million worldwide) promised Independence Day but delivered Black Hawk Down. But even the 'under performance of Battle: Los Angeles will mean tripling its budget, because Sony was able to deliver top-notch special effects for bargain basement prices. And even Sucker Punch will equal its budget worldwide, meaning that the film has a shot at 'the black' once the DVD and Blu Ray are released. Heck, even the relative under-performance of Red Riding Hood will still yield profits, since the gothic horror film cost just $40 million and has grossed $60 million worldwide thus far. Same thing with the would-be franchise starter I Am Number Four. Sure, there probably won't be a sequel, but since the film cost Disney and Dreamworks just $60 million, it's a rock-solid hit at $128 million worldwide. Your Highness will lose money, but Universal was smart enough to cap expenses at $50 million, so the bleeding will be minimal.

One can argue that there was no animated sensation like How to Train Your Dragon ($494 million worldwide), but How to Train Your Dragon, which cost $165 million, was pretty much the only major animated film in the marketplace during the first half of 2010. This year, just between February and April, we'll have SIX animated films: Gnomeo and Juliet (a stunning $175 million worldwide on a $30 million budget), Rango, Mars Needs Moms (the one unqualified mom of the season, with just $36 million worldwide on a $150 million budget), Hop ($111 million thus far on a $63 million budget), Rio ($170 million worldwide thus far on a $90 million budget), and Hoodwinked Too (opening in two weeks at a cost of just $25 million). That's a total cost of $488 million for six animated films (average cost: $81 million), with a total so-far gross of $726 million worldwide thus far (with Hop, Rio, and Hoodwinked having lots of cash to still pull in). Pointing being, the various animated films that have opened to near-$40 million have had to fend off copious competition and pretty much all of them are on track to be profitable despite that, because (in most cases) the studios were able to contain costs to a reasonable level.

And that's just the high-profile cartoons and youth-driven would-be blockbusters. The real story this year has been the surge in adult-driven genre pictures and their uncommonly reasonable budgets and uncommonly strong legs. After years where a major adult-targeted, star-driven thriller or genre picture was cause for celebration, this year has thus far been filled with just that. Imagine, films targeted at grownups with old-fashioned movie stars, relatively intelligent and literate screenplays, narratives that were wholly original or based on actual novels, and almost all of them budgeted at a price that allowed them to be profitable without reaching blockbuster status. Source Code (cost: $37 million/worldwide gross: $56 million thus far), The Lincoln Lawyer (cost: $40 million/worldwide gross: $55 million thus far), No Strings Attached ($25m/$144m), Limitless ($27m/$111m), Unknown ($30m/$114m), The Adjustment Bureau ($50m/$111m), Hall Pass ($35m/$63m), and Hanna ($30m/$23m in under three weeks with international still to come). Not all of these films were great, but all of them were moderately-budgeted, most of them received positive reviews, some of them were even R-rated, most of them had moderate opening weekends and solid legs, and all of them will make solid profits in relation to their reasonable costs.

Sure none of them reached the heights of Alice in Wonderland or Clash of the Titans, but they never were expected to. And wasn't it wonderful to have a season where old-fashioned potboilers took precedence over inflated special-effects epics and/or franchise entries? Isn't it kinda wonderful that the unneeded cash-grab that is Scream 4 will likely get out-grossed (domestically at least) by a $1.5 million haunted house drama starring adult actors (Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne), Insidious, that has dropped less than 30% two weekends in a row due to audience excitement and word of mouth (after three weekends, it's already at $36 million off of a $13 million opening)? I don't care the cumulative weekend takes of these films have often failed to match the respective weekends from last year. Even if we agree that fewer people are going to the movies this year, we must acknowledge that the current crop of movies are much cheaper than years previous, and that they are attracting a consistent crop of older moviegoers, just the sort that have allegedly fled the marketplace.

Summer will start next weekend, so the kids will get their big-budget fantasies soon enough and the pundits can all start whining again about how the movies are DOOMED, and everything is a sequel or remake or comic book-adaptation. But we know better, don't we? If the summer of 2011, with a nonstop deluge of massive films that will arguably have to deliver massive opening weekends, doesn't deliver expected blockbuster results, then we can start worrying. But the winter/spring of 2011 was not a failure at the box office. It was a successful return of smaller films aimed at adults, films that didn't make most of their money in the first three days, movies that actually stayed in theaters long enough to allow casual moviegoers to check them out a month or so down the line, movies that existed as a movie first and a corporately-tied product second. Looks to me like 2011 has been a pretty terrific year thus far. One can only hope that summer 2011 is anywhere nears as artistically and commercially satisfying...

Scott Mendelson

Review: Fast Five (2011)

Fast Five
2011
130 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Fast Five is frankly something of a miracle. Here is the fifth entry of a ten-year old franchise that has rarely surpassed mediocrity, but which now offers up a chapter that borders on genuine greatness. Here is a sequel that pays explicit attention to what came before and rewards viewers who actually watched and enjoyed the previous films. Unlike so many later sequels that basically just disregard the prior sequels and try to be a sequel to the original or a stand-alone reboot, Fast Five embraces its character relationships and continuity. I had not seen any of the Fast and the Furious films until the week prior to seeing Fast Five. Having watched the prior entries over a period of a few days, I really didn't care for any of them. As much as I enjoyed Fast Five, I cannot even imagine how rewarding this movie will be for those who have loved this series since the beginning.

A token amount of plot: Following a daring (but explicitly not-deadly) jailbreak at the conclusion of Fast and Furious, former FBI agent Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker) is now a fugitive along with Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his sister Mia Toretto (Jordanna Brewster). After a heist goes south, resulting in the murders (by a third party) of three DEA agents, our heroes find themselves at the top of the Most Wanted list as they scramble to survive on the streets of Brazil. But the botched job does result in a piece of information that could allow them to steal tens-of-millions of dollars from a corrupt politician (Joaquim de Almeida, of course!). With all three of them sick of being on the run, they plot to take down one last score, but they can't do it alone. So they recruit, well, pretty much every memorable character from the previous films. Enter Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris from 2 Fast 2 Furious, Sung Kang from Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, plus Gal Gidot and Tego Calderon from Fast and Furious. But hot on their tail is the relentless Agent Hobbs (Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson, having as much fun as he can get away with). Pardon the obvious paragraph conclusion, but things do indeed get fast and/or furious.

Unlike the prior entries, which mixed and matched underground racing culture with undercover cop thrillers, Fast Five peels away the fat and goes for a straight-up caper picture. Call it Fast and the Furious meets Ocean's 11, but Justin Lin's newest installment (his third consecutive entry) spends much less time admiring automobiles or even racing those automobiles and more time establishing character and relationships and setting up the big score so that the action pay-offs actually have a token amount of weight. This isn't Oscar-level material, but everyone has a relaxed chemistry and a shorthand that makes the audience feel like they are truly in the company of old friends. The copious humor is generally successful as the various wise-crackers don't try to oversell the wit and there is a good-natured vibe to the constant teasing. Most of the 'franchise all-stars to the rescue' are onboard for comic relief and/or action, but everyone is having a blast and the amusement is contagious.

Leads Vin Diesel, Jordanna Brewster, and Paul Walker are not master thespians, and Dwayne Johnson seems to have been directed to overact as much as possible (he's on pure, unrelenting hard-ass mode here), but they all do what needs to be done to sell the drama. Walker and Diesel have a lovely scene in the first act where the discuss their relationships with their respective fathers. In the first film, Diesel had a heartfelt monologue about his father's death, this time he talks about his father's life. It's a surprisingly sweet moment that, along with a major development in the relationship between Brian and Mia, establishes the emotional stakes for the rest of the picture. Point being, when the film needs to go for serious drama, it works as well as it has to.

While I do wish the women were around for more than just decoration, Elsa Pataky gets a few low-key moments as a rookie officer whose cop-husband was murdered by local drug dealers (it's not a great performance, but the effort at creating a generally asexual female is appreciated). Jordanna Brewster gets plenty of screen time, but little of it involves her being in the thick of the action. Although, for what it's worth, this is a film that more-or-less passes the Bechdel Test, so credit where credit is due. Ironically, Vin Diesel probably mourns the loss of Michelle Rodriguez more in this film than in the film where she actually died, which retroactively improves Fast and Furious. It's just one example of how Fast Five refuses to ignore its past and instead feeds on continuity to give substance to the caper antics. Even Matt Schulze, from the very first movie, makes a brief appearance in the opening act, and he has a touching moment where he openly acknowledges how much their family has fallen apart a decade later.

You've probably realized that I'm five paragraphs into this review and haven't commented on what most of you probably came to see. Well, the action sequences are, in a word, spectacular. Pretty much all of it is true-blue practical, with real stunt work, real car crashes, and real table-smashing, glass breaking, bone-breaking fight scenes. The curtain-raiser sequence is a tension-filled car heist on a train that climaxes in a ridiculous stunt that's impressive even if you've already seen the trailer. The first act concludes with a genuinely suspenseful foot chase atop shanty rooftops as two sets of armed foes chase after our heroes and end up fighting each other. The handful of other set pieces I will not reveal, only to say that those wanting a smack-down between Vin Diesel and The Rock will not be disappointed (and unlike some titan vs. titan fight scenes in movies past, there is a clear winner and loser). The film climaxes with an astonishing bit of automobile maneuvering and destruction. And since the film takes the time to establish the relationships and the stakes (this film is nearly thirty minutes longer than any of the previous entries) there is a genuine emotional investment outside of the visceral surface-level thrills. Everything else aside, this is a dynamite action picture that really should be seen in IMAX if at all possible.

I love that characters actually remember that Michelle Rodriguez died in the last film. I love the quick moment at the beginning when fugitives Brian and Mia hurriedly scarf down a meal, implying that they haven't been eating much lately. I love that our heroes state over and over again to whomever will listen that they are not guilty of the murders they've been accused of, logical behavior that is all-too absent in 'the wrong man accused-type thrillers'. I love that when (...SPOILER...) a major character is seemingly about to die at the finale, I bought it completely before remembering that it would have been scientifically impossible (hint - this film takes place BEFORE Tokyo Drift). (...SPOILER END...) I love that most of the film involves intelligent characters making intelligent decisions whenever possible. I love the silly moment right before the climax when your audience is likely to roar with applause and approval (mine did).

And I love that Fast Five succeeds where the previous four films have failed, crafting an epic, yet intimate action adventure story that is rooted in character and chemistry as much as it's rooted in car crashes and explosions. I didn't like any of the prior films in this series, yet I kinda loved this one. If you're actually a hardcore fan of what came before, then you are in for a treat. It may have taken four times to get it right, but the fifth time is truly the charm. Universal isn't lying, summer indeed begins on April 29th. And there hasn't been a summer kick-off film this all-out entertaining since X2: X-Men United. Fast Five may not be a great film. But, by god, it's a pretty great movie.

Grade: A-

Blu Ray Review: Mortal Kombat (1995)

Mortal Kombat
1995
101 minutes
rated PG-13
Available from Warner Home Video on April 19th.

by Scott Mendelson

Mortal Kombat is very much a product of its time and place. It remains a time capsule of the mid-90s era when pre-established properties were slowly becoming the big thing in the wake of the Batman series, but hadn't yet fully taken over as they would after 2001 (there's a LONG essay about that coming soon-ish). It is odd to refer to a violent kung-fu fantasy based on an ultraviolent video game as 'charming', but Mortal Kombat remains, nearly sixteen years later, an amusing and nostalgia-filled trip to our youth. It remains one of the more successful films ever based on a video game, both artistically (for whatever that's worth) and commercially (at $70 million in domestic grosses, it trails only the first animated Pokemon movie, Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time and Tomb Raider in the video game genre). It is not 'good' by most definitions, but by god it felt good to kick back and remember a time when a movie like this was just a B-movie genre entry in late summer, rather than a $200 million tentpole with an entire studio at peril. Like Street Fighter: the Movie, Mortal Kombat is a dumb, fun B-movie back when B-movies weren't being given A+ budgets and expectations.

The plot of Mortal Kombat is... well, it's Enter the Dragon. That's it, really. Take Enter the Dragon and add magic and monsters to the mix and you've got Mortal Kombat. Robin Shou plays Bruce Lee, er, I mean Lui Keng, who enters a mystical martial arts tournament in order to kill Shang Tsung (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa) and avenge the death of his sister. Bridgette Wilson is Sonya Blade, a cop who follows the murderous Kano into this mythical realm. Like all-too many films of this sort, Sonya spends most of the movie as a posturing 'bad-ass female warrior' only to spend the climax as a bound and helpless hostage, but I digress. Anyway, Lenden Ashby plays Johnny Cage, a hotshot martial arts movie star (who, in the original game, was supposed to be Jean Claude Van Damme) who enters the tournament in order to provide himself with a new challenge. You can decide which of these two characters is John Saxon and which is Jim Kelly, although if we judge by what happens in the sequel (Mortal Kombat: Annihilation) then Johnny Cage is DEFINITELY Jim Kelly. Anyway, our three heroes are aided in their journey by the mystical Rayden, played with Christopher 'can't hold a straight face' Lambert in a performance so relentlessly and cheerfully goofy that you can't help but giggle every time he shows up.

Unlike Street Fighter: the Movie and Super Mario Bros, which went way overboard with things like plot and character arcs, Mortal Kombat succeeded by just giving the fans what they wanted. While there is plenty of time allotted for set-up and occasional character interaction, the film is filled with the kind of fantastical martial arts combat gee-whiz character kills that made the game so popular. Yes, the film went for the bloodless PG-13 route, but it's tough to argue that the film is not true to the spirit of the original game series. It successfully trades blood and gore for more fantastical death scenes. It's not great art and it's not some classic of the form, but there is an unassuming innocence in Paul Anderson's Mortal Kombat that makes it a guilty pleasure to this day. While I personally prefer Street Fighter for its bright colors, GI Joe vs Cobra narrative, and Raul Julia's completely wacked-out lead performance as M. Bison, Mortal Kombat remains a diamond in the... well, a clean shiny rock in the rough that is video game-to-movie adaptations.

Grade: B-

The Blu Ray: Video: C Audio: D Extras: C

Unlike the barebones DVD release (one of New Line's launch titles back in 1997 if I recall), the Mortal Kombat Blu Ray comes with a few token features. We get the now-classic trailer with that ridiculous rave-dance music and the announcer angrily screaming "MORTAL KOMBAT!" We get a trailer for the new Mortal Kombat video game which streets on the same day as this Blu Ray (as well as the Blu Ray for Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, which Warner did not send me). The only real extra is a 40-minute animated feature that was released as a tie-in with the original movie back in 1995. It's cheap, cheesy, and way too long, but it's worth watching once for morbid curiosity. Oh, speaking of the video game, this Blu Ray apparently comes with 'Free exclusive original Jade Character Costume Download'. I'd be lying if I told you that I cared, but you just might.

As for the film itself, this is not a reference-level Blu Ray in the least. The image is relatively solid, but it's quite grainy and doesn't feel that much of a step up from an up-converted DVD. The sound is a bigger issue. While it's no secret that I don't have surround sound, the audio coming out of my speakers was wildly inconsistent. Like the very first New Line/Warner Bros DVDs back in the day, the dialogue seems to be mixed at a much lower volume than the sound effects and music. Thus, you'll constantly be turning up the volume to hear the dialogue only to wake up your neighbors when Sub-Zero sends a freezing beam across the room. I don't know why this occured, but that's how it played on my Samsung DLP.

Unless you're a hardcore fan, Mortal Kombat is a rental-only. It doesn't have all that much replay value, although your kids may get a kick out of it. The image is just okay, the sound is problematic, and the extras are scant. I do wish that Warner had put a little more effort into the title, but that's an oft-told tale these days, isn't it?

Actual Batman 3 news! Marion Cotillard isn't Talia Al Ghul, Joseph Gordon-Levitt isn't Black Mask, Dr. Strange, or Alberto Falcone.

As usual, everything you think you know about The Dark Knight Rises is wrong. After months of 'rumors', Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard have been officially signed for the third Chris Nolan Batman picture. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Cotillard is not be playing Talia Al Ghul, but rather 'Miranda Tate, a Wayne Enterprises board member eager to help a still-grieving Bruce Wayne resume his father’s philanthropic endeavors for Gotham.' This is certainly a notable development on two fronts: A) It implies that Wayne's relationship with Rachel Dawes will not be tossed under the rug and forgotten in the wake of her murder in The Dark Knight. B) It also implies that Nolan may be getting away from the whole 'Bruce Wayne pretends to be an asshole so no one suspects he's Batman' shtick that I do so loathe. It's a classic trope of the comics over the last twenty-five years or so, but it remains a silly and self-defeating concept, as it neuters the theoretically much-greater potential for social good that Bruce Wayne can provide so Batman can run around at night and beat up muggers.

It's also good to see that Nolan may be telling a more Bruce Wayne-centric story for the finale, as Batman more-or-less became a supporting character in his own movie in the battle of wills between Harvey Dent, Jim Gordon, and The Joker. As for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, he has been rumored to be playing, at one time or another, The Riddler, Black Mask, Alberto Falcone, Dr. Hugo Strange, The Joker, and Egghead. Instead, he will be playing 'John Blake, a Gotham City beat cop assigned to special duty under the command of Commissioner Gordon'. Whether or not Blake will play any special role outside of merely being someone for Gary Oldman to talk to remains to be seen. But this bit of news does finally put the nail in the coffin of the whole "Nolan is adapting 'Prey' story-arc'" meme. Whether or not Tate turns out to be secretly Talia Al Ghul, it appears that Bane (Tom Hardy) remains the only source of overt villainy so far with Anne Hathaway's Catwoman not yet confirmed as friend or foe.

Once again, it remains amusing just how inaccurate the last several months of rumor-mongering for The Dark Knight Rises has turned out. The movie rumor sites were wrong about who Thomas Hardy was playing, wrong about who Joseph Gordan-Levitt was playing, apparently wrong about Marion Cotillard, and possibly dead-wrong on who the villains would be (not Riddler, not Black Mask, not the Holiday Killer, not Dr. Hugo Strange, and now possibly not Talia Al Ghul). Nice work Internet. Maybe next time you can wait for the press release.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (04/17/11): Rio opens big, Scream 4 underwhelms.

As expected, 20th Century Fox's Rio followed its stunning $55 million overseas debut last weekend with a $39.2 million domestic opening weekend here. Rio is officially the biggest opening weekend thus far in 2011. The film comes from Blue Sky Animation, the Fox-owned animation house that has consistently delivered since the original Ice Age back in March of 2002. This is the second-weakest debut for the studio, after the $36 million debut of Robots in March of 2005, but Robots, Horton Hears a Who ($45 million opening weekend), and the Ice Age pictures weren't dealing with being the fifth computer-animated film to open in just over two months.

Still, a win is a win. Rio cost just $90 million and earned an 'A' from Cinemascore. There will be talk that the film should have opened even higher due to it being presented in 3D, but I think 2011 is quickly proving that 3D is no longer an enticement one way or another. It didn't stop Drive Angry (review) from tanking and it won't stop Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides from succeeding. To be honest, the overcrowded marketplace has probably hurt most of these films, although Gnomeo and Juliet ($97 million) benefited from being the first out of the gate and Mars Needs Moms ($20 million) would have arguably tanked anyway. But given more breathing room,Rango ($38 million opening), Hop ($37.5 million opening), and now Rio could have theoretically topped $45 million and been aiming at $150 million end-points instead of $125 million. With Dreamworks sitting this quarter out, the competition saw prime real estate and everybody pounced. And it's no over yet, as Hookdwinked Too is coming in two weeks, which will then lead into the summer. How well Rio fares from here depends on how well it weathers the competition.

Coming it at number two was Scream 4 (review), the third sequel to the horror franchise that once redefined the genre and arguably defined horror for the late 1990s. But it was not a pleasant homecoming, as the Wes Craven picture opened with just $18.6 million. The first Scream (retrospective) opened in 1996 with just $6 million over Christmas weekend, but then displayed astonishing legs and ended up with $103 million, or 16x its opening weekend. The sequel followed just under a year later, and Scream 2 (retrospective) shocked observers by opening with $33 million, one of the biggest R-rated openings on record at the time, before showing sequel-frontloading and ending up with $101 million. Scream 3 (retrospective) opened a little bigger in February 2000 ($34 million), but was generally frowned upon by fans and ended with just $89 million. Scream 4 was a wild card this weekend. Would it return with a vengeance, telling the likes of Paranormal Activity and Saw to get off its lawn? Or would it mainly play to the hardcore fans of the franchise, and older movie fans with fond memories of the original series? Alas, the answer was 'B'.

Adjusted for inflation, Scream 4 sold about 32% as many tickets as Saw 2 and 36% as many as Saw 3. Heck, it only sold about 66% more tickets that the opening weekend of the original Scream. While the film cost Dimension just $40 million, one has to presume that the Weinsteins were hoping for a bigger opening than Prom Night ($20 million), The Haunting in Connecticut ($23 million), or even the wide-release debut of Paranormal Activity ($21 million). For all the grief the film gives to the likes of Saw and the various 70s/80s horror remakes, this opening is 50% below the $40 million opening of Friday the 13th and well-below every single Saw sequel except the $14.5 million debut of Saw VI (which is ironically the best of the series, but I digress).

This is a sad, terrifying thing to acknowledge, but speaking purely in financial terms, Dimension probably would have been better off remaking/rebooting the series outright and/or going for a PG-13. Of course, had the film been a return to the creative heights of Scream 2, this might be a tragedy. But Scream 4 is a lazy, self-indulgent rip-off of itself that thinks acknowledging its own mediocrity excuses and/or justifies its existence. There is something just a little arrogant about a film that trashes or belittles a decade's worth of horror trends and then delivers a film that is far inferior to the pictures it derides. The film earned a 'B-' from Cinemascore, meaning even the fans were annoyed, so this should drop like a rock. At this point, the film that many thought would open with $40 million will likely struggle to top $45 million overall.

The only other wide release was the semi-wide debut of Robert Redford's The Conspirator. The period legal drama concerns the trial of a woman accused in taking part in the conspiracy to murder Abraham Lincoln. It received relatively mixed reviews, with most likening it to a History Channel reenactment, but the film pulled in $3.5 million for a solid $4,963 per-screen average. This is good news for me, as my wife really wants to see this in two weeks (preschool 'babysitting night') and I was genuinely concerned that the film would be gone from our local AMC by then. I have no idea of the expansion plans, if there are any, for the Roadside Attractions picture, nor do I know how much the all-star (James McAvoy, Robin Wright Penn, Alexis Bledel, Justin Long, Evan Rachel Wood, Norman Reedus, Kevin Kline, Tom Wilkinson, Danny Huston) 9/11 parable actually cost. In limited release, Atlas Shrugged part I opened with $1.6 million on just 299 screens ($5,640 per screen). Objectively speaking (pun intended), that's a pretty solid result. I imagine it was a boon for concessions sales as the showings were full of people who were unwilling to share their popcorn or soda with their fellow moviegoers.

In holdover land, the shocking news is the continually strong performance of Insidious, which dropped just 27% in weekend three. Guess that answers the question of just where all the horror fans were this weekend (or who bought tickets to the PG-13 horror film while sneaking into the R-rated one). Anyway, the $1.5 million horror pic has so far amassed $35.8 million. Frankly, I haven't seen a come-from-behind horror triumph like this since the original Scream back in 1996. Soul Surfer dropped an impressive 31% in weekend two, and may see another small drop over Easter weekend. The inspirational drama has grossed $19.8 million. Hop fell 49% in its third weekend, likely owing to demo competition from Rio, but still managed a solid $10.7 million weekend and a $82.1 million cum thus far (next weekend should be a boon for obvious reasons).

Arthur tumbled a hard 44%, ending day ten with $22.1 million. The seemingly sure-fire hit will now struggle to match its $40 million budget. Hanna (review) held strong as well (-41%), with a ten-day cum of $23 million for the $30 million action drama. Your Highness (review) tumbled 57% and now sits with $16 million. Weep not for Universal, as they have a MASSIVE hit on their hands in just two weekends (the fifth time is indeed the charm). Source Code (review) is now at $36.8 million, while Rango (review) is at $118 million. The Lincoln Lawyer (review) crossed the $50 million mark to boot. Way down the chart, True Grit passed the $170 million mark this weekend.

That's it for this weekend. Join us over Easter when Tyler Perry presents Madea's Happy Family. Also opening is Water Elephants, a romantic drama starring Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, and Christoph Waltz. And Disney debuts African Cats, a nature documentary about Australian bunnies that my wife and daughter want to see. Till then, take care and keep reading.

Scott Mendelson