Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Last word on Sucker Punch, as the director's cut comes to Blu Ray. It's what we claim we want, but we couldn't see past the surface.

Zach Snyder made perhaps the ultimate thesis project on the wholesale objectification of women in popular culture, especially in modern geek culture, and how women feel the need to use those tools of objectification in order to achieve some semblance of would-be independence.  Sucker Punch smashed open the absurd notions that girls wearing short-shorts and arbitrarily doing violence is somehow empowering, when in fact those images are almost designed to be titillating to the male gaze.  It was (and is even more so in the longer, more fluid director's cut which restores the original Jon Hamm finale) a sad, mournful, borderline hopeless saga of five young girls who are imprisoned against their will, exploited for their sexuality, and then forced to use the tools of that exploitation in a feeble attempt to escape the clutches of male oppression.  It is about exploitation and it is about titillation.  Yet our nation's critics and audience members couldn't see past the very tools that Snyder was mocking (the mini-skirts, the pigtails, the larger-than-life CGI-infused action) to see what was a borderline art film.

Had the same film been made in France, it would have been hailed as a masterpiece.  Here the American filmmaker, one who has never really indulged in the openly misogynistic practices of his cohorts, was somehow crowded king of the woman haters for making a movie that tried to deal with the taken-for-granted sexual objectification of the 'fairer sex' in culture.  It is a big budget studio picture filled with provocative and challenging ideas.  It is a big budget studio film where the action is flawlessly choreographed and seamlessly edited, creating at least three all-time classic action set pieces.  It is a big budget studio picture that not only stars women but is explicitly about women.  It is everything we say we want from our mainstream entertainments.  Yet we critics couldn't see past the surface level elements and called the film sexist, infantile, and misogynistic.  Which is of course true, if you would also call Blazing Saddles racist and Borat anti-Semitic.  If we can't appreciate a flawed but fascinating film like Sucker Punch (which isn't exactly subtle about its themes), then we don't deserve any ideas at all in our pop entertainment.  Sucker Punch: the most challenging studio film of 2011, with easily the best large-scale action of its kind in recent history.

Scott Mendelson  

Trailer: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy showcases old-school thrills with character actors (Gary Oldman! John Hurt!) galore!

I have not read the John le Carre novel that this film is based on.  But just the cast (Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Thomas Hardy, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, etc!), the director (Tomas Alfredson, who helmed the original Let the Right One In), and genre (old-school spy thriller!) puts this one near the top of the must-see list.  We can all decry the unending parade of remakes, sequels, and fantasy films, especially in the summer time.  But as long as stuff like this is still being made and being given a wide release, then the game is not lost.  Let us hope that John Hurt provides the exposition, while Gary Oldman again plays with low-key anguish, which has become his strength of late.  And since I have not read the novel or seen the 1979 miniseries, I do not know if the film continues the classic Gary Oldman tradition.  Ironically, Focus Features is putting it out on November 18th, against Happy Feet 2 and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I.  So while it won't win its opening weekend, it will likely far outpace its rivals on the Tomato-Meter.  

Scott Mendelson

Is Richard Lester available? Disney and Marvel press ahead with Thor 2 for summer 2013, without director Kenneth Branagh.

Well, it looks like summer 2013 is the one where we find out how much the Marvel franchises truly depend on their would-be auteurs.  The summer will kick off with Iron Man 3 (directed not by Jon Favreau but by Shane Black) opens on the same first-weekend in May slot the previous two have debuted in.  And Disney announced today that Thor 2 is scheduled for July 26th, 2013.  The big news is that while star Chris Hemsworth will be back, original helmer Kenneth Branagh will not (Natalie Portman is contracted for a sequel, but we'll see if she makes the choice to return).  This is a surprise to say the least.  This is not a case like the Iron Man franchise, where Jon Favreau butted heads with Marvel throughout the sequel and decided to quit at two.  This isn't a case like Green Lantern, where Martin Campbell found himself a bit over his head with the whole green-screen/CGI action department and will probably fall on the sword for the movie's poor box office (Warner Bros' new habit of micromanaging didn't help either).  Thor withstood a weak marketing campaign and ended up with a rock-solid $437 million worldwide, earning relatively solid reviews in the process.  I don't wish to speculate and will only say that I hope that Branagh's choice to move on was merely a case of not wanting to get tied to the franchise, and not another case of penny-pinching by Marvel or some kind of corporate decision by Disney (which takes over the previously-Paramount owned Marvel films after Captain America).  Anyone want to offer suggestions or guess the release date?  As for replacement directors, it's the same list I always have: Sophia Coppola, Werner Herzog, and Terrence Malick.

Scott Mendelson      

New (and slightly silly) international Captain America poster again sells Steve Rogers unmasked, highlights supporting ensemble.

This time around, it's the supporting cast that merits notice.  They are (roll call!): J.J. Feild as James Montgomery Farnsworth, Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes, Tommy Lee Jones as Col. Chester Phillips, Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter, and Neal McDonough as Dum Dum Dugan. I didn't even realize McDonough was in this picture.  Obviously that big red head watching them is Hugo Weaving as The Red Skull.  And oddly missing from this ensemble is Stanley Tucci.  As for the art itself, it's a bit goofy, but A) it captures the gee-wiz adventure that's been a cornerstone of the ad campaign thus far and B) it's still better than the awful Batman-centric Dark Knight posters from three years back (where the main poster art had a giant wheel as its center of attention).  Anyway, Captain America drops on July 22nd, so expect to start seeing long-lead screenings sometime towards the end of next week, with resulting reviews to start leaking just in time to try to steal geek press away from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II.  I'm sure I'll see it at the All-Media on the Monday or Tuesday before opening, like all the other 'regular critics'.

Scott Mendelson

Cheap but funny: Ben Churchill mashes up No Strings Attached, Friends With Benefits into a single trailer.

This may be cheap (I'm sure you can do this with any number of movies that happen to have a similar premise), but the result is a genuine hoot.  No Strings Attached was relatively okay, a C+ picture that merits a DVD rental and at least tried to have something worthwhile on its mind.  Here's hoping the seemingly bawdier Friends With Benefits at least reaches those heights.  The latter comes out July 22nd.

Scott Mendelson

Box Office (06/29/11): With 60% sold in 3D, Transformers: Dark of the Moon nets $42.7m first day (including Tues-sneaks). It's looks like a $180m 6-day weekend.

Okay, so my arbitrary predictions stemming from yesterday's $13.5 million worth of advance-night and midnight screenings was off by about $10 million.  The third Transformers picture grossed $37.2 million on its first full day, which accounts for $8 million worth of midnight shows but not $5.5 million worth of 9pm advance screenings the evening before.  So the official 'first day' total for Transformers: Dark of the Moon is $42.7 million.  By itself, the $37.2 million number is the sixth-biggest Wednesday of all-time, and the biggest single day of 2011 so far.  That is about $24 million behind the $62 million opening day (with $16 million worth of midnight grosses) for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.  And it is about $6 million ahead of the first day ($27.8 million opening Tuesday plus $8.8 million worth of advance-night sneaks) of the first Transformers back over this same long holiday in 2007.  The first Transformers had a six day opening weekend of sorts, opening on Monday at 8pm and plowing through the whole Fourth of July week with about $155 million in the can by the time Sunday night rolled around.  Dark of the Moon has a similar situation, opening on a Wednesday, but having that holiday Monday that Transformers apparently did not have (I say apparently because the Monday gross plummeted 55% from Sunday, which is unusual for a holiday Monday).  The film scored an A from Cinemascore, with 55% of the audience being under 25. It also played 62% male.  With audience satisfaction higher this time around (Revenge of the Fallen had a B+) and those IMAX (more in number than for Revenge of the Fallen) and 3D screens (which made up a whopping 60% of the tickets yesterday) factored in, we should see a similar long-weekend multiplier to the first Transformers (4.3x its opening 1.25 days).  So offhand, we're looking like a six-day weekend total of about $180 million.  Although Paramount would love to get it over the $183.6 million six-day mark, so as to become the third-biggest six-day total ever (behind Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with $214 million and The Dark Knight with $224 million).

Scott Mendelson

Transformers: Dark of the Moon scores $13.5 million in Tuesday night and midnight sneaks. What does it mean for the long weekend?

Oh boy, it's time for more midnight math! The Frances McDormand/John Malkovich/John Turturro epic  Transformers: Dark of the Moon grossed $13.5 million last night.  That includes $5.5 million worth of advance-night (9pm) screenings and $8 million worth of midnight showings.  That number is just a bit under the $16 million that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen grossed in pure midnight screenings two years ago.  And it's about 50% larger than the $8.8 million that the original Transformers earned with its advance night + midnight screenings over this same uber-long weekend back in 2007.  There is actually quite a bit of comparison calculations possible, since both prior films opened over a six day weekend of sorts (the second film did the normal Wed-Sun non-holiday weekend, but with massive midnight totals that basically are equal to the third film's advance-night performance).  So, the first film opened with $8.8 million in Monday-night sneaks, then made $27 million on its first full day and ended its official Tuesday-to-Sunday six-day weekend with $155.4 million (5.6% of that came from advance-night screenings).  The sequel earned $62 million on its first full day, with $16 million of that coming from midnight showings, and went on to earn $200 million over its Wednesday-to-Monday five-day sprint (8% of that came from midnight screenings).  So where does this leave Transformers: Dark of the Moon?

Glad you asked (and if you didn't ask, why are you still reading this?).  Anyway, If Transformers 3 follows the same slow-and-steady run of the first Transformers (it basically averaged about $27 million per day following a $27 million opening Tuesday), the third film will score about $240 million by Monday night.  That's an obscene number and sequels tend to be far more frontloaded than the originals.  So let's presume it hews closer to the first sequel.  If the film follows the somewhat more frontloaded path of Revenge of the Fallen, it will end Monday night with about $170 million, or right in line with studio projections.  So game over, Transformers: Dark of the Moon will gross about $170 million over six days, right?  Maybe, but it's not quite that simple.

But this is where the five-day opening weekend versus six-day opening weekend complicates things.  The $16 million worth of midnight screenings were included in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen's opening day.  Take that out (as you arguably did with Transformers and will with Transformers: Dark of the Moon's gross today), and you get a Wednesday gross for Revenge of the Fallen of $46 million.  With this comparison, Dark of the Moon is on track to earn about $41 million in pure-Wendesday grosses.  So add $41 to today's $13.5 million and you get a $54.5 million 'opening day', which of course is pretty close to the $62 million earned by Transformers 2 on its opening day.  So take the $170 million allegedly to be earned by Transformers: Dark of the Moon, remember that it's a six-day weekend and not a five-day weekend like Revenge of the Fallen.  So take $170 million, divide it by five, take that difference ($34 million) and multiply IT by six days.  That gives you a six-day opening weekend of $204 million.  Take that 204 + 170 and divide the answer by two, and you get $187 million for six days.  And that is where I believe the third Transformers film will end its sixth day by the time the last Fourth-of-July firework goes off.  But this is all just fun with math.  We'll know more (much more) when the opening day numbers come in.

Scott Mendelson       

First look at Anne Hathaway as Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises? No, but this 2004 pic offers a preview of an Ed Brubaker/Darwyn Cooke-inspired design.

If the interview over at Hollywood Life is to be believed, it looks like Christopher Nolan is once again taking his cues from Ed Brubaker, at least visually.  Batman Begins took a healthy mix of Ed Brubaker (the overriding decency of Bruce Wayne), Greg Rucka (the police procedural viewpoint), and Frank Miller (the Batman/Gordon relationship from Batman: Year One), while The Dark Knight borrowed from pretty much the same sources, but more overtly using the work of Ed Brubaker (The Man Who Laughs) and the Ed Brubaker/Greg Rucka story "Soft Targets" from the Gotham Central book back in 2003.  Since Chris Nolan is including Selina Kyle this time around, it is only natural that he again use the template instigated by Ed Brubaker's relaunch of the character back in 2001.  The costume itself was designed by Darwyn Cooke.  As I've stated many times before, Brubaker's 37-issue run on Catwoman remains some of the best stuff DC Comics published over the last decade.  That Nolan may agree with this sentiment makes me that much more excited about whatever Nolan has in store for the series finale.

Scott Mendelson

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol trailer looks visually dynamite, but desperately needs that classic M:I theme music.

The visuals are dynamite, the action looks terrific (and mostly practical), and everyone looks glad to be there (Tom Cruise looks positively charged being back in familiar territory).  But oh goodness, that Eminem song has no business being in a Mission: Impossible trailer.  If anyone has the time to remix the trailer with the old-school music, I'll post it in a heartbeat.  I do wonder how the plot will tie in with Ethan Hunt's status as a married retiree at the end of Mission: Impossible III, but for now the plot (the team goes into action after the head of IMF is accused of raping a... oh wait, wrong IMF) seems compelling and the stunts feel relatively old-school.  There's a bit more fisticuffs than we're used to from this series, but then the reason I like the franchise is that they get a new and distinctive director every time out of the gate.  This time, it's Brad Bird.  He gave us the best non-Disney cartoon of the 1990s (The Iron Giant), the best superhero action picture of the 2000s (The Incredibles) and one of the best Pixar films of the 2000s (Ratatouille) to boot.  So yeah, he has our trust.  This one comes out December 16th, 2011, although I sincerely expect it to move to summer 2012 as Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is opening on the exact same day.  But whenever this one is released, mission is most definitely accepted.

Scott Mendelson    

REVIEW: Transformers: Dark of the Moon (3D) is the Transformers movie you've always wanted (for better or worse), complete with political subtext.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon
2011
154 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

On a relative scale, the third time is the charm for the Michael Bay robot-smashing series.  This second sequel  basically gives us the apocalyptic Transformers epic we've been waiting for since 2007.  That which was annoying about the previous two films is still present here, but in more sensible doses.  We still have needlessly campy humor.  We still have Shia LeBeouf trying to wring sympathy from a genuinely obnoxiously-written lead character.  We still have a needless female lead who exists purely to be ogled.  But this time we get a story that takes itself seriously.  We get a narrative that makes a token amount of sense and shows something almost resembling discipline.  And when the action comes, it does deliver the goods.  At long last, Michael Bay gives us a healthy helping of robot-on-robot smackdowns.  The problems with the previous two films are still there, but they are that much easier to forgive because we finally get what we actually came for in a Transformers movie.


A token amount of plot: Despite having saved the world from Decepticon destruction twice, Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) still remains underemployed three months after college.  Sure he's got a new girlfriend (Rosie Hunginton-Whiteley), but he's fed up with having to beg for scraps when he feels he should be working with the Autobots and their covert missions on a regular basis.  But fate intervenes when Decepticon forces assassinate a senior employee at Sam's office, which leads Sam into a whole new Decepticon plot involving the Apollo space missions and the long-lost Sentinel Prime (Leonard Nimoy).  Can Sam help the US government put the pieces together in time to prevent another Decepticon strike?  And what will happen to our world if they fail?

From the outset, it appears that Bay and company are crafting a more complicated narrative that nonetheless can be told in a simple and straightforward fashion.  More importantly, the stakes are clearly spelled out (and viciously demonstrated) before the final action blow out.  While we still have to sit through about 70 minutes of 'character' and set-up, it is far less painful than before because the picture goes out of its way to make Optimus Prime and his cohorts into genuine supporting characters this time around.  You'll cheer when the Autobots and/or Frances McDormand (as the official government figurehead this time around) show up, and then you'll cringe when the film cuts to Shia LeBeouf being an obnoxious jackass (he alternates between being painfully unprofessional in job interviews and being borderline abusively-jealous of his girlfriend's millionaire boss).  But there is a genuine logic to the story progression this time around, and when the pieces click into place you won't regret having waited it out.  And you get to pass the time watching John Malkovich eat the scenery and swallow it whole, which is always fun (and Alan Tudyk earns some honest laughs as a flamingly gay bad-ass who is quite comfortable in his own skin).

But after that first hour, it's all uphill from there.  The film hits us with a couple genuinely surprising plot twists and allows about 30 minutes of 'really bad stuff' happening before we're off to the races.  Those of us wanting a 'darker, more serious' Transformers movie may wonder if we had the right idea as we're presented with a kid-targeted 80s action figure adventure showing countless innocents are blown to pieces and burned to death onscreen as bloodied children race through the streets trying to avoid their parents' fates.  It's a sobering few moments that will bring to mind Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds if not a certain real life mass murder that happened just under ten years ago.  But to the film's credit, the impact of those moments give the finale a gravity that it otherwise would not have had, and the humor from that point on is kept to a bare minimum.  Also helping the 'emotional impact' of the final hour is a score that seems taken straight from the Inception trailer (the powerful Zack Hemsy stuff).  As last summer's deluge of Inception trailer mashups proved, putting that music to pretty much anything will make it emotionally compelling.  It may be cheating, but it works.  And to be fair, composer Steve Jablonsky knows just when to use the sweeping Transformers theme for maximum effect.

Oh wait, you wanted to hear about the action and special effects?  Right... Yes, the entire final hour is pretty much one non-stop action sequence, as Decepticon forces decimate a major US city and our heroes try to sneak in to prevent further invasion and destruction.  Yes, again there is too much 'soldiers and human heroes running from explosions', but I've come to terms with the fact that robot-smashing is really expensive and they have to make a little go a long way.  And there is a sizable increase in both the quantity and quality of said robot smackdowns.  There is no single scene as impressive as the forest fight scene in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but there are countless smaller moments that offer genuine robot-driven thrills.  And this is easily the best live-action 3D film since Avatar, arguably even more impressive as so much of the film was practical as opposed a mostly-CGI animated world.  The film looks so bright that you need those 3D glasses so as to not hurt your eyes.  And frankly, this is a rare case of a director who benefits from being forced(?) to shoot in 3D.  Due to having to shoot on 3D film (yay!  film!), Michael Bay slows down quite a bit, giving us long, wide, and fluid takes which really shows off both the astonishing robot effects work and the exquisite action choreography in play.  My only regret is that the press screening was not in IMAX.  If you go, splurge for the 3D.  If you can, DO see it in IMAX.

Put simply, Transformers: Dark of the Moon gives us arguably the biggest-scale action ever to be set on planet Earth (as opposed to Middle Earth).  And intermixed with the scenes of our human pals racing to and from danger are just enough applause-worthy robot duels to satisfy.  More so than in the previous films, the robots really do take center stage once the action kicks in.  Optimus Prime actually gets a dramatic scene or two mixed in the chaos this time around.  We may carp at the middle-school comedy and the open leering over Hunginton-Whiteley (who neither distinguishes nor embarrasses herself and who feels much more comfortable being obviously exploited than Fox).  But the film delivers where it damn-well must.  While Optimus again proves not as capable as you think, and Megatron really gets the shaft this time around, there indeed remains a copious amount of impressive robot action.  The sight of dozens of robots laying waste to humans and fellow robots in the middle of Chicago is genuinely dazzling, and there are scenes in that last act that should be framed and hung on a wall.  If this picture doesn't win the Best Special Effects Oscar, well it wouldn't be the first time (none of the Star Wars prequels won either, Transformers lost to The Golden Compass, and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen didn't even get nominated).

And for those who would accuse this film of being an empty-headed spectacle, you would be wrong.  This film, and really the whole Transformers trilogy, has been Michael Bay's epic parable for 'Why we were right to invade Iraq and/or Afghanistan and why we should never leave'.  Like the previous two films, there are several scenes of Optimus Prime monologuing about how the Autobots (cough-America-cough) cannot leave Earth (cough-the Middle East-cough) even if Earth (cough-the Middle East or the Anti-War left-cough) wants them to leave, because they know that the Decepticons (cough-the Taliban or Al Qaeda-cough) will return and unleash hell if they do.  Bay doesn't name names per-se, as we don't hear Obama being criticized this time around and we see the (presumably) Tea Party-led Congress voting to basically capitulate at the halfway mark.  That you or I may disagree with this line of thinking does not negate the fact that Bay did infuse these big-budget robot epics with a genuine social and political viewpoint.  And frankly, I'd rather a film be infused with a point of view that I disagree with than not have any point of view at all.

So in the end, Michael Bay finally delivers what was promised.  Transformers: Dark of the Moon is an eye-popping audio/visual sensation that gives us a level of spectacle matched only by James Cameron, Peter Jackson, and John Woo (yes, you should rent Red Cliff).  In a weird way, through its more-is-more philosophy, it takes us back to a time when special effects could genuinely impress us, and studios were proud of their enormous budgets because every dollar was obviously onscreen.  Despite its human-scale issues, it remains a vast improvement over the first two whiffs.  It earns points for actually having a political subtext that can be discussed, even if its one I vehemently disagree with.  I hated Transformers.  I really hated Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.  And I genuinely enjoyed Transformers: Dark of the Moon.  For better or worse, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is the Transformers film you've always wanted to see.  And if you never wanted to see a Transformers film in the first place, well, here's hoping that Tree of Life (which also has some breathtaking effects work) has expanded to your area this weekend.

Grade: B

For 2.5 hours, Transformers was my favorite film of 2007...

I kinda hated the first Transformers.  Yes, it was a more disciplined and coherent picture than the Revenge of the Fallen, but it had many of the same problems that critics and fans only seemed to notice two years later.  It was chock-full not with robot-smashing action, but with half-hearted attempts at character development, first-grade humor, and ungodly of 'plot' that had no pay off and never really mattered by the time the third act rolled around.  I didn't care about whether or not Sam Witwicky would 'man up' and win the heart/vagina of Mikaela Banes (the same 'Can the nerd get the hot girl next door?' plot was frankly done far better in LeBeouf's Disturbia just two months earlier).  I didn't care about the campy antics of hackers Glen Whitmman (Anthony Anderson again proving that he's a good dramatic actor but a terrible comic one) and Maggie Madsen.  And most importantly, I was stunned by the lack of actual robot-on-robot action sequences.  Optimus Prime doesn't show up until 70 minutes into the film, Megatron doesn't appear until about 100 minutes in, and the first Optimus Prime action scene goes down a full 110 minutes into the 140 minute picture.  I spent most of the film waiting for the actual Autobots vs. Decepticons action.  And even when it came in act three, the film spent more time showing Jon Voight blasting bugs with a shotgun than showing Optimus Prime and Megatron going at it.  But then, I had my first child...

No, having a child didn't open my eyes to the innocence and wonder of the first Transformers or some rubbish like that.  The thing you have to understand about Allison is that she never slept.  Ever.  After that initial week or two, she pretty much had to be tricked into taking a nap during the day.  She also didn't like Transformers either, as her unborn self violently kicked my wife's belly in protest during the screening (she did the same thing when forced to watch Grease 2... wouldn't you?).  So, anyway, when the film came out on DVD in November, I ended up renting the HD-DVD.  I did this mainly because it seemed like I was one of the only filmgoers that summer who didn't like Transformers, and I thought I owed it a second chance.  Also, I wanted to see what a top-notch HD-DVD presentation looked like.  So, I tossed the film into the player and turned on the commentary and hoped for a moment of clarity (same thing I hope for whenever I watch The Goonies).  Within the first five minutes, my daughter was asleep.  She stayed asleep.  Logging what was then her longest nap ever (it's still in the top five), my three-month old daughter zonked out for a solid 145 minutes.  The film still stunk the second time around, but for two-and-a-half glorious hours, my pick for my least favorite film of 2007 became the best gosh-darned movie of the year.

Scott Mendelson          

PS - As for Dark of the Moon, I'll let you know if the third time really is the charm early this evening.

Trailer: Pixar's Brave looks gorgeous, announces 'Don't give up on us!"

Unless my daughter wants to see it (so far, she does not), I doubt I'll be seeing Cars 2 in theaters.  Having said that, I have a tough time believing it is THAT bad.  I'm wondering if the reviews would have been quite as harsh if A) it weren't a sequel, B) it didn't star Larry the Cable Guy, and C) it wasn't being released on the tail-end of a four-year Pixar masterpiece streak.  Whatever the case, John Lasseter wanted to make Cars 2, and now he has that out of his system.  This gorgeous and moody teaser basically announces in the same breath: "No no, we're still in this for real."  Not much to say, as this is allegedly Pixar's attempt to play in the Lord of the Rings sandbox.  Yes, it's the first Pixar film with a female lead.  Yes, the film's first (female) director, Brenda Chapman, was replaced by Mark Andrews.  The film as it stands looks like a visual marvel, and we'll see when it drops on June 22nd, 2012.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (06/26/11): Cars 2 soars, Bad Teacher sets Diaz record, Green Lantern collapses.

To the surprise of no one, a Pixar picture topped the box office in its debut weekend, making it 12/12 since 1995.  Cars 2 (or as I like to call it: "Finally, a Pixar movie that won't make you violently sob in front of your children!") weathered some surprisingly savage reviews to still debut with $66.1 million over the weekend.  The opening is the fifth biggest in the studio's history, behind the $68.1 million debut of Up (it's at $109 million worldwide thus far).  The film had a low (for animation) 2.64x weekend multiplier (it opened with $25 million on Friday), but that means little more than that it was a sequel with a certain 'want-to-see' factor.  Heck, Toy Story 3 had a 2.6x weekend multiplier last year, causing me to (needlessly) wonder if the film was going to end up front-loaded overall.  Regardless, there has never been a Pixar movie to end up with less than 3.5x its opening weekend (Wall-E: $63m opening/$223m total).  So even if the critically trashed and more-or-less kid-targeted Cars 2 somehow sinks to a 'new low' of just 3.3x this weekend's number, it still ends up with $218 million.  If it merely does the 3.77x weekend-to-final number of Toy Story 3 ($110m/$415m), Cars 2 ends up with $249 million.

The big question mark, aside from the obvious 'how will the movie play?', (the film earned an A- from Cinemascore) remains its 3D screens.  The film played 38% 3D, which makes sense considering the demographic and Disney seemed to see that coming anyway.  Disney seems to have played it smart by booking plenty of 2D screens (since families with very young children are that much less willing to shell out the extra money for glasses that their kids won't wear). Alas, the film, no matter how successful, will start bleeding screens as soon as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II needs 3D screens on July 15th.  Cars 2 took most of its 3D screens from Pirates of  the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (which has now made more money overseas that any other movie save Titanic and Avatar) and Kung Fu Panda 2 (which crossed $150 million this weekend, as it hits $493 million overseas).  So Transformers: Dark of the Moon (seeing it Monday) will take its IMAX screens from Cars 2 and its 3D screens from those two plus dying Green Lantern 3D auditoriums (more on that below), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II will start the 3D screen-theft process in just three weeks.   Point being, even in its apparent 3D caution, Pixar/Disney may have sacrificed long term play-ability for short-term cash flow.  Thank goodness no other company has done that over the last twenty years...

Opening in second place was the Cameron Diaz vehicle, Bad Teacher.  The film (REVIEW) opened with $31 million, making it the fourth-biggest live-action debut for Cameron Diaz (behind The Green Hornet and the two Charlie's Angels films) and far-and-away the biggest opening for a standalone Diaz vehicle (behind, uh... The Sweetest Thing with $9 million back in 2002 - she generally does ensemble films).  While the picture pulled a C+ from Cinemascore, that's not surprising since the film is indeed a black comedy, and far less vulgar and sexually-tinged than the marketing would have you believe.  Nonetheless, the Sony picture cost just $20 million, so this is already a massive success.  So if you're keeping track, we're 2/2 in the 'yes female-driven comedies can make oodles of cash' experiment of 2011.  Alas, why do I get the feeling that as soon as one-such film flops, we'll be back to business as usual?

Anyway, speaking of unqualified flops, Green Lantern (REVIEW) dropped a massive 66%, for an $18 million second weekend and an $89 million ten-day total.  Look, I like the movie more than most, I'm a big Martin Campbell fan, and Ryan Reynolds never should have been expected to open a picture on his own, but this is an unmitigated disaster for Warner Bros. and DC Comics.  The film is indeed following the Watchmen route, which opened with $56 million but pleased few-to-none and sank like a stone, barely cracking $100 million.  So it may be for Hal Jordan, as the film will be lucky to hit $130 million at this point, with overseas numbers not saving the day this time around.  Considering the $200 million budget and copious advertising expenses, the film's failure (financial and arguably artistically) is a big problem for the tentpole future of Warner Bros.  Oh, and considering that costs are now such an issue, maybe they shouldn't have spent all that extra money to 3D-ize the special effects.  The film looks great in 3D, but at what cost?  I mean that, how much extra did the 3D work add to the budget?

Last weekend's other major opener, Mr. Popper's Penguins, dropped 45% in weekend two, for a $39 million ten-day total.  It's not exactly an out-of-this-world figure for a Jim Carrey comedy, but the film cost just $55 million, so it should be profitable in the end (especially with Fox's unbeatable overseas machine).  Super 8 is still holding on, having dropped 44% in weekend three and losing its IMAX screens to Cars 2.  The Señor Spielbergo sci-fi picture now has $95 million in domestic grosses.  X-Men: First Class now sits with $132 million, and it should hit $150 million if it can hold onto screens (it's at $317 million worldwide as of today).  The Hangover 2 ($243 million) just surpassed My Big Fat Greek Wedding's $241 million domestic gross as it climbs further up the list among top-grossing comedies.  Bridesmaids is at $146 million, meaning it will top $150 million this week and also become the top-grossing film that Judd Apatow has been involved with in any capacity (in this case, producing).  And Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life continues to burn up the limited-release chart, grossing another $1.3 million on 214 screens.  It already has a cum of $5.8 million, with a July 8th wide release on the horizon.  Just remember... NO REFUNDS!  And Woody Allen's Midnight In Paris now sits with $28 million, making it Allen's biggest grosser in 25 years and his fourth-biggest overall.  And, in defense of a certain beleaguered film blogger/columnist, I didn't see that coming either.

Join us next weekend, as Transformers: Dark of the Moon gets ready to crush the competition, as it aims to become the first $100 million+ Fri-Sun opener of the year and hopes to take down the $222 million six-day record set by The Dark Knight.  It could happen, especially if the film is actually any good (look for a review on Monday night or Tuesday morning).  Counter-programming exists in the form of the Tom Hanks/Julia Roberts romcom Larry Crowne.  It looks a little slight, but the last film Hanks directed, That Thing You Do, was both terrific and deeper than the marketing let on (admit it, you still know the lyrics...).  Until then, take care and keep reading and commenting.             

Scott Mendelson

REVIEW: Bad Teacher doesn't deserve tenure, lacks focus and narrative drive.

Bad Teacher
2011
89 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

I didn't laugh all that much at Bad Teacher.  I wasn't offended by Bad Teacher, nor did I find Diaz's scheming protagonist particularly unlikable.  But the film suffers from the same malady as last summer's The Other Guys.  Like that film, Bad Teacher is filled with solid comedic character actors doing occasionally amusing broad turns. But like the Will Ferrell/Mark Wahlberg caper, the Jake Kasdan-directed picture feels like a handful of strung-together sketch moments, often disconnected from each other and failing to exist as a whole narrative.  Of course, comedies that exist purely to patch together one comedic sketch after another can work if those sketches stand on their own two feet.  But this is not the case, and Bad Teacher fails as a comedy and as a story.

I'd offer a token amount of plot here, but there really isn't much of a plot to be found.  Cameron Diaz plays a disgruntled teacher who is forced back into the classroom after her wealthy fiancee dumps her.  Yes, there is a token thread of sorts, as said 'bad teacher' attempts to raise money in order to get new breasts, and/or romance the new substitute teacher (Justin Timberlake) who is an heir to as wrist-watch company.  But the film makes a minimum at-best effort to actually turn these thin strands into a story worth caring about.  Morever, while there are any number of terrific character actors lurking in the corners (Lucy Punch, Phyllis Smith, John Micahel Higgins, etc), there remains an aura of artifice over the entire film.  Point being, a stunning number of scenes basically involve characters talking to each other in code, with one or both parties either intentionally misleading the other or speaking 'in character'.  As a result, there is a disconnect to much of the picture, and it often plays like a feature length two (or more) person version of Kevin Nealon's 'subliminal technique' character from his Saturday Night Live Weekend Update days, but without the 'under my breath' punchline.

The best scenes in the film are the ones with Diaz and Jason Segel (as a put-upon, but knowing gym teacher), as their moments are among the few where both characters are somewhat honest with each other.  A truly surprising thing about the picture is how little time is spent showing Diaz interact with her students.  Diaz's character is not a proactively and aggressively bad educator, but merely a lazy and/or absentee one, which is far duller and arguably less rewarding.  There is a spark of life to a second-act sequence where she attempts to get her kids into educational shape using a dodge-ball as a punitive device, but the idea of a once-lazy teacher motivating her students using equally poor teaching methods is dropped without a thought.  I have no idea how much deleted footage exists out there, but the entire choppy picture is filled with subplots and comic ideas that seem to be bare remnants of a much fuller and fleshed-out motion picture.

The film is not a total loss.  There are several somewhat amusing moments, and Cameron Diaz commits with an almost courageous gusto to a role that gives her little room for sympathy.  Heck, even Billy Bob Thornton had a troubled child to care for and mentor in Bad Santa, but Diaz is merely out for her own superficial ends for pretty much the entire picture.  And while social commentators may hold up Diaz's character as a poor gender role model in a way that Thornton or any number of male actors have avoided, the film itself barely acknowledges her gender in any particular fashion.  Even the much-advertised sexually-tinged car wash scene is blink-and-you miss it.

Perhaps the biggest triumph of Bad Teacher is the fact that such a film can exist without it primarily being about gender and/or gender roles in society.  But social progress via apathy cannot excuse a comedy that has few real laughs and a story that has no momentum and little connective tissue.  Bad Teacher is not offensive, but it not insightful or compelling.  There is no law saying that a comedy has to be anything other than funny.  But Bad Teacher does not reach even that standard of quality.  And despite the educational system that lies at its core, the film has nothing to teach and nothing interesting to say.

Grade: C

WARNING! Tree of Life may be too didactically existential for YOU! NO REFUNDS!

I've never seen THIS.  I've seen warnings to moviegoers that the dogs in Snow Dogs do not actually talk.  I've seen warnings explain, in detail, that South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut is indeed an R-rated film despite the fact that it's a cartoon.  I've seen signs warning that anyone buying a ticket to Thirteen Days just to watch the attached teaser to Lord of the Rings would not receive a refund after said trailer.  But I've never seen a movie theater warning that a given movie may be too artsy-fartsy for them, and warning that unsuspecting ticket buyers would be out of luck.  As the film goes wider, I expect this kind of thing to happen more and more often.  Still, buyer beware.  In this day and age, anyone who walks into The Tree of Life just because "Hey, Brad Pitt is in it!" deserves to either have their mind blown or put to sleep.  And no, they don't deserve refunds either way.

Scott Mendelson  

Captain America gets a terrific trailer, selling old-school patriotism and adventure.

First of all, the tagline ('heroes are made in America') is a nice touch, showing that Paramount is unafraid of actually selling the fact that the lead character is indeed code-named Captain 'America'.  As for the footage, it frankly looks spectacular.  This is the first big-scale comic book adaptation in a good-long while that actually feels like an actual adventure.  While I'm sure there is plenty of CGI-enhanced material throughout (and as long as it works, why not?), the feeling is predominantly old-school.  With Steve Rogers ziplining into battle, racing aboard a snow-covered train, and swinging into harm's way, Joe Johnston seems to remember that super heroes should generally engage in super heroics.  It is also the first of the Marvel movies that doesn't look kinda cheap thus far.  This one drops July 22nd so, as always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Captain America gets another Steve Rogers-centric poster. Paramount and Marvel are smartly selling the man, not the myth.

Only two real thoughts here (other than it's a nice colorful poster).  A) It's nice that, at least in America, they are playing down that whole 'the first avenger' silliness.  B) It's worth noting that Marvel and Paramount has been so far selling this less as a 'Captain America adventure' than as a 'Steve Rogers adventure'.  It's a smart move, as we all know that once you have the audience caring about the man behind the mask, they'll care all the more about the larger-than-life theatrics that take place.  This one allegedly screened last week to rapturous buzz, so we'll see if Paramount plans to truly long-lead this one, and if I can sneak into anything sooner than the All Media.  And yes, even my wife is wondering why the hell Paramount isn't opening this thing next weekend.  Why indeed... Share your thoughts below.

Scott Mendelson

Waited for DVD: The Adjustment Bureau - Free will is terrific, except when it's really destiny in disguise.

The Adjustment Bureau
2011
105 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

There are any number of movies that make less sense after you think about them then they did as you were watching them.  But The Adjustment Bureau is not only a movie that makes little sense as your watching it, but basically betrays its own philosophy in the process.  Since this is a DVD review, I'm going to be more spoilery than I otherwise would be for a pre-theatrical glance.  There are three major problems with the picture that render the well-intentioned romantic thriller relatively useless as both an emotional entertainment and as an intellectual exercise.  So, if I may forgo the usual plot synopsis, let me cut to the chase...


A) The film espouses free will versus destiny as a constant moral through-line.  The core conflict is that Matt Damon wants to date/screw/marry Emily Blunt, but the all-powerful Adjustment Bureau (basically fate/God in tailored suits and fedoras) will not allow it.  Sounds okay, but the film also makes clear at several points in the second act that Blunt and Damon were at one time 'destined' to be together before something or another altered their paths.  The explanation does give us a reason to theoretically root for Damon and Blunt to be with each other, since absent an explanation Damon comes off like a passive-aggressive stalker who can't leave well enough alone.  But if you pay attention, you realize that the only reason that Damon is so drawn to Blunt (other than the fact that she looks like Emily Blunt) is that both characters are feeling lingering effects of their once-destined chemistry.  So it's really not free will, it's one character relentlessly pursuing another character because they were (at one point) destined to be together.  So much for choice.

B) The only character in this film who has any kind of free will is Matt Damon's David Norris.  As a young and allegedly reckless politician who may or may not eventually become president, he at various points of the film decides to forgo or pursue his fate depending on what the plot requires.  But what of Ellise Sallas (Emily Blunt), the ballet dancer who may or may not be destined for greatness in her own field?  She is not only as the mercy of the Adjustment Bureau, she is also at the mercy of David's whims.  She is not a co-lead or even a true supporting character, but rather 'the girl' to be pursued.  Throughout the film, she is yo-yo-ed about, being wooed by David, being dumped by David, being wooed and then being dumped again.  She does not engage in a single proactive action in the entire film, but rather is pulled along (literally by the hand in the film's climax) according to whatever David decides at any given moment.  She is not a character, but rather a prop.

C) So when David confronts her right before the chase finale and more-or-less spills the divine beans, Ellise basically drops any and all good sense and basically allows herself to be whisked away on a journey to... where exactly?  Putting aside the fact that Blunt basically buys Damon's fantastical story and immediately forgives his plot-mandated cruelty with barely a second thought, what exactly is Damon's ultimate goal?  As you'll know if you've seen the trailers, the finale of the film involves Damon and Blunt running through various 'portal doors' and ending up in one fantastical New York location (Yankee Stadium, the Statue of Liberty, etc) after another.  But to what end?  The film gives us no clear indication of how Damon intends to outrun or hide from his supernatural pursuers, so the chase has absolutely no momentum or rooting interest.  And frankly, for much of the film, I was rooting for the would-be antagonists to catch his ass and set fate right again.

So in the end we have a film that professes to love free will while crafting a romance that is at-least partially motivated by destiny.  We have a film that champions proactive actions, but only for the male lead and with no attempt to give his would-be romantic partner any thoughts of her own.  To watch The Adjustment Bureau is to be just a little bored.  To think about The Adjustment Bureau is to be annoyed.  The only question I'm left pondering is how they resisted the urge to cast Frank Langella.  My wife kept expecting to see him pop up and frankly so did I.  Oh, and every single one of the critics/pundits and studio executives who compared this film (yes, that means you too Total Film) to Inception was either drunk, distracted by their cell phone, or otherwise completely oblivious to the film that they were in fact supposed to be watching.

Grade: C

Review: Conan O'Brien Can't Stop a revealing, sometimes awkward backstage peek.

Conan O'Brien Can't Stop
2011
89 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Any number of great rock n' rollers, from Elton John to Bob Seger, have written classic ditties about the less glamorous parts of being a touring musician.  Heck, anyone who wonders why Steve Perry will probably never ever reunite with Journey need only listen to "Faithfully".  No matter how much you enjoy the stage or how much you are driven to entertain the masses, the daily grind of actually going from one city to another, being away from loved ones for months at a time, is something that not everyone can endure.  So one can only imagine the stress that it puts on someone who has spent the prior twenty years entertaining as a day job, commuting from home to a single office building and putting on a show on the same stage night after night.

I imagine if you are reading a review about this Conan O'Brien documentary, you probably know about how O'Brien was given The Tonight Show by NBC, only to have it taken away several months later due to network politics, a botched experiment involving his predecessor, and some pretty awful contract negotiations (cough-time slot guarantee-cough).  As of now, O'Brien has a 10:00pm talk show on TBS.  This documentary covers the time in between those two developments, when the longtime talk show host spent several months touring around the country doing a stand-up/vaudeville hybrid of sorts.  The film covers the show from inception to completion, with all of the bumps along the way.  As befitting such a documentary, we see only a token amount of the show itself, with most of the screen time allotted to backstage drama.  At its best, we see a peak inside the mind of a famously private celebrity, a man who has wrestled with self-esteem issues even as his star rose higher and higher.  Since we know so little about the real Conan O'Brien, we don't always know how much of him to take at face value, which adds pathos to moments where he viciously ribs his staff and his fellow writers.  Is he playing for the cameras, is he just always 'on', or is O'Brien merely someone who occasionally lashes out as a defense mechanism?

The film doesn't offer such explicit psychological platitudes, but it does detail the mental and emotional toll that the tour bus takes on O'Brien.  Doing the same general material over and over again, spending months away from his wife and kids, dealing with overeager fans and the flesh-pressing that seems to precede and follow every show, well, the core of Conan O'Brien Can't Stop remains the dichotomy between a man who loves to entertain and 'cannot stop' doing it and the genuinely unpleasant realities of actually being a touring entertainer.  The film falters somewhat by not showing how this affects the other members of this team.  Andy Richter, also a family man used to working somewhat closer to home, is shown as relentlessly cheerful and reassuring, yet sure the grind got to him as well?  And the film slows to a crawl whenever we spend time watching Conan and his team toss off jokes and work out their material.  It's interesting, but there are few things less funny than watching funny people toss material off of each other.  Like watching a movie being shot with no effects and no music, it's miraculous that something so crude and artificial can become a refined piece of polished entertainment.  It doesn't help that everyone feels the need to laugh a little too hard whenever our star cracks wise, as if anyone is surprised at this point that Conan can turn a punchline.

Conan O'Brien Can't Stop is both a document of a singular moment in time (the "Legally Prohibited From Being Funny On Television" tour) and a more generalized portrait of a man struggling with the brutal reality of being a traveling showman while maintaining his drive to continue to entertain mass audiences.  No one is expected to feel sorry for Conan or anyone else during the course of the film.  But it does peal back the curtain to reveal the less than glamorous side of a seemingly glamorous enterprise.  Conan O'Brien finishes his tour with nothing but praise for those who helped him and for the audiences that cheered him.  I can believe him when he says that it was a wonderful and unique experience that may be one of his crowning achievements as a performer.  But I sincerely doubt that he will be doing anything like it anytime soon.  Without being overt about it, the key question of this film is whether Conan O'Brien's relentless need to entertain, combined with his obvious talent at doing so, is a gift or a curse.

Grade: B

Apparently domestic audiences don't like aliens or armed women... A tale of two Cowboys and Aliens posters.

 

The poster on the left is domestic and the one on the right is international.  For what it's worth, the domestic poster is a better piece of art.  It is moodier, with more natural looking photo-shopping for the two leads.  However, the international poster is interesting for two reasons.  First of all, the international poster actually has alien imagery on the poster while the domestic one does not.  Is this mere artistic choice, a choice to not reveal certain visual elements a month prior to release, or is Universal concerned that casual moviegoers will be turned off by explicit outer-space imagery in their western poster art?  Second of all, most obviously, the international poster actually features (and bills) Olivia Wilde, while the domestic one leaves her off.  So the question is, was the domestic omission a matter of trying to sell a more arch-typical 'two men against the world' western iconography, or is Universal somehow under the impression that putting Wilde on the poster (armed and ready no less) will turn off certain traditionalist segments of the audience?  You make the call, but there you have it.  Cowboys and Aliens opens on July 29th.  Expect the phrase 'in glorious 2D' to be thrown around quite a bit in junkets.

Scott Mendelson

Trailer: Puss In Boots goes for easy jokes, mimics The Mask of Zorro in a most unexpected fashion.

I remember walking out of Monsters Vs. Aliens with basically a single thought: this movie really could have been something if they were willing to play it real.  Yes, the 3D was dynamite and the IMAX screen only added depth and scope, but at the end of the day, it was still a jokey 1950s spoof aimed at very young kids.  What a great movie it could have been if it had the courage to be a real science-fiction adventure about monsters fighting off invading alien forces...  Dreamworks has proven they can play for keeps since then, with Kung Fu Panda, How to Train Your Dragon, and Megamind.  But Puss in Boots seems to be going the Monsters and Aliens route.  Yes, this is just a trailer, but how wonderful would it be to see a full-blown and red-blooded Zorro adventure in animated form where our Zorro happened to be an animated feline?  Speaking of The Mask of Zorro, I fully expected Dreamworks to use the James Horner score for Martin Campbell's masterpiece in this new trailer.  But instead, they used the same piece of music from Drop Zone that Sony used in the original Mask of Zorro trailers back in 1998.  Weird... Anyway, this one comes out on November 4th.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson    

The Muppets gets a real trailer. "This is their movie!", promises Disney.

After three satirical teasers over the last month, Disney finally unleashes a real trailer of sorts from this Thanksgiving's The Muppets.  The most effective portion is actually the opening bit, where Jason Segel basically acknowledges that the Muppets have not been a true pop culture force since Jim Henson died in 1990.  Yes, I enjoyed Muppets Tonight, and two of my favorite Muppet movies (Muppet Treasure Island and A Very Muppet Christmas) all dropped in the last fifteen years, but they've been mainly feeding on nostalgia since the early 1990s.  Anyway, the trailer itself is amusing, and it still avoids revealing any real plot.  Statler and Waldorf do make an appearance, so that's encouraging, and this new trailer is explicitly Muppet-centric.  In fact, the text at 0:41 - "This is their movie!" - seems to be a reassurance to those worried that Jason Segel and Amy Adams will dominate the proceedings. So far, so good.

Scott Mendelson  

Weekend Box Office (06/19/11): Green Lantern pulls a Van Helsing, opens with $53m, endangers entire DC Comics film franchise.

When is a $52 million three-day opening a genuine disappointment?  Well, in the world of box office, all things are relative.  And when it comes to opening weekend, the quality and estimated staying power has to be taken into account.  Green Lantern debuted at number one this weekend with $53.1 million.  On the surface, that's the third-biggest DC Comics opening ever, and the second-biggest non-sequel DC Comics film (behind Watchmen's $55.2 million).  But like Watchmen, a seemingly glorious opening (a $55 million debut for a 2.5 hour R-rated superhero drama based on a cult property) is considered troubling due to fears about its staying power and overspending.  Green Lantern cost about $200 million to produce, with another $150 million going towards marketing efforts.  The film had a poor 2.45x weekend multiplier and earned only a B from Cinemascore.  This does not guarantee that Green Lantern will follow Watchmen's lightning-fast downward trajectory (the film didn't even double its opening weekend, ending with $107 million).  But with mediocre word of mouth, generally poor reviews, and brutal competition coming just down the pike (Cars 2 next weekend, Transformers: Dark of the Moon a few days after that), the best that Warner can hope for domestically is an around 3x multiplier for a $155 million finish.  Warner and DC Comics will have to be counting on overseas numbers to carry the day.

The core problem, as it often is, was the decision to spend 'sequel money' on an original film.  Point being, you generally try to hedge your bets with the first film and blow your wad on the second picture.  Spider-Man 2 may have cost $220 million, but that was only after the $130 million-budgeted Spider-Man grossed $400 million domestic.  But with rewrites and extra money allocated for a rushed and FX-heavy shoot, Martin Campbell's attempt to create a new superhero franchise ended up costing about what Green Lantern 2 should have cost.  As for marketing costs (which is technically separate from production budgets), it was yet another case of saturation marketing that was painfully unnecessary since most of the film wasn't complete until late in the game.  The studio released a terrible teaser last November and had been playing catch up ever since.  Later, more outer-space themed trailers played better with the hardcore fans, but Warner struggled with selling the visuals while explaining at least part of the Green Lantern mythology to those not already in the loop.  There was allegedly some disagreement about how much to sell the film as a standalone Hal Jordan adventure versus selling it as the first chapter of a full-blown Green Lantern saga (later previews heavily emphasized other Green Lantern corps members who barely appear in the finished film).  Of course, Green Lantern was not just one film intended to launch one franchise, and that's where the problem truly lies if the film plays out like the numbers suggest.  

Yes, this is just one movie and Warner will be printing money with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II next month.  But this was a key release that was to be the opening salvo in Warner's attempt to frame the DC Comics library as the dominant studio franchise to replace the Harry Potter series.  Obviously if the film becomes inexplicably leggy and it ends up closer to Thor's $176 million than Van Helsing's $120 million (and does well overseas to boot), this will all be moot.  But this feels like a similar situation to the latter 2004 Hugh Jackman monster adventure, which was so unpopular and unsuccessful that it killed off Universal's attempt to revive the entire classic horror monsters franchise (Dracula, the Mummy, the Wolfman, etc).  Warner and DC Comics now run the risk of delegitimizing their entire line-up.  Sure, Warner will always have Batman and Superman, but Green Lantern was supposed to be the first shot in a lineup that theoretically included The Flash, Hawkman, Hawgirl, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, Green Arrow, and/or a Justice League movie of some kind.  Imagine if Marvel Comics' Iron Man opened in May of 2008 to lousy reviews and grossed barely $50 million in the opening weekend while dropping 15% on Saturday, and you get a pretty good idea of where Warner and DC Comics is right now.  Of course, if by some miracle, the film drops below 50% next weekend, all involved will be breathing a sigh of relief.  Oh, and the film played 45% 3D, which seems to be the new normal, but is still a shame as Green Lantern had the best live-action 3D since Avatar and is easily the best 3D conversion ever.

The other wide opener was Jim Carrey's Mr. Popper's Penguins.  The film opened with $18.4 million, which is fine and dandy for the $55 million kiddie comedy.  It's been nearly a decade since Jim Carrey out-and-out ruled the box office, but in that time he's morphed into an actor who plays around in different genres (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Number 24, I Love You Philip Morris) while occasionally retreating to the broad comic mugging that is his signature (Fun With Dick and Jane, Yes Man, etc).  The film earned an A- from Cinemascore, so it may very well have legs, especially if families desire a 2D family film in the coming weeks.  Point being, Jim Carrey is no longer in a place where his films should be expected to set records, but such freedom has been beneficial to him as an actor and a performer.  Opening semi-wide was the Fox Searchlight dramedy, The Art of Getting By.  The Freddie Highmore/Emma Roberts vehicle felt almost like a satire of arsty-fartsy 'sensitive young man comes of age with help of an out-of-his league hottie' films that have been all the rage over the last decade, and the picture pulled in just $700,000 on 610 screens.

Coming in just above the Carrey vehicle was last weekend's champ, Super 8.  The 70s/80s Steven Spielberg homage grossed $21 million in its second weekend.  It dropped 39% in weekend two, which in this marketplace counts as legs.  The film now has $73 million in ten days (same as District 9), so $100 million should be a slam dunk.  Whether it gets to $120 million or $150 million is a matter of holding onto screens and weathering the blow of Transformers: Dark of the Moon.  X-Men: First Class was hit hard by Green Lantern, dropping 50% in weekend three and grossing $11 million.  With $120 million after twenty-one days, the film is starting to trail the original X-Men.  With screen-bleed a likely factor over the next two weeks, $150 million may alas be a pipe dream.  Worldwide, it is already at $280 million.  Speaking of worldwide, The Hangover part II has surpassed the international take of the first film and the two-film franchise is nearing the $1 billion mark worldwide.  Domestically, it's at $233 million, meaning it will pass the $234 million gross of Beverly Hills Cop in just a day or two thus becoming the fourth-biggest R-rated earner ever.

Also nearing the $1 billion mark worldwide is Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, which sits with 'just' $220 million in the US but an astonishing $711 million overseas (the fourth-biggest overseas total ever).  Kung Fu Panda 2 is still hanging in there, ending this weekend with $143 million domestic and $423 million worldwide.  It should end up with about $170 million in the US and at least $500 million worldwide, so cross your fingers for Kung Fu Panda 3.  Bridesmaids continued its journey towards the top of the Judd Apatow filmography, as it now has $136 million.  It's $13 million away from being the top-grossing film that Apatow has been involved with in any capacity (directing, writing, or as in this case, producing).  Midnight In Paris dropped just 16% as it climbs up the ranks of Woody Allen's top grossers.  It's now at $21 million, with a decent shot at crossing $40 million.  Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life continues to expand with impressive results.  The Brad Pitt/Sean Penn gross-out comedy expanded to 114 screens and earned $1.16 million in its fourth weekend for a new cum of $3.9 million.  It won't go wide until July 8th, but it's worth the wait for those so inclined.

That's it for this weekend.  Join us next weekend for the debut of Pixar's Cars 2, otherwise known as At Last, A Pixar Movie that Won't Make You Violently Sob In Front Of Your Kids.  It will square off against the Cameron Diaz vehicle Bad Teacher.  Until then, take care and keep reading and commenting.

Scott Mendelson

Midnight Box Office (06/16/11): Green Lantern grosses $3.35m in 12:01 showings, heading for probable $61 million opening weekend.

The midnight money is apparently tallied already.  So once again, we have a decent idea of what a major film's opening weekend will be before the first Friday shows on the West Coast even begin.  Fascinating... Anyway, Green Lantern grossed $3.35 million in midnight screenings last night.  That's ahead of the $3.25 million earned by Thor at midnight, and just under the $3.4 million midnight gross earned by X-Men: First Class two weeks ago.  So at this point, it's just a matter of anticipating just how anticipated Martin Campbell's superhero saga is.  It is an original property, so it won't be as front-loaded as X-Men: First Class (which pulled in 6% of its weekend at midnight).  Reviews are pretty lousy (unfairly so in my opinion), which may or may not make a difference (remember, audiences for movies like this generally don't care about reviews).  So basically the question is whether it pulls 5% of its money at 12:01am (like Thor) or 6% of its money at 12:01am like X-Men: First Class.  For the moment, Green Lantern is apparently heading for an opening weekend between $55 million and $67 million.  Let's split the difference, give it a 5.5% midnight take and call it for $61 million.

Scott Mendelson

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II gets another (insert twelve superlatives HERE) trailer.

What else more is there to say?  This thing looks astonishing, action-packing, and moving as hell.  There's just one month to go (hopefully sooner if I can sneak into an earlier screening), and I frankly haven't felt this kind of 'giddy' since The Dark Knight three years ago.  This may be the last time I feel this way about a movie.  But if the fandom of my official youth is to end with Harry Potter (or perhaps next year with The Dark Knight Rises), than so be it.  One does not have to be a foaming at the mouth fan to write about a subject in question.  But it sure makes it a little more fun.  God this looks fantastic...

Scott Mendelson

The Muppets gets a Green Lantern-inspired teaser, with Statler and Waldorf!!

This is easily the best teaser so far, with what appears to be actual scenes from the movie, including an appearance (thank god) by Statler and Waldorf!!  All that, plus a witty self-acknowledgment from Jason Segel about the seemingly unending 'parody trailers' makes this the best spot yet.  Frankly, if Disney does nothing but parody trailers up until the film's release, they'll be able to market the movie without revealing anything resembling plot.  Imagine that... walking into a major studio movie not knowing at all what to expect behind the bare-bones synopsis.

Scott Mendelson  

Review: Green Lantern (3D) is not as great as we had all hoped, but it's not nearly as bad as we had all feared.

Green Lantern
2011
105 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

I kept waiting... I had read the earlier reviews, which seemed to confirm all of the worst fears stretching back to last November.  But the hate never came.  Martin Campbell's Green Lantern is a deeply problematic comic book adventure, with structural and character development issues that should damn-well have felled the film.  But like its title character, it overcomes its own weaknesses and embraces its inherent flaws.  The picture has signs of tinkering and studio interference.  But it also has several fine action scenes, a strong visual style that feels like a living comic book, and arguably the best 3D conversion yet achieved in live-action.  Oh, and it also has Peter Skarsgaard, but more on that later.  I have no idea how Green Lantern purists will react, but the film as it is  remains a weird combination of ghee-whiz kid-friendly superhero antics and truly disturbing horror elements.  That the film is not quite the triumph we wanted may be tragic.  That the film as it stands works at all may qualify as a miracle.

A token amount of plot: Test pilot Hal Jordan is out of a job, having crashed a new plane during a risky maneuver.  But little does he know that he is about to be chosen as serve as one of the Green Lantern Corps.  What's a Green Lantern?  If you don't know, Geoffrey Rush explains it pretty well in the prologue.  Anyway, As Hal Jordan wrestles with finally stepping up to responsibility, childhood friend Dr. Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) finds himself infected with an alien life form that is in turn connected to the horrifying force of living death known as Parallax.  Point being, if Jordan can't step up to the plate and become a Green Lantern worthy of the title, all of Earth may be doomed...

In a offhanded way, Martin Campbell's Green Lantern feels like a hybrid of the 1990s super hero films and the more modern variation.  With its broadly drawn character types and occasionally ham-fisted dialogue, it brings to mind the ghee-wiz adventure pictures like The Phantom and The Shadow.  But in its depiction of its villains, it resembles a full-blown horror film.  While the film's overtly terrifying antagonists make the film less-than-appropriate for the youngest of audiences, it will also make the film feel like some kind of forbidden treasure for those a little older.  Point being, if I had seen this when I was 8 or 9, I would have enjoyed the superhero adventure elements and felt like I was getting away with something watching the evil Parallax (voiced by Clancy Brown... awesome!) rip peoples' skeletons out of their body in somewhat graphic detail.  Helping matters in this arena is Peter Skarsgaard, who gives a wonderfully trippy performance as Dr. Hector Hammond.  Even before he gets infected, Skarsgaard plays him like a creepy would-be pedophile with no social skills and barely a hint of self-esteem.  But Skarsgaard throws himself into it with such gusto that he is easily the most entertaining thing in the picture.  So it is to the film's benefit that the movie focuses almost as much on his transformation as it does with Reynold's arc.  It's a notable contrast: two people being gifted with super powers with differing results.

As for the heroic side of the team, Reynolds suits himself well here.  Despite a presumption from film punditry at large that Reynolds is only capable of playing variations on Van Wilder, he remains a solid dramatic and low-key comic actor when the need arises (The Amityville Horror, The Nines, Adventureland, Buried, etc).    Reynolds thankfully keeps the whole 'cocky, arrogant jerk in need of a life lesson' thing in check, as his Hal Jordan is presented as a generally decent man who overcompensates for his own fear, a trait pretty much every major character calls him on throughout.  Yes, the film overplays the whole 'Hal Jordan is afraid to admit his own fear' card, but 'fear' as a theme is no more overtly presented here than Chris Nolan's Batman pictures (next time you watch Batman Begins, drink anytime someone says 'fear' or 'afraid').  Granted, it's a bit silly to hear Hal Jordan complain about being afraid when the whole Earth is in peril (IE - what are you gonna do, let the Earth just die anyway?).  Despite that, Reynolds makes a surprisingly sympathetic and relatively relatable Hal Jordan, and he wins points for not gratuitously being a jerk for the sake of quips.

Blake Lively, as Carol Ferris, doesn't quite excel, but she keeps her head above water.  Her dramatic scenes with Reynolds and others are fine, but the film feels the need to shoe-horn 'romantic moments' that waste valuable screen time as we get a solid feel on Hal and Carol's relationship during the course of the narrative anyway.  On the plus side, one such scene gets the film's biggest laugh (no spoilers, but it's a great play on the whole 'secret identity' shtick).  On the plus side, Ferris spends a bare minimum of time in peril, and at least one of those few moments is basically a side-effect of her own bravery (IE - she pushes a bystander out of harm's way and takes the hit).  When the film lets her be a supporting character rather than 'the love interest', Lively does just fine.  Taika Waititi is surprisingly winning as Reynold's friend, taking a role that could have easily been played for broad camp and keeping it low-key.  The rest of the cast basically shows up for paychecks (or in the case of Angela Bassett as Dr. Amanda Waller, to establish her for whatever other plans Warner has with DC Comics movies).  Jay O. Sanders is always welcome, although Tim Robbins looks a little lost in this comic book world.

Despite marketing that heavily emphasizes the world of Oa, we only visit that realm for MAYBE a third of the picture.  Of the various Green Lantern corps members, only Mark Strong's Sinestro makes a solid impression.  He is mainly around this time to pontificate and call out the Guardians on their inaction (frankly, the Guardians are about as proactive as the Jedi Council), but he still represents an idealized Green Lantern with a strong sense of morality and justice.  The other notable Corp members get barely a few lines.  Michael Clarke Duncan's Kilowog basically shows up to beat down Jordan and call him a 'poozer' a few times.  Geoffrey Rush's Tomer-Re exists mainly to provide exposition and a touch of moral support.  It's obvious that the character work amongst the other Green Lanterns is being saved for a sequel, but it's still unfortunate that some extra running time (the film runs just 100 minutes before credits) could not have been allotted to highlight the other intergalactic warriors.  There is a pretty obvious hint during the end credits about where the sequel will go, but I won't spoil it for the three of you reading this who can't guess.

Okay, enough about things like character and plot, how does the film play as an FX-filled action spectacle?  To my shock and pleasant surprise, the 3D conversion is pretty darn terrific.  The 3D work feels completely natural and immersive in a completely non-distracting sense.  The CGI material looks terrific in 3D, but there is even a depth to the Earthbound sets and scenarios.  Considering Warner Bros. set the bar for lousy 3D conversions with Clash of the Titans last year, it is heartening to see that they seem serious about undoing that damage.  If this is how 3D is going to look for the near future, I can certainly see how 3D can become a regular part of mainstream moviegoing (again, providing moviegoers have the option of cheaper 2D viewings).   Pricing issues aside, I'd pretty much recommend seeing Green Lantern in 3D just to see what a good live-action conversion should look like.  The special effects are a mixed bag, as the early moments of Reynolds flying through Oa are pretty terrible.  But most of the effects work (the prologue, the earthbound action scenes, etc) vary between rock-solid and charmingly mediocre (unlike some, I don't let less-than-perfect special effects distract me from an otherwise enjoyable movie).

The action sequences are generally strong.  The first act has two terrific set pieces, as the interstellar prologue is followed by a terrific fighter jet dogfight.  As is the case with director Martin Campbell, the action is always easy to follow, usually presented in wide and long takes, with a clear sense of time and place.  A second-act helicopter rescue is pretty mediocre and awfully silly, but the film redeems itself by basically having characters state exactly that in a following scene (it's a brave movie that makes fun of its own action scenes).  The confrontations between Jordan and Hector Hammond are a nice mix of spectacle and character drama, and most of the violence does have a bit of sting and acknowledgment.  The whole 'Green Lanterns use the ring to make contraptions' angle worked better than I expected it to.  I'm used to the DCAU Justice League cartoon, where John Stewart basically just used the ring to make green blasts of energy, so I was surprised how not goofy it looked when Jordan uses his ring to make slingshots, machine guns, and flamethrowers.  It's a matter of simplicity, as Jordan and the corp always go for the simplest solution, rather than being flashy for the sake of special effects.

Martin Campbell's Green Lantern is a cheerfully entertaining comic book adventure.  It does not transcend the genre (aside from perhaps Skarsgaard's disturbing character work), nor does it stand outside of it as the better superhero films tend to do (IE - X-Men: First Class as a 60s spy thriller, The Dark Knight as a hard boiled crime drama, etc).  It remains structurally flawed and arguably too short, but the film successfully balances a rather complicated mythology and a character arc without dropping the balls.  Its relatively well-acted and filled with engaging action sequences, decent special effects, and surprisingly solid 3D work.  Martin Campbell once again shows that he has a firm grasp on what should be the basics in genre filmmaking (adults who act like adults, character who react plausibly to the chaos around them, action scenes that make sense, violence that has consequence, etc), which helps overcome some of the script weaknesses.  Green Lantern just barely works, but considering my pessimism going into the screening last night, 'barely works' almost counts as a triumph.  

grade: B-