3D isn't dying, it's just leveling out. Why consumers choosing 2D is a good for the 3D format and good for the industry.

The sky is not falling in the realm of 3D films.  There has been much handwringing over the last couple weeks as moviegoers have embraced their right to choose to see the latest summer tentpoles in 2D over the higher-priced 3D venues.  For the record, over the last two weekends, audiences purchased tickets to Kung Fu Panda 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides in their respective 2D formats at a rate of 55/45.  So, despite those films playing in majority 3D theaters (around 65%), 3D ticket sales made up only 45% of the box office for their respective opening weekends.  This is not a new issue and it is not cause for panic or rebuttal.  Rather, it is a healthy sign that audiences are making an informed choice and that studios are offering a wide swath of moviegoers a genuine option when it comes to their 3D franchise pictures.

It's a bit of a pickle when it comes to 3D.  Arguably the films that use it best are the best films that happen to be in 3D.  Thus those films will work as well without 3D, negating the NEED to upgrade.  Over the last 7.5 years, there are really only two films that MUST be seen in 3D: The Polar Express and Coraline.  As I've written before, 3D is not a genre, but merely a tool.  Even Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon, which use their 3D in the best ways possible, are such strong pictures that they look just as stunning and work just as well in 2D Blu Ray.  That leaves three other kinds of films that use 3D.  You have the cash-in conversions that all-but demand to be seen in 2D (Clash of the Titans, The Last Airbender), the films that are shot in 3D but look pretty terrible anyway (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Saw VII), and the genuine 3D party-flicks that may demand 3D viewings but arguably fall into the category of 'impulse purchase' (Step Up 3D, Piranha 3D, Drive Angry 3D).  And the last category, that arguably benefits the most from 3D, is where the pricing system is so problematic.

Even if we argue that The Final Destination benefited from its 3D effects two years ago (box office-wise yes, quality-wise, no), its arguably the kind of trashy genre fare that kids and college students decide to see as a group activity on a Friday night or a Saturday afternoon.  But how many younger audience members considered seeing Piranha 3D last August as a cheap little matinée excursion only to realize that there were no cheap tickets available?  Sure, getting together with your buds and heading off to a rowdy night of Drive Angry 3D sounds like a lot of fun, but is it really $20 a ticket fun?  Do you and your pals really want to blow $50 a pop on a cheap dinner, a movie ticket, and refreshments just to watch Piranha 3D?  It's an even more impossible equation when you're dealing with the category that arguably shows off 3D at its very best: big-budget animated features.  Even if my review specifically told you that the 3D work in Kung Fu Panda 2 is worth the 3D upcharge, are you still willing to fork out $80 so you, your spouse, and your two kids can enjoy a 90 minute movie?  And that's not even factoring popcorn and drinks, which are pretty tough to avoid if you're seeing a flick with young kids.  So even if I SWORE that the 3D in How to Train Your Dragon is jaw-droppingly beautiful, is it really worth it to fork over $80 for tickets when you can just go 2D and pay $40 for the same movie, or even less if you can take advantage of those early-bird matinées?

So it is, about 18 months after Avatar turned everyone into a 3D fanatic, the 'cool' factor is wearing off.  And this is to be expected, as audiences are realizing that most 3D isn't going to blow their minds and/or take them to another world of immersion.  Factor that in with big ticket-upcharges for the format, and it is no wonder that moviegoers are deciding that they can live with 2D if they are given the option.  And this isn't a new phenomenon either.  Even as far back as last July, Despicable Me grossed just 45% of its $56 million opening weekend on 3D screens.  Yes, when smaller studios released smaller movies (Piranha 3D, Saw VII) in almost exclusively 3D auditoriums, the statistics should that audiences chose 3D about 90% of the time.  But when the bigger studios offered audiences a genuine choice between 2D and 3D, those audiences basically went 50/50 for the higher-priced 3D tickets over opening weekend.  And THAT, is a good and healthy thing.

The worst thing the studios could do right now is panic and limit the number of 2D theaters for their upcoming tentpole pictures.  Yes, when it comes to some of the BIG pictures (Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II), the want-to-see factor is large enough that moviegoers may just hold their nose and pay the up-charge if their are no 2D options available.  But what of riskier projects like Green Lantern or Captain America?  To a general moviegoer, especially one displeased by 3D, having a 2D option may mean the difference between seeing it in theaters and waiting for DVD.  This all goes back to what I've been saying for nearly two years.  Studios can charge as much as they want for 3D, IMAX, Smell-O-Vision, whatever... as long as audiences have convenient access to a traditional 2D theatrical exhibition of said movie.  If we lose that, theatrical moviegoing as we know it will end.  3D isn't crashing and burning, but rather leveling off to become something that is offered as an alternate viewing mode for those who make the choice.

Moviegoers are indeed making concrete choices between 2D and 3D because studios are indeed offering them the option.  Sure, offering a 50/50 split of 2D and 3D screens may cost the studios that $3-5 upcharge when X-number of consumers go the cheaper 2D route.  But punishing those moviegoers by making it a zero-sum game will very likely cost the studios the entire $10-15 ticket price from those audience members (casual moviegoers, large families, those unable to see 3D properly, etc) unwilling or unable to go the 3D route.  That studios are offering ample 2D options for their 3D tentpoles is encouraging and healthy for the longterm survival of both the 3D format and theatrical moviegoing in general.  That audiences are making their own informed choices should be celebrated and not condemned.   Because 50% of the audience choosing the higher-priced 3D tickets is surely better than a majority of moviegoers not buying any theatrical tickets at all.                

Scott Mendelson  

Weekend Box Office (05/30/11): Hangover 2 scores $135m, Kung Fu Panda 2 nets $66m over Thurs-Mon. Woody Allen and Terence Malick kill in limited release.

The Three Day weekend and the Four Day weekend totals.  It was close, but no cigar, as The Hangover 2 (review) made a run for the R-rated opening three-day weekend record.  As it stands, the film pulled in $85.6 million over the Friday-Sunday frame, falling just $6 million short of the $91.7 million mark set by The Matrix Reloaded back in 2003.  That film, like The Hangover 2, opened on a Thursday and also bested The Hangover 2 in terms of R-rated 4-day numbers ($118 million Thursday-to-Sunday for Hangover 2 versus $134 million Thursday-to-Sunday for Matrix Reloaded) and likely R-rated 5-day totals (The Matrix Reloaded grossed $144 million in its first five days, while The Hangover 2 ended Monday with 'just' $135 million).  Still, this is no defeat of any plausible kind for the $80 million sequel.  As it is, both films were from Warner Bros so there is little reason for the studio to not rejoice.  As it is, the film is set to take down the five-day opening weekend record for an R-rated film, which was the $125 million Wednesday-to-Sunday opening of 20th Century Fox's The Passion of the Christ back in 2004 (the Mel Gibson epic took in $83 million over the Friday-Sunday portion).  In terms of pure Fri-Sun numbers, it was the second-biggest opening of the year, coming in just $300,000 ahead of Fast Five and about $4 million behind Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.  It's the 25th biggest opening weekend of all time, and easily the biggest opening weekend for a pure live-action comedy (the next closest is Jim Carrey's Bruce Almighty, which made $67 million on this same weekend back in 2003).  It's also the seventh-biggest Fri-Sun gross for a film that didn't open on a Friday.  It's $117.6 million Thurs-Sun total is the 20th biggest four-day gross in history.  Its $135 million five-day total is the eighteenth-biggest ever.  It's Fri-Mon $103 million Memorial Day weekend take was the fourth-biggest on record.  So it missed the R-rated record book, but it's doing just fine.

Most importantly (and surprisingly), it played remarkably consistent over the entire weekend.  The film opened with $31 million on Thursday, which included $10 million worth of midnight screenings.  But the picture was not a front-loaded affair, as it grossed $30 million on Friday, $29 million on Saturday, $26 million on Sunday, and $17 million today.  The marketing campaign explicitly promised 'more of the same', with a trailer that was almost a shot-for-shot remake of the first trailer and a final product that would have made Gus Van Sant envious.  We critics may have complained about the sameness of it all, but that's just what audiences wanted, and the film scored a solid A- from Cinemascore and an A+ from audiences under 18.  Remember folks, Home Alone 2: Lost in New York became the fifth film to open with $30 million or more back in 1992.  As for legs, one would presume that the film would be a bit front-loaded purely due to the massive numbers over the first five days.  As it is, the next major comedy isn't until June 24th, with the R-rated Cameron Diaz vehicle Bad Teacher.  The sequel merely has to double its five-day total to slightly surpass the $277 million domestic take of the first film.  So anything approaching 'legs' will send the film into the $300 million club, where the Wolfpack will join Jesus himself as the only R-rated member (The Passion of the Christ sits at $370 million).  And the film has already amassed $59 million overseas.  So come what may, this is a MAJOR win for all involved.

Coming in at second place was Kung Fu Panda 2 (review), which represented the complete opposite of The Hangover 2 in terms of how to make a sequel.  It was indeed a chapter two of a long-form saga, expanding the world and opening up new avenues of storytelling.  Oddly enough, while some were predicting (hoping?) for a major breakout this weekend, the Dreamworks sequel basically did what a number of animated films do, which is repeat the opening weekend gross of their preprocessors.  The film pulled in $47.6 million over the Friday-Sunday frame, with a  $66 million five-day total.  On the surface, that may seem disappointing, since the original Kung Fu Panda grossed $60 million in a three-day weekend back in 2008, with $20 million on its first day.  But the film played almost identical to Madagascar on this weekend in 2005.  That film pulled in $47 million on Fri-Sun and $64 million in its first five days.  And Madagascar 2 opened with $63 million in a standalone November three-day weekend back in 2008.  So Kung Fu Panda 2 should have exploded over the weekend right?  Not necessarily.

If you recall, Ice Age 2: The Meltdown opened with  $68 million in early 2006.  But Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs chose to open over the Fourth of July weekend of 2009, where it grossed $41 million over the Friday-Sunday portion and $66 million in its first five days.  So point being, Ice Age 3 and Kung Fu Panda 2 basically grossed the same amount of money as their respective predecessors did in their respective weekends, they just spread out the daily grosses by opening on a longer weekend.  The picture earned an A from  Cinemascore and an A+ from under-18s (which made up 33% of the weekend).  It played 54% male and 53% under 25.  Also of note is that the film sold 45% of its tickets in 3D despite showing in about majority 3D locations.  Whether or not the omnipresence of 3D auditoriums hurt the gross I cannot say, but it indeed proves that when customers have a choice, they are starting to explicitly reject 3D (ironically, Kung Fu Panda 2 actually looks fantastic in 3D).  Whether or not the film will have legs is an open question, but it has the kids market to itself until June 24th when Cars 2 opens.  Oh, and the film did earn a  11.7x weekend multiplier for the five-day weekend, so it turned out to be like Shrek 2 after all.  And the film earned $57 million overseas for a strong foreign start.

The other major opening was the four-screen debut of the Terence Malick epic, The Tree of Life.  The film grossed $373,000 from Friday to Sunday for a stellar $93,000 per-screen average.  While impressive, the picture is very much 'a Terence Malick picture' (at times, it borders on a spoof of Malick's work), so mainstream appeal for the Brad Pitt drama is very much in question.  With $493,000 after four days, it will expand slowly before going wide on July 8th.  In holdover news, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (review) earned $39 million over its second three-day weekend, a drop of 56%.  That actually isn't horrible per-se, as the third film dropped 61% in its second frame, but it was coming off a holiday rather than being boosted up by one.  The second picture dropped 54% and the first (leggy) film dropped just 27% in weekend two.  The film has already earned $163 million after eleven days.  That's well below the ten-day totals of the last two sequels, but it really doesn't matter.  Sure, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides may not make it to $225 million domestic, but it's already at $634 million worldwide and going strong.  This is a clear case where US grosses are basically irrelevant.  So if we get Pirates of the Caribbean 5: Voyage of the Bored, it's one case where America is not to blame.      

Bridesmaids (review) held strong in the face of The Hangover 2, dropping just 21% and grabbing a $16 million third-weekend and $21 over the four-day holiday.  The dynamite comedy has earned $89 million and will likely cross $100 million over the next week, or soon after Fast Five ($197 million as of Monday) crosses $200 million.  Thor sits at $162 million and crossed the $400 million mark worldwide.  And Woody Allen's Midnight In Paris expanded to 58 screens and pulled down a $33,000 per-screen average.  With $3.5 million in the bank by Monday, the film could be the rare Woody Allen film to hit the $10 million mark.  And that's it for this weekend, folks. I'll update tomorrow when the Monday numbers roll in.  Tune in next weekend for X-Men: First Class (review coming Wednesday morning).  Until then, feel free to share your thoughts below.  What did you see this weekend and what did you think of them?  Have we already reached a point where 3D is hurting the grosses?  What are you looking forward to in the coming weeks?

Scott Mendelson

Why I'm unimpressed by that 'bootleg' teaser for David Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo remake.

I didn't post this yesterday because I was under the impression that it was an illegally copied bootleg.  But now I'm hearing word that it was a PR-stunt from Sony pictures, so we'll see what develops.  Anyway, the two core problems with the teaser have nothing to do with its low quality embed.  First of all, the teaser is scored to a piece of music (Immigrants' Song, I believe), and it is merely a quick, context-less cut every time there is a beat in the music.  Quite frankly, this is freshman filmschool trailer editing plain and simple.  It may be painstaking, but there is little to no actual skill involved in merely cutting every time there is a 'beat' in a song, especially when using footage that has no dialogue and no connective tissue.  It's not a trailer so much as an extended music video, one that required much time but little artistic talent or imagination.

Second of all, and this is a bigger issue, the film basically sells itself as a Daniel Craig thriller, with barely a glimpse of Rooney Mara's title character.  One can argue that Sony is merely teasing us by withholding a good look at Lisbeth Salander.  But the feeling I get is that Sony feels that they need to hide the marquee character in order to trick audiences into thinking that the film is just another thriller involving a smoldering white male trying to solve a mystery.  The character of Salander is the only thing that elevates the original trilogy above the level of sub-par television procedurals (although I'd argue that they remain vastly overrated).   Yet this teaser appears to be afraid of the very character that makes the stories worth telling.  I may very well be wrong, and later trailers may well rectify this issue, but it appears at first-glance that Sony is afraid to sell the unconventional female heroine at its center and is instead hiding behind its bland and generic male sleuth.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson       

Friday Box Office: Hangover 2 grosses $30m, Kung Fu Panda 2 takes in $13.5m, Tree of Life grosses $115,000 on four screens.

For the moment, The Hangover 2 seems to be even stronger than I anticipated, while Kung Fu Panda 2 may not be breaking out as large as I hoped.  Anyway, The Hangover 2 scored another $30 million on Friday night, showing almost no decline from its $31 million opening day.  In fact, when you factor in the $10 million in midnight screenings that made up 1/3 of the opening day, the Friday performance is even more impressive.  Point being, there is a chance that The Hangover 2 will have consistent business all weekend long, as opposed to a heavily-front-loaded opening day.  The two models that may apply are Sex and the City 2 and Terminator: Salvation.  Last year's TV sequel grossed $51 million in five days, earning $26 of that in the first two.  Obviously that film was frontloaded in its first two days, and there is a risk that Hangover 2 may suffer the same fate if it gets harder to do the whole 'guy's night out' thing over the family-friendly holiday (which is a problem that Sex and the City 2 faced last year, with 'girls' night out' being hard to arrange while taking care of the kids and setting up the family events).  Under that model, The Hangover 2 will gross $115 million by Monday night, which is still a solid take.  Under the Terminator: Salvation model, the film will play all weekend long at a consistent pace, giving The Hangover 2 a stunning $141 million over five days.  Obviously, Saturday numbers will tell the tale.


Kung Fu Panda 2 pulled in $13.5 million on its first Friday.  That's 2.3x its Thursday number, showing that audiences were indeed waiting for the weekend.  It still makes me question why Dreamworks wasted a Thursday opening day on this one, as a one-day opening of $19 million is far more impressive than a two-day opening of $19 million.  Anyway, it would look like the picture is going to end up with a $75 million five-day total, which is impressive but frankly lower than I would have pegged it, considering the popularity of the original and the strong reviews for this entry.  Still, that would still give the picture a 12x weekend multiplier.  The other big news was the expected, but still impressive showing for Terence Malick's rollicking action comedy, The Tree of Life. The Brad Pitt adventure grossed $115,000 on in just four theaters (pretty much all of those theaters had it on three screens or more), setting the film up for a $500,000 four-day weekend and a massive $130,000 per-screen average.  Oh, and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides grossed just $10.8 million on its second Friday, or a 69% drop from last Friday.  Good.  And Bridesmaids grossed $4.4 million, a mere 29% drop from last Friday even against The Hangover 2.  Also good.  As always, we'll know more tomorrow, but it's looking like a BIG Memorial Day weekend at the box office.    

Scott Mendelson

Kung Fu Panda 2 plays the Shrek 2 game, scores $5.8 million opening day. Come what may, we should see a record weekend multiplier.

Paramount and Dreamworks took a big risk opening Kung Fu Panda 2 (review) on a Thursday.  The family-friendly action comedy was guaranteed to have a somewhat soft opening day due to the majority of kids being in school until this evening.  And so it is the case that the terrific sequel took in a moderate $5.8 million on its first day.  Of course, Dreamworks has some history with this kind of thing.  If you recall, Dreamworks opened Shrek 2 on a Wednesday back in May 2004.  It had two relatively soft days $11.7 million and $9.1 million heading into the Fri-Sun weekend (I remember thinking the film was doomed as it was opening about on the level of Pokemon: The First Movie).  It absolutely exploded over the normal weekend, earning an eye-popping $28 million on Friday, $44 million on Saturday (the biggest single day in history at the time), and $34 million on Sunday (the biggest Sunday gross ever at the time).  So it was a $129 million five-day weekend, with $108 million of that just over Friday through Sunday.  That's also an 11x five-day weekend multiplier. In  research, that's called 'that outlier that you throw out'... until today.  Anyway, Dreamworks is obviously hoping for an even larger multiplier, as yesterday is sure to be the film's lowest box office day by a healthy margin.  Just for fun, let's say the film does an average of $20 million per day over the next four days (a reasonable assumption, the first film opened to $60 million over three days).  That gives the film a $86 million five-day opening and a 14x weekend multiplier.  This one is an even bigger question mark than The Hangover II, but it can be presumed that Dreamworks bet that most of the audience (IE - families) were just waiting for the weekend to check out the animated sequel.  Which, considering the lesson of Shrek 2 (which would have easily crushed the 3-day opening weekend record had it opened on a Friday), makes one wonder why they went for the Thursday opening at all?

Scott Mendelson        

The Hangover II scores $31.7 million on opening day. It looks like a $102-127 million five-day weekend.

The Hangover part II (review) grossed $31.7 million yesterday, scoring the third-biggest Thursday numbers in history.  The only bigger Thursday grosses were The Matrix Reloaded ($42 million, including $5 million in Wednesday evening sneaks) and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith ($50 million).  It's also the third-biggest R-rated single day, behind that $42 million opening day for The Matrix Reloaded and the $34 million Saturday for The Matrix Reloaded.  The picture did 32% of its total first day business at midnight.  The closest comparison of late indeed Paranormal Activity 2, which did 31% of its first day total ($20.1 million) in midnight screenings.  As far as the rest of the five-day weekend, it will arguably fall somewhere between the 3.2x multiplier of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (which would give The Hangover 2 $102 million over five-days) and the 6x weekend multiplier of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (which would give the sequel an unlikely $186 million five-day total).  Relative disaster would be a multiplier equal to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2.72x = $86 million). The more likely result will be something similar to The Matrix Revolutions's 3.44x weekend multiplier (which would give The Hangover II $109 million) and the 4.02x multiplier for Superman Returns (which would equal $127 million over the holiday weekend).  This is all just fun with math for the moment, and we'll have a pretty good idea of the end result by this evening or tomorrow.

Scott Mendelson  

The Muppets gets a Hangover-inspired second teaser.

As excited as I am for this film in theory, I am a little disconcerted by how Jason Segal and Amy Adams seem to be dominating the footage thus far.  Point being, it's a MUPPET MOVIE, not a Segal/Adams vehicle.  Anyway, this is an obvious but amusing riff on The Hangover, and the cameo at 0:50 merits a solid laugh.

Scott Mendelson  

The Hangover part II scores $10.4 million in midnight screenings. What does it mean for the long weekend?

Well, The Hangover part II has smashed at least one record.  With $10.4 million in midnight screenings alone, it nearly doubled the $6.3 million earned in midnight screenings for Paranormal Activity 2 last October, breaking the record for R-rated midnight showings.  But as with that horror sequel, midnight front-loading may be a little higher than usual, since the film is arguably more suited for a midnight screening environment than something more mainstream like Thor.  The Hangover part II is also a heavily-anticipated sequel, so it may play like a front-loaded genre sequel more than a general-audiences smash.  So, with that being said, let's use what little math we have in this area.  The closest precedent is the five-day opening weekend of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.  That film pulled in $16 million worth of midnight tickets and ended up with a $200 million five-day total.  Thus, the film did 8% of its five-day business at midnight and 25% of its opening day at 12:01am.  A similar pattern would yield a $41 million opening day and a $130 million five-day total.  That's the likely best case scenario, but Hangover II won't have the benefit of family-friendly matinée business, especially with Kung Fu Panda 2 also opening today.  The worst case scenario would be something resembling the uber-front-loaded performance Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The sixth Harry Potter film scored $22 million worth of midnight showings (a record at the time) and ended its five-day opening with $158 million.  That means the film did nearly 14% of its entire five-day weekend on Wednesday at 12:01am showings.  Such a scenario would give The Hangover II a $28 million opening day and a $75 million five-day total.  We'll know more once the Thursday numbers come in.

Scott Mendelson

Alan Rickman says goodbye to the world of Harry Potter...

This kinda speaks for itself (we'll forgive the massive run-on sentence in the middle).  I will merely add that it's amazing that Alan Rickman eventually found himself with a role more iconic than Hans Gruber.

Review: The Hangover part II (2011) teases darkness before reverting to formula.

The Hangover part II
2011
102 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

The biggest problem with The Hangover part II is not that it is a general retread of the first film.  After all, while we might have been spoiled by a decade full of part 2s that were not so much a sequel as a second chapter to a large continuing story, prior to 2001 (IE - Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings), it was not uncommon for a sequel to merely be a glorified remake of the first picture.  Sometimes it worked (Terminator 2: Judgment Day), sometimes it did not (Home Alone 2: Lost in New York).  The problem with The Hangover part II is that it's an EXPLICIT retread of the first film, hitting most of the same comic bits and character interactions but with neither the inventiveness of the first film nor the guts to go further with the premise.

A token amount of plot: This one is easy.  This time the Wolfpack is in Thailand for Stu's wedding.  Instead of the groom getting misplaced after a night of debauchery, this time it's the sixteen-year old brother of the bride who has gone missing.  And that's about it.  If I may digress for a moment... Pretty much every major character from the first film reappears at some point, except for Heather Graham's Jade.  The plucky single mother/prostitute is never mentioned by name and her absence from Stu's life is left completely unexplained.  I defended the first film from charges of misogyny two years ago, arguing that its female characters were overall no more or less complex or moral than the male characters (Stu's kindhearted dentist got paired up with Heather Graham's 'hooker with a heart of gold'), and Melissa Harris was condemned for not being 'a good person' (her gender was not her issue).  But the absolute lack of any character afforded to any of the females this time around, along with the completely unexplained absence of Graham, makes this one harder to defend.    

If you've seen the first film, you will have a pretty good idea of where this film is going.  What is unfortunate is that it constantly sets up the possibility of going in new and different directions only to fall back to what happened in the first picture.  As a result, much of the fun of the first film, which involved piecing together a mystery and discovering just what happened to our pals the night before, is lost because we pretty much know what happened to them in a general sense.  The first film had a certain quirky innocence to it that is arguably part of why it appealed to mainstream crowds.  It was basically a raunchy sex comedy about misbehaving boys that didn't have all that much dirty humor and whose heroes didn't really do anything all that bad (and they were punished for each of their discretions along the way).  

This time around, you can sense that Todd Phillips wants to go farther, wants to put our Wolfpack heroes in more horrible circumstances.  The opening act has a genuine sense of dread, and Phillips turns the Billy Joel song "Downeaster Alexa" (arguably my favorite of Joel's songs, natch) into a signal of impending doom.  But Phillips and company eventually wuss out in the end, as not only are the hijinks this time around not any more perverse or disturbing than the first time around, there are actually less 'incidents' than the first film, which leads to less actual moments of revelation and thus more padding.  Whether it was because the filmmakers didn't want to alienate mainstream audiences or because they couldn't go too far for risk of hurting the theoretical The Hangover part III, nothing much of consequence happens this time around.  And the one token permanent consequence is brushed off without a thought.

Point being, if you're going to basically remake the first film, why not either go to the extreme dark side from which there is no absolution, or perhaps even go to the extreme other direction (IE - they wake up and realize they spent the night doing mitzvahs)?  That Phillips chooses neither route shows a lack of courage on its part, which negates the potential for comedy and negates the movie's reason for existing as anything other than a vacation for the cast and a cash grab for the studio.  And that's a shame, because the film looks fantastic, which a rich orange-tint and dynamic Thai and Bangkok location work.  You can tell that Phillips is indeed trying to make a big 'epic' comedy, and the production values bear that out.  This is certainly a better directed and sharper looking film than the first.

If this were the first in the series, it would work pretty well as a comedy.  But it is not the first in the franchise, but the second, so the film loses laughs by going to so many of the same wells yet again, losing the key ingredient of the initial installment: surprise.  The film ultimately doesn't fail because it's merely a retread of the original.  The film doesn't work because it doesn't do anything new with its redone premise and is afraid to take the story (and its characters) in directions that would truly excite fans of the series.  The Hangover part II isn't just a remake of The Hangover.  It's a warmed-over, repetitious, and frankly dumbed-down version of The Hangover.    

Grade: C

The Wrap gets it wrong (more than once) regarding R-rated box office with its Memorial Day weekend preview.

First and foremost, the headline blares "Hangover 2 set for record-breaking $125m 5day start".    Wrong.  The Passion of the Christ, also an R-rated film, also opened with $125.1 million over its five-day opening.  And the biggest 5-day total for an R-rated film remains The Matrix Reloaded, with $144 million.  Speaking of The Matrix Reloaded, author Daniel Frankel acknowledges that film's record (for an R-rated film) Fri-Sun opening of $91 million, but refers to the film as "critically despised".  That's funny, since the film has a 74% on Rotten Tomatoes (it's a classic example of a well-reviewed smash that is now inexplicably considered a critically-panned flop).  It also refers to the three-day record as being set 'over a standard three-day weekend'.  Also wrong, The Matrix Reloaded opened on a Thursday (with $42 million, including $5 million worth of advance-night Wednesday showings), meaning that the $91 million Fri-Sun number was part of a longer opening weekend.  This arguably makes the $91 million figure all the more impressive, and the Thurs-Sat three-day total was a staggering $108 million.

The main offender here is the headline, which blares that a $125 million five-day gross would be a record (implicitly for an R-rated film, unless they have really lost their marbles), which would only tie the current five-day R-rated opening weekend and fall $19 million below the current five-day gross for an R-rated film.  The article states that the film may do $150 million over the five-day sprint, which would indeed be a record, but the headline falsely proclaims $125 million as the number to beat.  The article claims that this Memorial Day weekend, powered by several big movies (Hangover II, Kung Fu Panda 2, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Thor, Bridesmaids) may pull a record total gross for Memorial Day weekends, which may very well be true.  But that's not what the headline says or implies.  So bully on the headline writer for factually false box office data, and bully on author Daniel Frankel for stating that The Matrix Reloaded was critically trashed (not true) and opened on a normal standalone three-day weekend (also not true).  Considering how short the article is, that's an awful lot of 'not true', all of which could have been avoided by spending 30 seconds at Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes.

Scott Mendelson

The Smurfs gets a smurf-smurf second trailer. Yes, it still looks like a mother-smurfing piece of rotten smurf.

This still looks smurfing terrible, and I have nothing but pity for Jayma Mays who surely deserves better than this.  Sadly, there is a good chance that this will merely be her second or third worst movie, as she actually was the lead in Epic Movie and the token love interest in Paul Blart: Mall Cop.  She has a small supporting role on Glee, of course, but I suppose she's still in the position of having to take whatever is offered to her.  Neil Patrick Harris has no excuse.  He has a starring role in How I Met Your Mother and hosts any number of awards shows in any given year.  Ironically, the film actually looks somewhat fun for the first 1/2 minute or so, until it leaves the Smurf Village landscape and plops our blue heroes on boring old Earth.  Yes, it's Masters of the Universe all over again.  Still, come what may, Allison wants to see this one.  It opens July 29th, which actually operates as a test of sorts.  Are you a man (Cowboys and Aliens), are you a woman (Stupid, Crazy Love), or are you a parent (The Smurfs)?  On second thought, stereotypical gender assignments aside, why are all three of these potentially breakout movies opening on the same weekend anyway?  Anyway, hopefully Allison will enjoy herself and maybe I can trick her into watching Spirited Away later.  Oh, the things I do that for that smurfing little brat...

Scott Mendelson     

Thoughts on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit as Meloni and Hargitay step down.

For about six years, from season 2 to season 8, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit was a pretty terrific procedural drama.  While people are understandably skittish about the subject matter, the show is generally less graphically violent than any of the CSI shows, let alone something like Criminal Minds.  But somewhere around season 9-ish, the show started getting silly... really silly.  The show went from a somewhat restrained 'just the facts, mam' procedural to a nonstop barrage of 'This isn't just any other case!!"  John Munch (Richard Belzer) was more-or-less written out of the show, Fin' Tutuola (Ice-T) became relatively scarce, and the series went from being a genuine ensemble cop show to the Benson and Stabler show, complete with 'will they or won't they?' teases and oodles of needlessly personal subplots.  Every season had at least one 'PLEASE give Mariska Hargitay an Emmy!' episode, which usually resulted in a season-low point (SEE Benson get raped in jail!)  that actually snagged her that Emmy nomination.  

More importantly, a drive toward tawdry sensationalism led to a stunning amount of sheer incompetence on the parts of our beloved SVU unit.  Nearly every episode had a 'chance' meeting between a suspect and a victim in the squad room to allow for a dramatic confrontation.  And nearly every episode had Stabler and/or Benson making colossal blunders that often led to the deaths of innocent people or the character assassination of wrongly-accused individuals.  The best example of this is the sheer number of people who have died in the squad room right under the noses of our fair heroes.  Whether it's confessed killers jumping off the roof of the headquarters, bereaved victims playing vigilante  or distraught suspects having one last bit of revenge, the Special Victims Unit squad room is arguably less safe than the CTU building in those prime Jack Bauer days.  My wife and I still watch the show, but now it's mainly to laugh at the sensationalist melodrama, terrible police work, and mind-numbing incompetence on display week-in and week-out.

But even at its worst, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit has a knack for highlighting major issues before they reach the mainstream.  For example, they had an episode a few years ago about juvenile court judges who get paid off to sentence kids to privatized youth detention centers which aired well-before Michael Moore highlighted the issue in Capitalism: A Love Story. The press surrounding the departure of lead Christopher Meloni (which followed announcements of a gradual phasing out of Mariska Hargitay starting next season) mentioned a new show-runner, Warren Leight, who is apparently intending to revert the show to the more 'grounded' storytelling that make it one of the better network dramas in its heyday.  Of course, the original Law & Order tried the same thing back in 2008 (major cast changes, back-to-basics quality up-shoot) and got cancelled three seasons later.  This gets a big 'we'll see...'.

But in the meantime, my wife and I will continue to watch, partially out of habit, partially for our own amusement.  Maybe Richard Belzer will get more screen time this season, but that's probably a pipe dream at this point.  After all, 'in the criminal justice system, sexually based offenses are considered especially awesome (inside joke, don't judge us).'  Maybe the show itself can go back to its former 'awesomeness' as well, as opposed to its current 'heinousness'.

Scott Mendelson

How 2001 was a film game-changer II: When international box office exploded and America became just another territory.

This is one of a handful of essays that will be dealing with the various trends that were kicked off during the 2001 calendar year, and how they still resonate today.

Over the weekend, something curious happened.  The box office pundits were hand-wringing over the alleged box office failure of Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.  Its crime (aside from being terrible) was failing to open above $100 million over its three-day Fri-Sun opening.  As I discussed two weeks ago, the opening weekends of 'major' movies have skyrocketed over the last decade, in both quantity (how many movies opening $60 million or more) and quality (the sheer amount of those massive weekends).  So we have reached a point, just nine years since the first $100 million opening ever, where a $90 million haul is considering 'disappointing'.  But what most box office pundits weren't paying attention to was the international number.  In just five days, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides grossed $346 million worldwide, far surpassing its alleged $250 million budget and setting the film on the course for massive profitably.  It is just another example of how, when it comes to tent pole franchise pictures, the domestic market is merely that: just another market.  It was a slow crawl that started in 2001 that climaxed this year, a summer movie season where the domestic market is all-but irrelevant for the big summer blockbusters.      

Out of the top 30 biggest-grossing global box office hits, 24 of them were released just since November 2001.  Titanic was the only film prior to 2003 to gross $1 billion worldwide.  Until 2009, there were only three such grossers, now there are seven.  Of the 79 (soon to be 81 or 82) films to have grossed $500 million worldwide, just sixteen of them were released prior to November 2001.  What we have seen over the last ten years is an absolute explosion of earning potential in the form of overseas dollars.  It was hinted by the massive success of Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace (that 'much-loathed' film was the third film in history to gross $900 million, after Titanic and Jurassic Park) in 1999.  And it was cemented at the end of 2001, with the twin blockbusters Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone ($974 million) and Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring ($870 million).  Point being, this was a new age, where a major film could expect its foreign box office to equal, if not double or triple its domestic take.

Sure, even in the 1990s, there were certain films did more than 2/3 of their worldwide take overseas (Goldeneye, Die Hard: With a Vengeance), but it was a newsworthy event back in the day.  Most of the time, a film was successful if it approached a 50/50 split.  Now, 60-70% overseas box office is all-but expected for tent pole films. But spurred on by the massive international grosses of the Harry Potter saga, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Spider-Man series, and the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, studios realized over the last decade that the sky was truly the limit when it came to overseas grosses for mega-budgeted tent poles.  Now a $250 million domestic gross wouldn't mean hoping for $500 million worldwide, but hoping if not expecting a $750-800 million global take (Inception pulled this off last year).  Angels and Demons grossed 73% of its $486 million 2009 worldwide take in foreign markets, as did Troy with its $497 million gross in 2004.

Last year saw a number of overly-expensive summer flicks (Prince of Persia, Robin Hood, Sex and the City 2, Shrek: Forever After) that became profitable despite (relatively) disappointing domestic grosses by nearly doubling or actually doubling their domestic take overseas.  The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader grossed $104 million in the United States, but tripled that in foreign markets with a colossal $310 million foreign take, ensuring solid profitably and likely saving the Narnia franchise from extinction.  Resident Evil: Afterlife nearly quadrupled its $60 million domestic take overseas, earning 79% of its $296 million global take in foreign markets.  20th Century Fox, a studio that plays the overseas game better than anyone else, scored two years ago Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, a film that didn't even top $200 million domestic but now sits as the fourth-biggest foreign box office haul in history with $690 million overseas.  With numbers like that, who needs the US market anyway?

And so here we are in 2011, where big summer blockbusters routinely open overseas BEFORE they open in America.  Thor and Fast Five both opened in foreign markets prior to their US debut, and Russia will be getting Transformers: Dark of the Moon a full week before America does.  It's been a slow process, but the reliance on overseas markets is now to a point where the domestic box office is but a small part of a much larger box office story.  And it is also one of the reasons why the last ten years have slowly become a never-ending parade of big-budget fantasy spectacles that rely less on dialogue and more on special effects, better to translate around the world.

If Pirates of the Caribbean gets a fifth entry, if Chronicles of Narnia: The Magician's Nephew gets a green light, and/or if Shrek eventually returns in Shrek: the New Beginning, it won't be because of the domestic dollars.  It will be a complete triumph of foreign box office, a process brought to us by Frodo Baggins and the boy who lived ten years ago and continued through the exploits of Jack Sparrow, Peter Parker, and millions of foreign-based filmgoers who spent the last decade flocking to American movies in record numbers.

Scott Mendelson

Batman Live (the stage show) gets a trailer. This is NOT a trailer for Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises!

First of all, I'm SHOCKED at the number of people who think this thing has anything whatsoever to do with Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises.  Sample comment elsewhere: "Chris Nolan: from Memento to... this??!"  It makes you realize why it was so easy to convince us that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.  Anyway, this looks like loads of silly fun, with hopefully a solid-enough script to make it matter beyond the visual and technical elements (it's written by comic/cartoon vets Stan Berkowitz, Alan Burnett, and Allan Heinberg).  The show opens in July in the United Kingdom, and I have no idea if/when it will show up in Los Angeles, California.  But I suppose it will be just the kind of thing I will let my wife get me for my birthday.  I say 'let' because I've gotten to that age where I don't really want presents for special occasions, especially as I don't want/need a lot of material items anymore (at least not the kind of 'fun' items that make appropriate 'gifts').  Anyway, if this show manages to make it to our shores... well, we'll see how the reviews are overseas in a few months.  On the plus side, the combined health insurance deductibles of all cast and crew involved in this show have thus far remained at $0.00.

Scott Mendelson  

Blu Ray Review: Green Lantern: Emerald Knights

Green Lantern: Emerald Knights
2011
84 minutes
rated PG-13
Available from Warner Home Video on June 7th, via DVD, Blu Ray, OnDemand, and Download

by Scott Mendelson

The interesting thing about the Green Lantern mythology is that it is full of characters who are equal to, if not superior to, our hero in any given story.  Sure, Batman may have (or once had re current continuity) the likes of Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl, Spoiler, Azrael, Huntress, and any number of others, everyone knows that Batman is the top dog in the Gotham vigilante scene.  But Green Lantern, whichever one we happen to be following at the moment (be it Hal Jordan, John Stewart, Kyle Rayner, Guy Gardner etc), is just one of a gigantic interplanetary police force.  Point being, the Green Lantern corps is a vast army that makes for rich storytelling potential, as you can pick anyone of those countless galactic cops and fashion a compelling narrative.  And that's just what this latest DCAU film happens to be.  Yes it technically stars Hal Jordan, but it is more about the deep and vast mythology within the Green Lantern corps itself, and the various heroes within.

A token amount of plot:  As the home planet of the Green Lantern Corps faces a battle with an ancient enemy, Hal Jordan (Nathan Fillion) prepares new recruit Arisia Rrab (Elizabeth Moss) for the coming conflict by relating stories of the first Green Lantern and several of Hal's comrades.  And that's basically the gist of it.  We get a look at the very first Green Lanterns, we get a look at Kilowog (Henry Rollins) and how be became such a bad-ass, we learn how Bolphunga (Roddy Piper) met the Green Lantern known as Mogo (Steve Blum), we get a look at Laira's (Kelly Hu) family complications, and we get a bit of back story on Abin Sur (Arnold Vooslo), which sees him teaming up with Sinestro (Jason Issacs) and debating the concept of destiny versus free will.  And finally we get the conclusion of the present-day threat, as the Green Lanterns combine their might to save the entire galaxy from a seemingly unstoppable foe.

Some of these stories are more engaging than the others, but all of them offer worthwhile peaks into the world of the Green Lantern corps.  For a novice such as myself, it works as a cliff notes primer on a few of the major Green Lantern characters and their general personalities.  I'm partial to the Kilowog and Abin Sur adventures, but you'll probably have your favorite as well.  All of these mini-epics are lushly animated, impeccably acted, and filled with the kind of big-scale action that the Bruce Timm-shepherded DCAU is known for.

For the record, Green Lantern: Emerald Knights is not in any way a continuation or a sequel to Green Lantern: First Flight, which was a fine film on its own.  Those overly excited by the idea of Nathan Fillion voicing Hal Jordan may be a little disappointed, as he mainly acts as the narrator to other Lanterns' adventures.  But for those primarily concerned about the film itself, this is one of the better DC Animated Movies to come down the pike.  It benefits from the rich mythology of its source, a longer-than-usual running time (at 84 minutes, it's the longest DCAU movie by about ten minutes), and the lack of constraints that comes from not being an adaptation of a known comic book arc.  Whether as a primer for the upcoming Martin Campbell Green Lantern film, or merely another set of Green Lantern adventures, Emerald Knights is a solid entry in a solid cannon.

Grade: B+    

The Blu Ray - Looks great, sounds great, etc.  As for the extras, they are the usual solid mix of infotainment and advertising.  Aside from the usual DVD copy and Digial Copy of the feature, we get a filmmaker's commentary, two Batman: the Brave and the Bold episodes, two 3-minute featurettes on certain characters (Abin Surin and Laira), a ten-minute 'first look' for the last DCAU movie (All Star Superman), and a ten-minute first look at the next DCAU movie (Batman: Year One).  As for that last bit, the new film looks promising in theory, but I'm curious how a film that is apparently non-stop voice-over narration will play out.  And as much as I constantly whine about how everyone credits Frank Miller with making Batman 'cool' again (he had been cool since 1969), I will confess that Miller certainly established Jim Gordon as a credible dramatic character.  Anyway, the two meatiest extras are two mini-documentaries.  "Only the Bravest: Tales of the Green Lantern Corps" is a solid 31-minute primer on the whole Green Lantern mythology.  The other meaty piece is the 18-minute "Why Green Lantern Matters: The Talent of Geoff Johns".  Both are fun, engaging and informative, although obviously they will be of more educational benefit if you know less about the characters going in.  Alas, there are no DC Presents short films this time around.

So we have a solid film, terrific presentation, and a decent selection of extras.  This is certainly recommended viewing, and a worthy purchase for fans of the character and the genre.

Hollywood Reporter thinks no R-rated film has opened to $100 million, can't quite recall, can't be bothered to check.

Yes, The Hangover 2 is tracking to perhaps be the first R-rated film to open at or above $100 million in a Fri-Sun 3-day weekend.  Of course, the film is opening on a Thursday and has a Memorial Day Monday, so we'll see how that impacts the numbers soon enough.  But The Hollywood Reporter can't be bothered to check if any R-rated film has ever opened to $100 million before (nor can they be bothered to state whether the proposed $110 million number is from the Fri-Sun portion, or the whole five-day opening).  Quote: "No R-rated film has ever opened to $100 million or greater at least none that anyone can remember."  Yes, the great and illustrious Hollywood Reporter couldn't spend 30 seconds on Box Office Mojo to look into the accuracy of that statement.  For the record, it is true.  The biggest 3-day R-rated opening was The Matrix Reloaded with $91.7 million.  That film also opened on a Thursday, which gave the film a $134 million four-day opening weekend.  The only other R-rated opening weekend to approach $100 million was the five-day opening weekend of The Passion of the Christ.  It opened on a Wednesday and grossed $125 million by Sunday, with $83 million of that coming from the traditional Fri-Sun weekend. I knew those box office numbers off the top of my head.  Call it a gift or a curse, but I have an uncanny knack for remembering box office numbers. But you know what, Hollywood Reporter, I LOOKED IT UP.  Ya know, just to be safe.  You damn-well should have too.  Oh, and the fact that we haven't had a $100 million opener since November doesn't mean we're in a slump!  It just means that $100 million openers are still rare enough for them to be newsworthy.

Scott Mendelson

The Muppets gets a teaser.

I'm genuinely impressed that Disney kept this offline the whole weekend.  I didn't even see a cruddy bootleg on YouTube, although I didn't look for one.  Obviously this trailer is a big tease, with the first 2/3 advertising a pretty terrible-looking romantic comedy before getting to the punchline.  I certainly hope the apparent absence of Statler and Waldorf doesn't portend to their absence in the film (they should have been the ones to reveal the gag), but otherwise this is an amusing tease.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Kung Fu Panda 2 (3D)

Kung Fu Panda 2
2011
90 minutes
rated PG

by Scott Mendelson

Kung Fu Panda 2 is a textbook example of how to do a sequel right.  It remembers that it is a second chapter and allows the characters to grow and change accordingly.  It does not make the main characters learn the same lesson for the second time, but rather gives them new obstacles and arcs to overcome.  It goes bigger but remembers to be better at the same time, and it carefully lays the groundwork for whatever might come next while succeeding as a stand-alone picture.  It is a laugh-out loud comedy, a thoughtful character drama, and a spectacular adventure.  Regardless of genre and regardless of its aspirations as kid-friendly entertainment, it isn't just a great cartoon, but a great film.

A token amount of plot: Po (Jack Black) has proven himself as the true Dragon Warrior and has taken his rightful place alongside the Furious Five.  But a new threat emerges in the form of Lord Shen (Gary Oldman), who wishes to take over China with the help of his new ultimate weapon (basically a giant cannon ball).  But as Po and the gang confront this new menace, Po is shocked to realize that Shen actually has ties to Po's past.  As Po attempts to piece together fragments of his forgotten childhood, Lord Shen makes his move against China fully aware that the mythical Dragon Warrior may be the only one who can stop him.

What works best in this picture is the sense that these characters remember that they lived through the first film.  Po and Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) share a deep friendship and a mutual respect, while Po no longer has to prove himself to the Furious Five. While Po spent much of the first film as a pratfalling clown, here he is a confident warrior to be reckoned with, and as a result the comedy is far more low-key and successful.  Most of the comedy is merely gentle mockery of action-film cliches, such as a climactic moment where Po makes a triumphant speech from a hilltop unaware that no one can hear him.  Because the humor is more ingrained within the action and drama, it is that much funnier.

Po's crisis in this film is not one of skill or self-confidence, but one of identity and family legacy.  In the first film Po had to discover what he is.  In this picture, he must discover who he is and how that defines him as a warrior, as a son, and as a friend.  Jack Black has most of the emotional heavy lifting to do this time around (in the first film, it was Dustin Hoffman who had the emotional arc), and he does not disappoint.  Say what you will about his mugging tendencies as a live-action actor, but animation suits him perfectly, allowing him to tone down his shtick and let the artwork be larger than life instead.  Po will likely go down as Jack Black's best and most interesting character.

Of the rest of the cast, Gary Oldman and James Hong shine brightest.  Hoffman has much less screentime compared to the first film, but he does make the most of it.  James Hong, a certified national treasure, continues to shine as Po's adopted father and his relationship with Po is what gives the movie its beating heart.  As evidenced in the first film, this film, and even in the terrific Thanksgiving TV special from last November, the long-term story is going to be one of the constant conflict between being a responsible adult and being there for your family, and Hong makes us care about that genuine conflict.    

Gary Oldman plays the villain of the piece, and like the first picture, his murderous antagonist is given a compelling back story that involves loved ones trying and failing to stop a young man's descent into evil.  The first film's villain brought to mind Anakin Skywalker (a flawed pupil whose teachers couldn't control him).  Lord Shen feels modeled after the likes of Kip Kinkel, as his Shen's parents tried and failed to tame his darkness and then were forced to lock him away when his actions surpassed even their worst fears.  In the present, Shen's arc is a darker variation on the Bowler Hat Guy from Meet the Robinsons.  It's unblinkingly thoughtful material for a family-friendly cartoon, but Oldman's character work pays off in the end.

The rest of the cast frankly doesn't get all that much to do.  Like the first film, the Furious Five is basically regulated to Po's back up crew, and Angelina Jolie gets the lion-share of dialogue amongst them.  Jean Claude Van Damme and Dennis Haysbert have brief cameos as imprisoned lords who believe that surrender is the better choice when fighting back may mean the slaughter of their people.  Shen has a surprisingly layered relationship with a Soothesayer, played with grace by Michelle Yeoh.  While not every character gets their moment to shine, they all work flawlessly as an ensemble cast, which provides the emotional oomph to the stunning action sequences.  There is a moment towards the end where we realize what a strong ensemble this series has created, and there is plenty of room to develop these characters in later chapters.

If the film has a flaw, it is that there is almost too much action (there are around three false endings).  But nearly every set piece scores in a visceral and narrative sense.  While the first film was an origin story that had only a handful of combat sequences, the sequel is a full-blown action picture.  The various fights, chases, and genuinely epic confrontations are all gloriously well-choreographed and staged, with a full sense of space and time throughout, plus emotional stakes that make them matter.  There is no need to spoil the various set-pieces, only to say that they are so visually dynamic that I'd almost recommend seeing it in 3D.

Oh yes, about that whole 3D-conundrum.  Dreamworks made it trickier for you this time.  Let me put it this way: The film will surely work just as well in 2D, but if you're inclined to splurge, you'll get your money's worth seeing Kung Fu Panda 2 in 3D (or IMAX 3D).  Even my wife, who loathes 3D as a matter of principle, was impressed by the high-flying effects work on display.  The animation is, per usual, eye-poppingly gorgeous, and the cityscapes and mountain tops look three-dimensional with or without the glasses.  There are several flashbacks in the picture, and nearly every one uses a different animation style and visual look (the opening prologue is basically a Chinese shadow puppet show), which works both stylistically and narratively.  This is a simply gorgeous-looking motion picture from beginning to end.                 

Jennifer Yuh Nelson's Kung Fu Panda 2 is a truly beautiful film in every way.  It is a visually dynamic adventure story, with low-key comedy that enhances the inherently sober drama.  The dynamic and exciting action sequences will likely rank among the year's best.  Jack Black and Gary Oldman play well off of each other, while Dustin Hoffman, James Hong, and Michelle Yeoh bring genuine class to the proceedings.  It is thoughtful, moving, and endlessly entertaining.  It is a textbook example of how to do a sequel that broadens the world while keeping the core mythology intact.  Jeffrey Katzenberg has claimed that he wants six Kung Fu Panda films.  If this first sequel is any indication, Yuh and her storytelling crew know exactly what they are doing and where they are going with this story.  Kung Fu Panda 2 is a terrific stand-alone film and a taking-off point for what could be a wonderful animated fable.

Grade: A

Weekend Box Office (05/22/11): Pirates 4 grosses $90m, Bridesmaids holds strong, Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris astonishes in limited bow

Just ten years ago next weekend, we saw pundits studio executives hand-wringing over the 'mere' $75 million four-day gross of Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor.  For some reason (oh, it's a three-hour period love story... it's EXACTLY like Titanic!!), studio executives were expecting a $100 million four-day total.  Nevermind that such a number had never been achieved before.  As I've written elsewhere, 2001 was the year that opening weekends went crazy, where $50 million became the new $35 million and $60 million became the new $40 million.  In the last nine years (starting in May 2002 of course), we've had 25 films with $100 million+ four-day totals and 18 films with $100 million+ three-day totals.  I bring this up because once again we are faced with a Disney blockbuster that is fighting off the assumption of failure because its opening weekend didn't approach record levels.  For the record, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides opened with $90 million this weekend.  That may not be as huge as the last two sequels, but it's a fine haul for a franchise that pretty much everyone agrees is washed up.  Let this be a lesson to Disney's Chuck Viane (who actually predicted a $100 million+ weekend): it's your job to LOWER expectations, not inflate them!

The film pulled a decent 2.57x weekend multiplier, with strong kid-driven matinée business leading the way.  It scored a B+ from Cinemascore, implying that movigoers have little-to-no standards.  The film grossed 5.1% of its weekend take from midnight screenings, which is basically the general norm these days.  Obviously the film opened far less than the last two films, which both opened to record numbers.  Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest opened with $135 million in July 2006, breaking the three-day record at the time.  In May 2007, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End grossed $153 million in 4.25 days (it had $13 million worth of Thursday evening sneaks), and its $114 million Fri-Sun haul is still the highest for a film not opening on standalone Fri-Sun weekend.  When you figure in inflation and the IMAX/3D ticket-price bump, On Stranger Tides had significantly lower audience attendance than the last two sequels, or just over half as many tickets sold as the first sequel.  Speaking purely for domestic figures, the likely scenario is similar to last year's Shrek: the Final Chapter, which also opened far lower than its predecessors but had a surprisingly strong hold.  A similar 3.3 weekend-to-final multiplier would give Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides a $304 million domestic finish, or about what the first and third films ended up with.

Worst case scenario?  Well, the movie is terrible and there are no moments that merit repeat business, and Shrek had a pretty weak Memorial Day slate to compete with (Prince of Persia and Sex and the City 2) and a nearly empty third weekend.  Pirates 4 has the one-two punch of the dynamite Kung Fu Panda 2 and yet unseen The Hangover II, plus the opening of X-Men: First Class on June 3rd.  So the 2.7 weekend-to-final multiplier of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End seems more likely, giving the new film a domestic finish of $244 million. Considering that Disney was basically selling nothing more than 'Jack Sparrow is back again', and basically advertising that it was offering a cheaper movie at a more expensive ticket price (the film played in 66% 3D engagements, yet only 44% of the tickets were 3D), they are lucky they opened as well as they did.

Still, as has been the case over the last few years, overseas numbers are carrying the day.  The fourth Pirates of the Caribbean film has already grossed another $256 million in overseas dollars (which is a record for overseas openings), giving the film a near-record $345 million worldwide total opening weekend (the top worldwide opening is the $393 million debut for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince).  So really, let's just move on to a movie whose domestic box office actually matters...  Bridesmaids had an incredible second-weekend hold, dropping just 20% for a $21 million second weekend and a $59 million ten day total.  That's a smaller drop than The Hangover (-27% in weekend two), The 40 Year Old Virgin (-24%), American Pie (-27%), and The Wedding Crashers (-24%).  Unless I'm forgetting something, you have to go back nearly thirteen years for a similar situation, where the R-rated There's Something About Mary dropped just 8% in weekend two.  It's too soon to predict that the Kristen Wiig vehicle will come close to the $175 million total of that Cameron Diaz sensation, but it pretty much guarantees that the funniest film of 2011 will make it to $100 million.  The big test of course will be how it fares against The Hangover II, which opens Thursday.

It also leapfrogged over Thor during the week, something it again achieved this weekend.  Still, weep not for the God of Thunder, as Thor grossed $15.5 million in its second weekend and ended its third weekend with a solid $145 million.  It's already near $400 million worldwide ($392 million).  Fast Five now sits at $186 million domestic, and it crossed the $500 million mark worldwide.  The Beaver expanded to 168 theaters but was DOA, with a $190,000 take for a mere $582,000 domestic total.  The other major story this weekend was the scorching limited debut of Woody Allen's Midnight In Paris.  The film opened on six screens, and grossed a jaw-dropping $96,000 per screen.  That is indeed Allen's best limited debut ever.  It's also the fifteenth-biggest per-screen average ever, the fifth biggest for anything on more than two screens, and the fifth biggest per-screen average for a live-action film.  Wow...

That's it for this weekend.  Join us over Memorial Day, when Paramount/Dreamworks unleashes Kung Fu Panda 2 (review coming soon) and Warner Bros releases The Hangover 2 (review Wed night/Thurs morning).  Until then, take care, keep reading and commenting.

Scott Mendelson

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides opening day collects $35 million, looks on course to $86 million weekend.

It's a $35 million opening Friday for Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.  That's expectedly below the opening Fridays for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($55 million - a record at the time) and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End ($42 million, despite $13 million in Thursday night sneaks).  The film pulled in about 13% of its Friday total in midnight screenings ($4.7 million), which is slightly less than the 16% midnight haul of Dead Man's Chest ($9 million of its $55 million Friday), even though Dead Man's Chest obviously pulled in more midnight cash overall.  Considering inflation and 3D/IMAX ticket price bumps, it stands to reason that attendance was way down compared to the prior sequels.  As it is, the second film (the only prior entry up to now with a pure Fri-Sun opening weekend) had a 2.4x weekend multiplier, which led to a then-record $135 million opening weekend.  If the sequel follows suit, we get the predicted $86 million opening haul.  The third film is a more difficult comparison.  If you purely count Fri-Sun, it had a 2.7 weekend multiplier ($114 million for Fri-Sun), which would give the fourth film $96 million for the weekend.  But At World's End made $13 million on those Thursday night sneaks, meaning that it basically made $56 million on its first 1.25 days.  Using that, it means that the film pulled in over 1/2 its opening weekend in just the first 1.25 days (and then it did another $25 million on Memorial Day Monday).  So the safest bet is to split the pure Fri-Sun difference, hope for strong kiddie-driven matinée attendance (poor kids...), and guess a 2.55 weekend multiplier, which will give the film $89 million for the weekend, good enough for 2011's top opening haul thus far.  In better news for humanity, Bridesmaids only dropped about 18% from last weekend (about $6 million), setting it on course for a $20 million second weekend.

Scott Mendelson    

Another week, another Green Lantern trailer: this one in 3D. Well in theaters it's 3D, here it's just 2D (but with a decent amount of new footage).

Apparently the 3D effects for this trailer looked pretty spectacular in theaters.  That makes me awfully happy, as I really want to see this early but don't want to settle for an inferior presentation.  There is actually quite a bit of new footage here, even if we seem to be seeing much of the finale (including the apparent death of a major villain) right there in the trailer.  There are a few new bits of Reynolds actually doing the whole superhero thing in costume, so that's a relief.  Still, the actual 'Hal makes a glowing green car or a glowing green machine gun' scenes are going to be where dramatic credibility is lost (or absolutely affirmed).  This one has just under a month to go, which means Warner has time for at least a half dozen more trailers.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Transformers: Dark of the Moon gets a 3D trailer (in 2D here of course).

So much for a new Transformers 3 trailer giving us a reason to see Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides in 3D.  There is only a smattering of new footage here, but it still looks pretty spectacular.  I still love the music that plays over the last half of the footage, I still laughed out loud that the trailer seemingly gives away the last scene in the film, as well as the conclusion to the series.  Anyway, there is not much else to say other than 'enjoy' and anyone know where I can find that Muppet Movie trailer that was supposed to be debut this morning?

Scott Mendelson

Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - A 2D 35mm Experience

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
2011
137 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Rob Marshall's Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is arguably the movie most of us thought we were getting back in summer 2003 with Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.  It is a weightless, thoughtless, undisciplined, and juvenile bore.  It replaces plot and character with non-stop frantic action that provides little entertainment value because there are no clear stakes.  Unlike the first picture, it gives us no characters worth caring about and no story worth following.  Unlike the bloated but surreal, challenging, and ambitious sequels, it lacks any kind of cinematic life, feeling less like a big-screen extension of the mythology than a made-for-TV pilot reboot.  It is the very definition of half-assed cash-in.  Eight summers ago, the initial exploits of Will Turner, Elizabeth Swann, and Jack Sparrow surprised us by being a real film that happened to be based on a Disney theme-park ride.  This fourth installment can't even hold a candle to The Haunted Mansion or The Country Bears.

A token amount of plot: Will and Elizabeth Turner have found their ten-year delayed happy ending (the epilogue in At World's End implied that Will's curse would be broken if Elizabeth stayed faithful), so Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are nowhere to be found (and very much missed).  As such, comic supporting foil Jack Sparrow (the sad and embarrassed Johnny Depp) is promoted to the would-be heroic lead this time around.  As hinted at in the third film's finale, this picture centers on a quest for the Fountain of Youth.  While Sparrow seemed set on finding it at the end of that film, here he has no interest until he is shanghaied by the fearsome Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and his daughter Angelica (Penelope Cruz).  Also racing to find this fabled treasure is Sparrow's old friend/nemesis Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), who has given up his pirate ways and has been hired by England, along with a fleet from Spain.  Mixed into this quest is the noble pastor Philip (Sam Caflin), who becomes torn after Blackbeard begins kidnapping mermaids in order to extract their tears (which is key to finding the treasure).    

Alas, my fears of Jack Sparrow: ROMANTIC LEAD/ACTION HERO are relatively true (think a Shrek sequel starring Donkey).  Frankly, the daffy Jack Sparrow had already worn out his welcome by the third picture, as the return of Barbossa provided the gritty comic relief that was more appropriate for the dark and bleak finale (killed off at the conclusion of Dead Man's Chest, Jack should have stayed dead).  Sparrow is forced to dial back his off-the-cuff absurdities and observations, and most of his wacky behavior consists of merely taking pratfalls from very long heights.  His would-be romantic past with Anglica is constantly referenced and emphasized in dialogue but never shown or convincingly displayed.  With no chemistry between Depp and Cruz, one can only presume that it's romance-by studio demand.  It's either because someone high up said 'Let's give him a girl this time!' or Disney execs were somehow concerned that conservative audiences were taking Depp's 'Jack Sparrow is gay!' comments seriously.  Despite his star-turn this time around, Depp oddly finds himself absent or on the sidelines for much of the picture and with no real role in the overall outcome of the story.  It's as if Depp politely reminded everyone once on set that Sparrow was not the lead character (at best, he's the Han Solo of the series), and no real backup plan was in place.

Besides, the film already has a halfhearted romantic subplot, as Phillip finds himself falling for a captured mermaid (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) in an obvious case of "Gee, we need some random young heartthrobs to put on a poster since Bloom and Knightley aren't around!".  Blackbeard is a dreadfully dull villain, constantly exclaiming his own evil but rarely acting on it.  McShane certainly can't compete with the sexually-threatening charm of Geoffrey Rush's original Barbossa and the oozing anger of Bill Nighy's Davey Jones (sadly, Nighy gave a better performance with only his eyes than McShane gives without any special effects impediments).  As for Barbossa, Rush is almost as neutered as Jack this time around.  Although the film very briefly comes to life during a brief moment where Jack and Hector are reunited for a common goal, and you'll find yourself wishing that Disney just did a buddy picture with Depp and Rush.  Berges-Frisbey plays imperiled and Caflin does noble, faith-based romantic, but charm escapes both of them throughout.  Even Cruz, stuck having to swoon and flirt with a character with whom she has no chemistry, fares poorly here, shows once again how often American filmmakers cast her purely as a piece of meat.  We're constantly told that she is a rough-and-tumble pirate who is as tricky as she is beautiful, but she cannot hold a candle to Elizabeth Turner's fleshed-out piracy.  Frankly, she is yet another 'strong willed, independent, feisty' female lead who is constantly at the mercy of the men throughout the film.

Despite their reputation as full-on adventure pictures, none of Gore Verbinski's Pirates of the Caribbean films are what anyone would consider non-stop action. Each film has around three major set pieces inside a 2-3 hours worth of story and character development. In fact, if there was anything that the first three films were known for, it was their overabundance of plot. While everyone swore this one would be simpler, the film is still endlessly padded with various subplots and/or rules that stretch out the film by a good third.  Much of the dialogue consists of exposition, either of the plot up to now, the plot going forward, or the various intricacies that must be acknowledged.  The rest is painfully on-the-nose character exposition that painfully states the character arcs that our heroes and villains are allegedly partaking in.  I'd blame screenwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, but the film feels so unlike the previous three films that I can only presume that directorial mismanagement and/or studio edict played the key role in the lifeless storytelling (oh how I hope they chime in for a commentary on the DVD, as they did with parts I and II).

And in the place of knotty narrative, twisty character turns, and sliding scales of morality is mere incident. Chases, fights, escapes, and unimpressive action carry the day, with none of the theatrical verve that Verbinski brought to the set pieces back in the day.  There is nothing in this film that equals the unending sword fight atop a giant spinning wheel in Dead Man's Chest, or the epic rain-soaked battle at sea in the finale of At World's End, or even the character-driven sword-fight meetup between Will Turner and Jack Sparrow in the opening act of Curse of the Black Pearl.  Ironically, it is in the action scenes that Marshall's musical background becomes a hindrance.  Like any number of musicals, the film stops dead in its narrative tracks whenever an action sequence is required, only to often pick back up again with little of consequence having occurred.  

It's no secret that I think Marshall is an overrated filmmaker, having got by on the talents of his actors (Renée Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Richard Gere, Queen Latifah, John C. Reilly, etc) and writer Bill Condon in Chicago and then botched Memoirs of a Geisha and Nine.  But his bare competence here is truly shocking.  While there is a token amount of practical stunt work, there is no imaginative staging or blocking for any of the pointless action sequences on display.  We have a complete lack of visual poetry in a big budget adventure film set in a jungle.  We have the entire film, perhaps due to shooting in 3D video, looking like ugly high-def.  Most of the film takes place at night, so I can only imagine how much darker and uglier it looks in 3D.  Gone are the rich colors and vibrant cinematography from the previous films, replaced with murky grays and ugly hues.  Again, one could blame Dariusz Wolski, but he also shot the previous three films, so one can only wonder why this film looks and feels like a direct-to-DVD spin-off of the prior trilogy (perhaps, again, shooting on location with the 3D Red camera was an issue).

Say what you will about the original Pirates of the Caribbean films, but they were artistically inspired bits of popcorn entertainment. They were filled with high adventure, multi-dimensional characters, an overstuffed plot (that still more-or-less made sense), and an amorality that set it apart from the usual blockbuster fare.  The original trilogy was only guilty of trying too much, of having more movie than perhaps we are accustomed to (it may have also been a War-On-Terror metaphor, natch).  So while the original films were flawed, their flaws were born out of artistic ambition and experimentation.  Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a film born of laziness, half-hearted check-cashing, and borderline incompetence.  It turns wild-card Jack Sparrow into a borderline straight man and gives him no one to bounce off of.  It replaces two romantic leads who some (wrongly) claimed were dull with an entire cast of dullards.  It is the first film of the series that truly feels like it was based off a theme park attraction, and it is about as exciting as an episode of Disney's Jake and the Neverland Pirates.

Grade: D

Note: Am I harsher on this film because Disney has tried to sell this film by bashing the previous films and convincing those of us who enjoyed them that we were mistaken?  Damn right I am.  Am I harsher on this film because Disney has been implicitly trashing original director Gore Verbinski in order to sell Rob Marshall as an upgrade?  Damn right I am.  You don't trash the previous films in a given series as a means of selling audiences on the next sequel only to deliver a machine-produced piece of thoughtless, witless, audience-insulting garbage that does nothing more than make you feel guilty for ever saying a harsh word about Dead Man's Chest or At World's End.  It is a clear case of failing to try, and its likely blockbuster success is a clear case of audiences being taken for granted.