Weekend Box Office (07/31/11) part II: Attack the Block scores in limited release, Captain America tumbles, Harry Potter 7.2 crosses $1 billion worldwide.

Meanwhile, a little farther down the chart, the much-anticipated and raved-about by geek critics Attack the Block was released on just eight screens by Screen Gems, with respectable results.  The film earned $130,000 for a solid $16,307 per-screen average.  Of course, this means little in terms of the film's mainstream play ability, and I do not yet know the expansion plans for the British alien invasion import.  But every movie geek on my Twitter feed has been begging everyone else to see this one.  As for me, I'm hoping that it goes to the much closer Arclight Sherman Oaks next weekend (as opposed to the much farther Arclight Hollywood).  I'm also a little nervous about those allegedly thick British accents, as I'm a little hard of hearing and am debating on waiting for the subtitled-DVD.  But for those unafraid of accents, everyone I know seems to have really enjoyed this one.  Also debuting in limited release was The Devil's Double ($95,000 on five screens) and The Guard ($80,000 on four screens).

In bad news for good movies, Captain America dropped a rather hefty 61% in its second weekend, almost as much as the much-loathed Green Lantern (-66%).  The terrific comic book adventure grossed $24.9 million in its second weekend and finished its tenth day with $116 million, or $3 million behind Thor's respective ten day gross of $119 million.  To be fair, Captain America had stronger weekdays than Thor, as the Asgard fable opened in early May.  But the Steve Rogers pic had a second weekend of nearly $10 million less, and a larger second weekend drop than Thor (-47%) and X-Men: First Class (-54%).  It does mean that the film will likely end up closer to Kung Fu Panda 2's current $161 million total than Thor's current $180 million total.  In better news for good movies, the final Harry Potter film crossed two very notable landmarks this weekend.  On Sunday, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II crossed $1 billion worldwide, tying Avatar as the fastest film to reach said milestone.  It also film sits at $318 million in domestic grosses as of today, thus surpassing Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone as the biggest-grossing Harry Potter film in domestic sales as well.

There's not much else to report in holdover news.  Bad Teacher and Horrible Bosses are both at $96 million and both should cross $100 million in the next couple weeks.  Transformers: Dark of the Moon should be joining the $1 billion club in the next couple weeks, as it now sits with $337 million domestic and $982 million worldwide.  Kung Fu Panda 2 crossed the $600 million mark worldwide, now number five on the all-time Dreamworks animated list behind Kung Fu Panda ($631 million), Shrek Forever After ($752 million), Shrek the Third ($799 million), and Shrek 2 ($919 million).  Finally, Bridesmaids is now over $165 million and sits as the seventeenth-biggest grossing R-rated film domestically.

That's it for this weekend.  Join us next weekend when Fox tries to revitalize the Planet of the Apes franchise ten years after Tim Burton's financially successful but much-loathed 're-imagining'.  Rise of the Planet of the Apes squares off against the Ryan Reynolds/Jason Bateman vehicle The Change Up.  
Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (07/31/11) part I: The Smurfs, Cowboys and Aliens do battle,tying with $36.2 million, while Stupid Crazy Love opens with $19.2 million.

This weekend is an excellent example of why it's the numbers, not the rankings that matter when discussing box office.  And, more importantly, the context of the numbers must be taken into account as well as the hard figures.  As of this moment, The Smurfs and Cowboys & Aliens are battling for the top slot at this weekend's box office, with both films hovering at $36.2 million.  One cost $110 million while the other cost $165 million.  One has strong foreign prospects and a guarantee of eternal life as a family DVD purchase/rental, while the other faces an uncertain future as it belongs to a distinctly American genre.  Point being, The Smurfs can take solace that it somewhat over-performed this weekend, while the Jon Favreau genre mash-up may go down as one of the bigger whiffs of the summer season.


Cowboys and Aliens opened with about $36.2 million this weekend, mostly on the strength of men over 25.  Sci-fi westerns are a tricky business, as (somewhat stereo typically speaking perhaps) western fans don't like sci-fi while science-fiction geeks aren't fans of the classic westerns.  Of course, neither Wild, Wild West or Jonah Hex were very good, and Cowboys and Aliens received some shockingly poor reviews.  The film received a weak reception from its world premiere at Comic Con last weekend, something that the many powerful people behind the film (director Favreau, producers Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard, etc) were not expecting.  Since the film was targeting older audiences as much as the stereotypical geeks, the reviews did matter in this case.  The film has a Cinemascore grade of a B+, which is a little low for such apparently mainstream entertainment.

As far as long term marketing, it was a clear case of not quitting while you're ahead (see past perpetrators of this crime).  I loved the teaser from last November, but was less and less impressed with each new trailer.  More importantly, the several additional trailers were basically the same footage re-cut.  It's nice that Universal didn't blatantly spoil the whole film in the ad campaign, but using nearly identical footage cut up slightly differently for six months gave the impression that the bag was empty.  Universal should have just gone with the terrific teaser and kept a certain amount of ‘mystery’.  This is alas, another apparent miss for Universal, all the more unfortunate in that it was an 'original' property (it was based on a very cultish comic book).  Results like this are why Universal passed on The Dark Tower and In the Mountains of Madness (not that I disagree with those calls).  When Universal whiffs on one ambitious original property after another and (presumably) scores a hit next summer with Battleship (hilarious teaser HERE), what lessons can we expect them to take?

Also estimating $36.2 million, the other theoretical contender for the weekend crown is The Smurfs, which is of course the CGI/live action adaptation of the popular cartoon series that ran from 1981-1989 on NBC.  Ironically, NBC and Universal are now owned by the came corporate overlord, but this was a Sony production.  This was another example of the formula spawned by Alvin and the Chipmunks back in December of 2007.  Take a popular kids cartoon from the 1970s or 1980s, insert expensive CGI-animated versions of the title characters into an otherwise cheap live-action melodrama (often the same plot actually).  The Alvin and the Chipmunks films grossed $361 million and $443 million worldwide respectively, while Yogi Bear (which really should have been an R-rated monster film) earned $201 million for Warner Bros. last December.  Of course, things that start cheap gradually grow more expensive, and this new incarnation inexplicably cost $110 million (hoary for Jayma Mays for getting $20 million...?).

We pundits and critics of course decry this kind of film as the epitome of what's wrong with mainstream Hollywood.  But while that may be true, it's also a reminder that many moviegoers don't treat cinema as a hobby or a profession or a passion, merely as a diversion (the film pulled an A- from Cinemascore, with an A from those under-18).  65% of the audience was kids with their parents.  65% of that audience were families with kids under 12, with 2/3 of the overall audience being female (IE - dad stayed home).  I'm may be taking my kid to see this one this week because she wants to see it, plain and simple.  And while it may be terrible, if she laughs, I'll survive.  The Miyazaki marathons can come when she's a little older.  But this does prove the value of 3D.  Point being, this tie-game wouldn't even be a contest without the 3D variable.  In 3D, Cowboys and Aliens would have grossed about $42 million.  In just 2D, The Smurfs would have grossed about $30 million.  Come what may, 3D is not going anywhere.

The other major opener was Crazy, Stupid Love which rode a great trailer and decent reviews to a  fine $19.2 million debut.  That's actually a bit under the various R-rated comedy openings this summer, but the film was clearly playing to older audiences, the ones who didn't quite show up as expected for Larry Crowne.  The all-star romantic comedy (Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Kevin Bacon, Marissa Tomei, Emma Stone, Ryan Gosling, etc) was primarily advertised by Warner Bros using a series of snapshot posters, taking scenes from the film and labeling them (IE - "This is Crazy", "This is Love", etc).  Even if the older audience doesn't give the film exceptional legs, this picture cost just $45 million so long-term profitability is all-but assured.  I'll probably see the film tomorrow, as it's the featured 'bring your baby to the movies' pick at Pacific Theaters.

Okay, my kids just woke up.  I'll deal with the holdover news (ouch Captain America, YAY Harry Potter!) and the major indie releases (yay Attack of the Block!) when I have more time later today.  Thank you for your patience.

Scott Mendelson

Paranormal Activity 3 gets a surprisingly revealing teaser.

Considering how completely enshrouded in mystery the second film is, it's a little surprising that Paramount basically ups and reveals the primary plot in this moody and effective teaser.  This time around, it's being helmed by Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, who broke out last year with the somewhat questionable (in regards to its 'non-fiction-ness') documentary Catfish.  I have no objection with the third film in this franchise being an 80s-set prequel, but I have to wonder where they will go after they'd allegedly explained much of the mystery in this alleged 'here's how it all began' third chapter.  I am genuinely curious to see A) if they actually shot the film on old-fashioned VHS camcorders and B) whether this series can maintain the consistency of the Saw franchise, which was flying high for five straight installments before crashing with the sixth (and ironically best) chapter back in 2009.  It took direct competition from the first Paranormal Activity to bring down Jigsaw.  What will be the next October-scheduled franchise to take down the poltergeists/demons from this series in a few years?  Anyway, this one opens on October 21st, which is the same weekend as the wide releases of the first two films.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson 

Brett Ratner's all-star caper Tower Heist gets a trailer.

This one has been on the radar for awhile purely due to the huge cast.  The big trump card is of course Eddie Murphy returning to slightly harder-edged comedy after 15 years of being a family-friendly entertainer.  The rest of the lineup (Ben Stiller, Alan Alda, Tea Leoni, Gabourey Sidibe, Matthew Broderick, Casey Affleck, Michael Pena, Judd Hirsch, etc) makes this a must-see almost by default, while the fact that the first credited writer (out of eight) is Noah Baumbach gives hope regarding its quality (the other seven writers are a mixed bag).  I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I'm a big fan of Ratner's Red Dragon, primarily because he apparently was smart enough to stand back and let his equally terrific cast just do their thing (major caveat - Why was Scott Glenn not asked back to play Jack Crawford this time around?).  Hopefully the same 'go off and play, just come in before dark' mentality will apply here.  It is slightly odd that Eddie Murphy is arguably playing the same type of character he played in 48 Hrs and he doesn't look that much older than he did in 1982 (he turned 50 this past April).  Anyway, this one comes out November 4th from Universal so, as always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Right idea, wrong execution: Paramount makes the wrong scheduling moves for GI Joe: Retaliation and Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol.

As expected, Paramount was the first to blink this afternoon, moving Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol away from its December 16th release date where it would have gone head-to-head with Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows and Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked.  The Brad Bird-directed sequel will now open five days later, on Wednesday, December 21st.  Unfortunately, instead of facing one major would-be blockbuster, it now faces several.  Opening on the same day or two days later are The Adventures of Tintin, The Darkest Hour, We Bought A Zoo, and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.  The Tom Cruise/Jeremy Renner vehicle very well may win that long Christmas weekend and benefit from those famous year-end legs.  But there was another even more prime release date with absolutely no competition whatsoever.

Since Star Trek 2 is basically in development hell, there was a completely empty release slot on June 29th.  However, instead of slotting the fourth Mission: Impossible film in the heart of summer, they have instead moved GI Joe 2: Retaliation (the slimmed down and allegedly grittier sequel to GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra) into the June 29th slot.  GI Joe: Retaliation was slotted to open unopposed on August 10th, 2012.  Yes, Lionsgate is opening The Expendables 2 just one week later, and perhaps Paramount was worried about demo overkill.  But GI Joe 2 will surely be PG-13 while The Expendables 2 will likely be R-rated.  First of all, GI Joe 2's second weekend would have been the perfect alibi for youngsters wanting to sneak into the R-rated Sly Stallone/Jason Statham sequel.  Second of all, it's not like anyone was expecting the second GI Joe sequel to have anything resembling legs.  One weekend was all it needed, which is what it had and still has now.  But by giving GI Joe: Retaliation the mid-summer slot, Paramount has sacrificed the fourth Mission: Impossible film to the insane overcrowding that is the last few weeks of 2011.  If I were Paramount, I would have kept GI Joe 2 right where it was, on nearly the same weekend where the first film opened with $54 million two years ago.  And I would have moved Mission: Impossible IV to the empty June 29th slot (that likely would have made JJ Abrams happy, which would have been a pleasant bonus).  So what call would you have made in this high-stakes game of franchise musical chairs?

Scott Mendelson    

She's a politician, not a movie star. Why the box office failure of Sarah Palin's The Undefeated doesn't mean a gosh-darn thing.

However immature it may be, it can be fun to crow when your enemy fails.  Thus we've had two weeks of various liberal bloggers jumping for joy at the financial under-performance of the Sarah Palin halo-agraphy The Undefeated.  The film opened with $65,132 on ten screens for a mediocre $6,532 per-screen average.  It expanded to 14 locations this past weekend but dropped 62%, earning just $24,662 for a $1,762 per-screen average.  The film barely has $100,000 after ten days and has announced premature (?) plans to debut on Video on Demand and DVD release.  This is frankly an out-and-out tank, a genuine bomb even when compared to other political documentaries that aren't directed by Michael Moore (comparing all political documentaries to Moore's work would be like expecting Punisher: War Zone to out-gross Spider-Man 3).  Ben Stein's Intelligent Design documentary, Expelled, ended up grossing $7.7 million in 2008.  Even something as relatively low-key as The US vs. John Lennon opened with $11,523 per-screen on six screens and eventually grossed $1.1 million back in 2006.  What does this mean for the political fortunes of Sarah Palin and/or those who endorse her ideologies?  Absolutely nothing.

If you're among the liberals licking their lips with glee that few if anyone came out to see Palin's documentary, ask yourself: Would you rush out to see a similar documentary about someone more of your political persuasion?  Raise your hands if you went to a theater and saw Going Upriver: The John Kerry Story back in October, 2004?  I did, but I'm a movie nut who, especially when I was unmarried and without kids, try to see anything that may or may not inspire some kind of discussion (it's why I most certainly checked out The Passion of the Christ over opening weekend in February 2004).  But judging by the box office numbers, you probably didn't.  The film opened with $279,219 on 163 theaters and eventually grossed a whopping $614,138 in theaters.  Would anyone of you take time away from work and family to race out to see a completely uncritical and overtly partisan documentary about Barack Obama?  How about Russ Feingold or Alan Grayson?  Anyone...?  Sure, we might check out such a thing on television or on Netflix Instant, but there is a big difference between turning on our car stereo and listening to political talk radio and going out to a movie theater.  Preaching to the converted only works when the converted can be easily accessed.  Again, speaking through free talk radio or basic cable television is a lot easier than getting people to pay $10 (and possibly pay for babysitting) in order to be basically preached to about a philosophy that you already endorse.  

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 made $119 million in 2004, the highest-grossing documentary in history, and George W. Bush still won re-election (say what you will about electoral votes in Ohio, it was a clean popular-vote victory).  The two biggest films of 2008, The Dark Knight and Iron Man were (wrongly in my opinion) held up as right-wing apologetics, and Barack Obama still handily won the 08 presidential election.  All the box office failure of Sarah Palin's The Undefeated means is that her fans are no more willing to spend money and time to watch a glowing portrait of someone they already endorse than we are.  So Sarah Palin is not a movie star.  Neither is anyone on our side.  That doesn't make her any less impressive to her fans or any less dangerous to her foes.  It certainly makes her no less relevant to the political discourse as long as those who choose what to report continue to hang on her every offhand comment.

Scott Mendelson            

Battleship gets a teaser, feels very Armageddon-ish.

I could go on and on about how this represents the pinnacle of what is wrong with the 'tentpole' portion of the film industry at the moment.  But truth be told, I'm more depressed that Peter Berg chose THIS as his follow up to Hancock (arguably one of the best original superhero pictures of the modern superhero era) and chose not to fill the cast with quirky character actors (think The Core).  But no matter, the finished product basically feels like an original (though contrived) invading aliens vs. the US Navy film that slapped the name 'Battleship' on its marquee purely for brand name recognition.  Which, frankly, if you're going to adapt a board game (or a theme park ride for that matter), that's how you do it.  I'm less annoyed at the whole 'let's make a movie out of Battleship' concept that I am at how contrived and generic the picture feels.  Peter Berg (who showed real action chops with The Kingdom) seems to be mimicking Michael Bay.  The alien threat feels like something out of Transformers (the red and yellow peg-shaped missiles are a nice touch), while the core storyline is pure Armageddon.  The only question is not whether Liam Neeson will die at the end (after giving Taylor Kitsch approval to wed his daughter, Brooklyn Decker), but whether Neeson's last words will be "You sunk my battleship!"  This one comes out May 18th, 2012, which is actually prime summer real estate, in apparently glorious 2D.

Scott Mendelson    

The Muppets gets a final domestic poster...

Thanks to Fandango to putting this up originally.  Not much to say, other than I'm glad that Statler and Waldorf are getting prominent spaces in the gigantic deluge of Muppets.  I suppose I could take umbrige over the fact that the humans are given top billing over the puppets that everyone is actually coming to see.  I love Chris Cooper as much as the next person, but he's not exactly a box office draw or a kid favorite.  Anyway, enough whining, I'll be there with bells on for the first November 23rd showing, or an earlier press screening if I can brownnose Disney to a suitable degree (they don't return my emails as often as other big studios).  On a last note, kudos to Disney for not forcing a 3D conversion this time around.

Scott Mendelson  

For the good of the industry: Why The Amazing Spider-Man must not be a smash...

What was merely presumed is now official, as IMAX announced that The Amazing Spider-Man would be debuting in IMAX 3D along with its 2D and Digital 3D counterparts on July 3, 2012.  This is no surprise, as Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3 both played in IMAX (the latter opened day-and-date), while the lost Raimi-helmed Spider-Man 4 was announced as an IMAX launch when it was scheduled to open on May 5th of this year.  Of course, the Marc Webb Spider-Man reboot will only have 2.5 weeks in IMAX before Chris Nolan debuts The Dark Knight Rises on July 20th.  I have nothing against anyone involved with the making of The Amazing Spider-Man.  I liked Marc Webb's (500) Days of Summer, I think Emma Stone deserved an Oscar nomination for Easy A, and Andrew Garfield has shined in (among his more mainstream films) Never Let Me Go and The Social Network.  And while the teaser trailer failed to make any real impression beyond autopilot 'dark and gritty' brooding, I've been told the footage at Comic Con was more impressive.  But for the good of the industry as a whole, for the sake of the countless untapped sources of big-budget cinematic experiences, The Amazing Spider-Man must bomb.

If The Amazing Spider-Man is a hit, then the floodgates will open.  If Sony gets away with kicking Sam Raimi off the franchise that made it billions of dollars purely due to artistic disagreements (after they forced Raimi to include Venom in Spider-Man 3), then it will be open season on reboots and the end to any kind of artistic freedom on these genre franchises.  Every remotely successful property in the last three decades will be vulnerable.  We've already seen this trend in horror films, where pretty much every major 1970s and 1980s horror classic has been remade.  But again, in that case we are talking about remakes of 25-35-year old films intended to supplement, not replace, the original versions.  What we have here is a studio arbitrarily throwing out an ongoing franchise in order to save money and have more creative control.  If this works, every franchise will be 'do a trilogy and reboot'.  And more importantly, if rebooting is successful, we will see the same dozen or so franchises being rebooted over and over again.  We'll see Warner Bros. rebooting every major property in their arsenal (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Batman, Superman, Lethal Weapon, The Matrix, Dirty Harry, etc) every ten years.  We'll see Fox redoing their Marvel properties (Daredevil, Fantastic Four, X-Men) over and over again all to keep the franchise rights from transferring to Disney.  We will see endless Bourne films with countless different brainwashed Treadstone agents.  We'll see new variations on Indiana Jones (starring, I dunno, Taylor Lautner), Die Hard (starring... umm... Jason Statham?), the Jack Ryan series (apparently now starring Chris Pine), Ghostbusters (starring Seth Rogen, Jason Segel, and Paul Rudd), and any other remotely popular genre film you can think of from the last ten to thirty years.  And when the newest variation of said franchise is tapped out, they'll just start up all over again.

This isn't about Hollywood not being original.  Heck, many of the best films of modern times were based on novels, and several were based on comic books (although only a couple were based on television shows while none were based on video games).  This is about the very real threat whereby the big studios basically recycle their biggest cash cows over and over again.  There have already been hints of this, with a remake of Total Recall in production and remakes/reboots of The Crow, Lethal Weapon, and The Bodyguard in pre-production.  More importantly, the threat of merely being kicked off the property and watching as the studio just reboots the thing will be fatal to filmmakers who want to exhibit any kind of creative control over these films.  But if The Amazing Spider-Man genuinely flops, it may be the last/best chance to stop this unrelenting drive of various studio heads to merely reboot the hit franchises of the previous generation.  Our kids (to say nothing of ourselves) deserve a better class of big-budget genre picture than mere retreads of the stuff we liked or our parents like.

As I said, I like everyone involved with The Amazing Spider-Man.  I rather adore the two apparent main sources of inspiration, Brian Michael Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man and Greg Weisman's Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon.  But the success of this Spider-Man 2.0 will only bring out the copy cats that much faster.  Unless we want to see a big budget release schedule filled with the same dozen franchise recycled over and over again, Spidey may have to make the ultimate sacrifice.  Because with great power comes... you get the idea.

Scott Mendelson        

Happily Never After: The sad (and sexist?) rush to cast some of our most promising young actresses as fairy tale princesses.

There were a few interesting articles written over the last several months about the unusual amount of ass-kicking (or at least take-charge) young female roles being written into mainstream cinema.  Whether it was Chloe Moretz in Kick-Ass, Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit, Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone, or Saoirse Ronan in Hanna, the last 18 months or so has seen a mini-wave of genre pictures where young females were basically the lead characters (or in the case of Kick-Ass the star attraction), 'strong independent character' (god, I hate that cliche) who not only could fend for themselves but were not defined in any way, shape, or form by their male love interest (not a one of them had a boyfriend).  Yes, I would include Sucker Punch in this category, as it was basically a satiric examination of whether ass-kicking young women in pop culture were automatically sexualized by virtue of the salacious nature of such imagery (stop whining and read THIS).  The somewhat negative undercurrent of this trend is that these actresses were generally under 18, often barely passed puberty.  Point being, what would become of these actresses once they reached adulthood?  If recent developments are any indication, Hollywood has a genuine desire to roll back the progress clock and turn these actresses into fairy tale princesses.

At the moment, we now have two competing variations on Snow White set to be released in the next year.  One, pictured above, will star Lily Collins (from The Blind Side and soon to be seen as Taylor Lautner's token girlfriend in Abduction) as the titular princess, while the other will star Kristen Stewart as the 'fairest of them all'.  Both are claiming to be somewhat revisionist, and for the moment I shall take them at their word.  But no matter how much armor and battle-axes you give Snow White, you're still hiring one of our more talented actresses (say what you will about Twilight, but she absolutely sells Bella Swann and shines in the likes of Adventureland) to play a woman whose primary job is to run away from an evil witch, play house with a bunch of asexual dwarves, then finally bite a poison apple and await rescue from a theoretical Prince Charming.  Of course, you could argue that Ms. Collins isn't one of the 'great actresses of our time' yet.  But the fact that we have two competing projects based on Snow White is a sad commentary on our times, both as a statement about how obsessed the studios are with any kind of brand recognition as well as the kind of roles available for actresses on the cusp of adulthood.

And it gets worse.  What was Hailee Steinfeld's reward for earning an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress for a film where she was unquestionably the lead?  What was her follow-up project for stealing True Grit from Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin?  She gets to play Sleeping Beauty in (yet again) a revisionist variation on that old-chestnut.  And we'll see who gets to play Princess Aurora in the other competing project, Maleficent (allegedly starring Angelina Jolie as the villain) which was to be directed by Tim Burton before he came to his senses.  Worst of all (and the catalyst for this rant) is the news that Emma Watson, who portrayed one of the great feminist icons of recent times, Ms. Hermione Granger herself, is being wooed for the lead role in Guillermo del Toro's live-action variation of yes, Beauty and the Beast.  Never mind that Guillermo del Toro certainly has better things to do with his time.  Never mind that we have no real need for a live-action version of "Stockholm Syndrome: The Movie" (even my 3 year old dismissed the Disney version, because she stated that the Beast was mean and a grouch).  It is sadly predictable that, as soon as Ms. Watson (a fiery feminist in her own right) was able to basically play adult roles, she would be shoved into the helpless fairy-tale heroine box.

And that is really the point. To be fair, it's not an all-encompassing issue.  Chloe Moretz remains fairy tale-free at this point, and Saoirse Ronan has yet to be cast in a theoretical live-action version of The Little Mermaid.  She does have a 'teen girls as hit-women' caper with Alexis Bledel, Violet and Daisy, that I desperately want to see.  And Dakota Fanning has yet to be cast as the token hot girl quite yet.  But there remains a disturbing trend that allows young actresses to be vibrant and active in their onscreen fates only until they reach young adulthood.  Once they are old enough to be legally sexualized, their worth as empowered heroines is seemingly lost and they end up being tasked with playing the token love interest (SEE Emily Blunt be pulled by the hand by Matt Damon in The Adjustment Bureau!), helpless hostage/potential woman in refrigerator (SEE Blake Lively as the kidnapped girlfriend of both Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Johnson in Oliver Stone's Savages!), or both (SEE Amanda Seyfried as Justin Timberlake's hostage who learns to love him in In Time!). It is as if female roles can only be worthwhile when they are too young to be viewed exclusively as sexual objects.  Now there is a new category for which to pigeon hole these actresses: perfectly pretty princess. Once they are old enough to be cast in stereotypical female roles, it's straight to the 'token' box, with an occasional diversion in fairy tale theater. Is this new mini-fad simply another variation on tokenism, or a more insidious attempt to keep said young actresses virginal and pure?

It is telling that bloggers and pundits bemoaned Jennifer Lawrence passing on Savages and picking The Hunger Games instead.  Maybe, no matter how prestigious an Oliver Stone film might be (because he writes SO well for female characters...), Lawrence chose to be a lead in her own action franchise rather than play a random hottie who is abducted as a pawn in a drug spat involving her dueling boyfriends (on the surface, it seems like a prestige variation on Double Dragon).  And it is telling that no one seems to notice or care that a number of our most promising young actresses are being jammed into the 'girl cage' just at the age when they would be old enough to play quality adult female roles.  Of course, roles such as that are few and far between.  For the likes of Watson and Steinfeld, it appears once again that the choice is between no mainstream roles or regressive token roles or playing a live-action Disney princess.  Oh well, I'm sure they can find an episodic television series when the time comes.  When it comes to quality roles for adult women, for too many actresses, it is television instead of film that is the pathway to happily ever after.

Scott Mendelson

The movie or the marketing? Will going from Paramount to Disney help or hurt Marvel Studios' upcoming films?

It is a clear case of quitting while you're ahead.  Paramount pulled off another $65 million+ opening weekend for another Marvel property, this time with the somewhat more questionable Captain America.  Despite opening in the middle of summer and without the IMAX advantage, Captain America still opened with almost identical numbers to Thor's debut last May ($100,000 more as of this writing).  And that's all she wrote for the three-year long distribution relationship between Marvel Studios and Paramount.  Thanks to a deal whereby Paramount basically sold the distribution rights to any Marvel characters they had dibs on (The Avengers, Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, etc) to Disney for $115 million late last year, the fate of the ongoing Marvel movie mythology rests with The Mouse House.  As you recall, Disney bought Marvel Studios for $4 billion just under two years ago, but many of the most popular Marvel properties (X-Men, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, etc) belonged to other studios.  Disney grabbing back Paramount's key properties was a major step in bringing the Marvel universe under one studio roof (and likely the last step for awhile, as I imagine that Fox and Sony will keep rebooting or remaking their respective properties until doomsday).  But for now the question is simply: Will the Marvel Studios film universe suffer without the seemingly unbeatable Paramount marketing team?

Paramount's marketing, when it comes to major tentpole pictures, has been quite simply the best out there for at least the last four years.  Every new property they have tried to launch has been met with general success in relation to expectations and cost.  Sure The Last Airbender was terrible, but Paramount still opened the picture to a nearly-$70 million five-day gross and carried to to $300 million worldwide (had the film been better received, we'd likely be seeing a sequel).  Sure GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra wasn't even screened for critics and was relatively trashed when critics did see it, but the film still opened with $55 million in early August and ended up with $300 million worldwide (that the film cost $175 million due to production hassles is the reason we're getting a revamped and cheaper sequel).  Yes we all whined when Shrek: The Final Chapter opened to 'just' $70 million in May 2010.  But the film eventually grossed $752 million worldwide off a $165 million production budget.  And those are the 'questionable' successes.

Paramount took Paranormal Activity and turned it from a direct-to-DVD cult item into a massive mainstream success, making it the second-highest grossing R-rated horror film of the last decade (behind Hannibal) and spawning the first new horror franchise of this current decade.  They took Transformers, a project that seemed like a bad joke at the time (a Michael Bay film based on those robots that turn into trucks?) and made it into one of the most popular franchises of the last ten years.  They opened the star-less and comparatively FX-free Super 8 to over $35 million by convincing audiences that the relatively cut-and-dry 80s Spielberg homage had some massive plot twist or major third act reveal.  They opened Cloverfield to $40 million in January with a six-month long campaign that didn't even reveal the primary antagonist.  Oh and they made me look like a complete idiot (not hard, I know...) by returning Star Trek to the top of the franchise film heap with a $79 million 3.5 day opening weekend and a $250 million domestic gross.  If they even actually make Star Trek 2, it's sure to pull a Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest-type upswing with an opening weekend that is sure to be among the biggest ever.

And of course, they have had unquestionable success with the Marvel universe thus far.  It was Paramount's shrewd marketing that pushed Iron Man to a $102 million 3.5 day opening weekend, which is still the third-biggest opening for a non-sequel on record.  And while I whined about Thor's Comic-Con footage and various previews for nearly a year, Paramount knew what it was doing.  The kid-centric marketing campaign won out and still opened with $65 million and had enough legs to cross $180 million just this weekend.  And just this weekend, despite being the fourth superhero comic book adaptation of the summer, and despite serious concerns about the reception of such a patriotic super hero ("He's not patriotic ENOUGH!" screams the idiot Right, "He's Tea Party propaganda!" screams the idiot Left), the film had the biggest superhero comic book opening of 2011.  Paramount isn't perfect of course.  They couldn't beat the anti-Tom Cruise sentiment in May 2006 and now have to reignite the Mission: Impossible franchise.  And The Spiderwick Chronicles is just one of several post- Harry Potter/Frodo Baggins attempts to create and ongoing kid-lit fantasy franchise that didn't take (albeit a pretty good one).  But when it comes to the major tentpoles, especially during the summer, Paramount has been basically batting 1.000 since 2006.

Disney on the other hand, while no slouch itself, has struggled of late, especially in the arena of live-action franchises.  Alice In Wonderland was a knock-out success on every commercial level, and Disney shouldn't be penalized because it was a one-shot deal.  But they haven't launched a genuinely successful franchise since Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl back in 2003.  The closest they've come is with the moderately successful (and responsibly budgeted) Step Up series which has had three entries since 2006.  Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time came and went ($335 million on a $200 million budget). The Sorcerer's Apprentice was a fun and enjoyable film, but it was a disastrously marketed picture  as it sold the film as explicitly non-essential viewing.  Off-the-cuff pleasures are great, but not when they cost $150 million (it grossed $215 million worldwide).  They may or may not see a future in continuing Tron, and Disney deserves much credit for almost turning that piece of garbage into a major sci-fi franchise.  But Disney's biggest live-action hit this year outside of Pirates of the Caribbean: Voyage of the God-Awful is I Am Number Four, a would-be Twilight/Roswell rip-off that wasn't quite a flop ($144 million on a $60 million budget) but will likely not spawn I Am Number Six.

Point being, Disney bought Marvel precisely because they were lacking in franchises, especially boy-friendly tentpole pictures that weren't animated.  But the question now becomes, will Disney's marketing keep the Marvel Studios productions at or above their current success levels, or was the Paramount marketing machine the unsung hero of the last three years?  Would Transformers have been less successful at Disney?  Conversely, would the terrific but expensive Rango been slightly more successful under the Pixar brand?  I've written before about certain studios (namely smaller ones like Lionsgate and Summit) not quite being able to open films as large as similar fare at different studios.  It's a question of credit and blame.  Are Marvel Studios and the name brands of properties such as Transformers, GI Joe, and Avatar: The Last Airbender responsible for the hit streak at Paramount, or was Paramount's marketing strength responsible for creating the boffo opening weekends that gave those franchises life?  If the answer is the latter, just how will the House of Ideas fare under the marketing team over at The Mouse House?

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office: (07/24/11): Captain America opens with $65m, Friends With Benefits opens to $19m, Harry Potter 7.2 drops 72% but dominates worldwide..

Captain America: The First Avenger (review) debuted at number one this weekend, earning a rock-solid $65.1 million.  The opening puts it just behind Thor ($65.7 million) for the second-biggest superhero debut of the year.  The film scored an A- from Cinemascore and had an okay 2.52x weekend multiplier.  It played 64% male and 57% over-25 (I don't have 3D stats yet).  I had hopes for a higher opening weekend after the $4 million midnight debut (bigger than any non-sequel this year), but in the end it played like every other super hero film this year.  On a personal note, I'm a little disappointed that the film didn't play better to women, as Hayley Atwell's Peggy Carter ranks as one of the best female lead/love interest characters in comic book movie history (IE - she's an authoritative ass-kicker whose general bad ass-ness is taken completely for granted and whose eventual romance with Steve Rogers actually has emotional weight).  Still the large over-25 percentage implies that the film is playing well to older audiences who were drawn in more by the period and the older actors (Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, etc) than the comic book genre or character popularity.  Still those older audiences are being heavily targeted by Universal's campaign for Cowboys and Aliens (also based on a comic book, albeit a relatively cult one), which hopes to lasso non-geeks with the James Bond (Daniel Craig) teams with Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) gimmick.  Barring unexpected collapse, it should go toe-to-toe with Thor, which just crossed $180 million this weekend.  Overseas numbers are a bigger question (the movie doesn't expand much internationally for a couple weeks), as Paramount is emphasizing the international nature of Captain America's 'Howling Commandos' as well as the fact that the primary threat isn't nation-specific (IE - Red Skull is too crazy even for the Nazis!).  But for now, this is a dynamite debut for one of the summer's biggest question marks, fitting for a movie that turned out to be far better than most were expecting (and if you're that idiot who wants to assign the movie to a specific ideology, READ THIS first).  

There are seven films in box office history that have opened with $120 million or more.  Yet this weekend, we had a film LOSE $120 million from weekend to weekend as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II (review) dropped 72% from its record-breaking $169 million debut last weekend.  The series finale of the Harry Potter series still grossed $47 million, which is the biggest second weekend for the series that wasn't boosted by Thanksgiving weekend and the fourth-biggest second weekend of the eight-part series.  It now appears that the series finale is now basically acting like a normal Harry Potter film, with the 3D price-bump somewhat helping boost the weekend total.  Everyone who was casually interested in the franchise went last weekend, and now the film is back to merely catering the more serious fans.  Not that this is a criticism in any way.  The film still has $273 million in ten days, second in ten day totals only to The Dark Knight ($317 million), and it's at $834 million worldwide in just under two weeks of release.  The Deathly Hallows part II will likely be the highest-grossing entry domestically in the next week or two, and now it's just a question whether the bleeding can stop enough for it to topple Transformers: Dark of the Moon (now at $325 million domestic and a record for the franchise $882 million worldwide) and/or top $400 million.  Worldwide, it's a question of how fast it can get to $1 billion.

The other big opener this weekend was Friends With Benefits, which rode a year-long wave of popular R-rated comedies to a solid $18.5 million debut.  The Justin Timberlake/Mila Kunis romantic comedy had an almost identical debut to No Strings Attached, the Natalie Portman/Ashton Kutcher vehicle with a relatively similar premise that opened with $19.6 million at the beginning of this year.  Like all of the popular R-rated comedies this summer, this one was budgeted reasonably, as the $35 million production should make its money back domestically in the next two weeks, leaving the always-uncertain international figures as merely gravy.  It's a lower debut than the other R-rated comedies this summer, but Timberlake and Kunis aren't proven openers quite yet, so the number is impressive.  Horrible Bosses and Bad Teacher are both holding up well, as the former dropped just 34% in weekend three for a new $82 million total and the latter is at $94 million and should cross $100 million in a week or two.

There's not much else to report, especially in terms of holdover news.  Winnie the Pooh dropped an okay 34%, for a second weekend total of $5.1 million and a ten day cum of $17 million (Oh bother...).  Bridesmaids is at $163 million, inching closer to besting The Firm ($165 million) on the all-time R-rated grossers list. The Zookeeper has held on just a bit, dropping just 29% in weekend three and crossing the $60 million mark.  Cars 2 is at $176 million, dropping just 31% (I finally saw Cars 2... yes it's pretty lousy and quite boring, but it's no war crime and Pixar will be fine).  Midnight In Paris actually rose 1.2% this weekend, and its total now sits at $44 million.  $50 million is all-but-inevitable at this point (as is, deserving or not, a Best Picture nomination next season).  Tree of Life, which never made it to even 300 screens, crossed $11 million this weekend and will arguably try to reach $15 million before it becomes a cult-classic on Blu Ray and a genuine Oscar contender next year (well, it certainly deserves it more than Midnight In Paris).

That's it this weekend.  Join us next time when the last mega-movies of the summer close out July, as Cowboys & Aliens squares off against Crazy Stupid Love and The Smurfs.  It will also see the US release of the cult sensation Attack of the Block, but I do not know how wide that one will be playing.  Don't expect any early reviews for this batch, as my mother-in-law and daughter want to see The Smurfs, my father-in-law wants to see Cowboys and Aliens, and  Crazy Stupid Love will probably be that Monday's 'Parent Movie Monday' showing at the Northridge Pacific, so I'll probably wait until the weekend to accommodate all interested parties (Ethan also thought Horrible Bosses was flat, not terribly funny, and lacking a forward narrative momentum).  Until then, take care and share your thoughts below.

Scott Mendelson

Midnight movie math: Captain America: The First Avenger scores $4 million at 12:01am, setting the stage for a dynamite $61-88 million opening weekend.

Captain America: The First Avenger grossed $4 million at midnight alone, scoring the fifth-biggest midnight gross of the year, behind Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides ($4.6 million), Transformers: Dark of the Moon ($8 million in midnight tickets, plus $5.5 million in advance-night showings), The Hangover II ($10 million on a Wednesday night), and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II ($43.5 million).  So Captain America has the biggest midnight haul for a non-sequel in 2011.  As you know if you've been following all summer, most genre movies that aren't insanely anticipated (IE - not a Harry Potter film or a Twilight sequel) do between 4.5% and 6.5% of their opening weekend at those12:01am showings.  That puts Captain America: The First Avenger on a course for at least $61 million, with as much as $88 million over the next three days.  Predicting how front loaded it will be in relation to the midnight gross is merely an educated guess at this point.  One would presume that the strong reviews, World War II setting, and recognizable grown-up actors (Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci) would bring out certain audience segments not otherwise inclined to check out yet another comic book film.  So the % we're dealing with is probably closer to the 5.2% of Pirates 4 than the 6.4% of Green Lantern.  For now, let's call it at 5% and predict a $80 million opening weekend for Captain America: The First Avenger.  Obviously we'll know more in about 12 hours.

Scott Mendelson    

I'm sorry about the 3D mess, but Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg is full of sh*t. 2011 is easily one of the best years for movies in a very long time.

Jeffrey Katzenberg is understandably upset that other studios have been diluting the value of 3D movies, something he has championed long before Avatar and believed would be the savior of the theatrical experience.  But that's no reason for Katzenberg to outlandishly whine about how much this year's movies 'suck'.  "They suck," Katzenberg states in an interview with Fortune.  "It's unbelievable how bad movies have been, right?"  He's wrong.  Very wrong.  Without question, 2011 is one of the best movie going years in recent history.  Ironically, my favorite film thus far this year is Katzenberg's Kung Fu Panda 2.  Since Katzenberg didn't specify which movies he disliked (in fact, like a lazy grade school message board commentator, he cited not a single example), I can only assume he includes his own movie in this ranking, I humbly apologize for giving his Dreamworks animated film a rave review.  I was obviously entirely off the mark, since apparently all movies released in 2011 were terrible.

I am not going to list every great film of the year, but it has been a stunningly solid and consistent year thus far.  We started the year with a deluge of relatively solid (some I liked, some I didn't), mid-budget adult genre films that mostly received decent reviews and all had relative success (The Lincoln Lawyer, Insidious, No Strings Attached, Limitless, Source Code, The Adjustment Bureau, Hanna, etc).  These are just the kind of films that Katzenberg championed in his infamous 1990 studio memo where he chided out-of-control production costs and ever-larger budgets.  We even had a dynamite animated feature (Rango) that compensated for last Spring's dynamite animated feature (How to Train Your Dragon).  Then summer began, and the improvement from 2010 was obvious from the get-go.  Fast Five was a shockingly solid action adventure film that basically shamed its four mediocre predecessors.  Thor was a much better movie than Iron Man 2, and Bridesmaids was a better comedy than anything released last year.  Instead of Shrek: The Final Chapter, you had Kung Fu Panda 2.  Transformers: Dark of the Moon had its usual franchise issues, but it was an improvement in the series and certainly better than The Last Airbender.  While last summer was so starved for real quality that The Karate Kid felt like a gift from the Oscar gods, this year has seen a steady stream of solid popcorn entertainment (Fast Five, Bridesmaids, Kung Fu Panda 2, X-Men: First Class, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II, and Captain America).  And on the independent cinema front, we've seen the massive mainstream success of Woody Allen's Midnight In Paris, plus the solid limited engagements for Tree of Life, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Beginners, and Jane Eyre.  I can't remember the last time there were more movies I liked than movies I disliked.  

So I understand Katzenberg's frustration at the rise and fall of 3D.  And I sympathize with his frustration at how Kung Fu Panda 2 was arbitrarily declared a flop despite opening with $66 million in five days, a stigma that did real damage to the Dreamworks stock and remains in place even as the film speeds towards $600 million worldwide on a $150 million budget.  But Katzenberg's arbitrary rantings resemble that of a pissed off child, and they should not be given credibility or declared newsworthy purely because he uttered them.  Perhaps due to the aftershocks of the 2007 WGA writers' strike wearing off, or merely due to random chance, 2011 has been a stunningly good year for movies.  Whether you like independent cinema or popcorn blockbusters, this is a damn fine time to be a movie fan.

Scott Mendelson

Warner Bros. moves Man of Steel to June 14th, 2013. NOT July 19th, 2013!

In what I guess you could call breaking news, Warner Bros. has announced that they are moving Man of Steel (ie - Zach Snyder's Superman film that seems to be based on Superman: Birthright) from December 2012 to June 14th, 2013.  What's shocking is not that the film is being moved (it is apparently being tinkered with at the screenwriting stage), but that Warner is not moving it into its favorite mega-release date, which in this case would be July 19th, 2013.  For those who came in late, a brief history of Warner's favorite weekend:  It started in July 2007. For, among other reasons, a sense that the fifth Harry Potter film would benefit from a release date close to the release of the seventh and final book, Warner Bros. slotted Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix to open on Wednesday, July 18th. It grossed $44 million on that first Wednesday and ended up with $139 million over the first five days ($77 million of that from Fri-Sun). Despite being released in the summer (where Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban ended with a series-low gross of $248 million) and being based on arguably the worst book in the series, Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix ended up with $293 million, becoming the highest-grossing Harry Potter sequel yet released at the time.

The next year, Warner broke with Caped Crusader-tradition and released The Dark Knight not in mid-June like every other prior Batman movie, but in the same mid-July slot where they had struck gold the year before with the boy who lived. As most of you know, the film set an opening weekend record of $158 million and ended its leggy run with $533 million. Last summer, following a last-minute date change from November 15th, 2008 to July 15th, 2009, Warner slotted its sixth Harry Potter picture in the same Wednesday five-day weekend as the last chapter, and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince scored another $159 million over its first five days before becoming the first Harry Potter sequel to cross $300 million.  In 2010, Warner Bros. slotted its big summer tentpole over the same weekend, in this case it was Chris Nolan's Inception, which opened with $62 million and eventually ended up with $290 million.  This year, of course, Warner used the same slot that had worked so well for Harry Potter 5 and Harry Potter 6, using July 15th as the opening date for the series finale.  We all know what happened there.  Opening on a Friday (as opposed to the last two summer Potters, which opened on Wednesdays), the film broke the opening weekend record with $169 million.  Next year, come July 20th, said record may (or may not...) fall again when Warner Bros opens The Dark Knight Rises.

So as you can see, since Warner has decided to hold on to their Superman reboot, it would make sense to release it on the same piece of prime real estate that has served them for the last five years.  But no, instead Warner is choosing the mid-June slot that ironically USED to be the opening day for the alleged big super hero film of a given summer.  On that weekend, we had Dick Tracy, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Hulk, and Batman Begins.  It is interesting to see if Warner Bros. is trying to reestablish that release date as primo real estate once again.  This also makes Man of Steel into the defacto 'movie to beat' in summer 2013, as the heavily scrutinized project (with arguably the best cast of any recent comic book picture - Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Michael Shannon, Antje Traue, Russell Crowe, Julia Ormond, Harry Lennix, and Christopher Meloni) will be facing the over-the-hill Iron Man 3 and the relatively unanticipated Thor 2, along with the somewhat more exciting Fast and Furious 6 (which is coming off the dynamite fifth installment) and Despicable Me 2.  We'll see, but don't be surprised if Warner Bros. moves Pacific Rim (opening July 12th) to the June 14th slot while pushing Man of Steel to that July 19th date.  And if they do, you heard it here first.  And if they don't... well they darn-well should have.

Scott Mendelson

Amazing Spider-Man gets a teaser, which looks... familiar (in more ways that one).

At first glance, this teaser seems to be selling something akin to the Teen Wolf television show.  Take something that was first presented as light, peppy, and colorful, then redo it as an uber-grim and glum and oh-so-serious variation.  Still, Spider-Man, like Batman, has been done 10,000 different ways, so there is no harm in seeing another interpretation, even if it was a naked cash grab that spawned reboot-fever (if this hits, no franchise will ever make it to part IV again).  The piece looks moody, well-acted, and atmospheric, although the sense of deja vu permeates the whole thing.  Having said that, three things spring to mind. A) The climactic running sequence (arguably designed to show off the potential for 3D in this new Spidey flick) looks like something out of a first-person video game.  B) The score during the finale sounds an awful lot like Danny Elfman's score for the original Spider-Man.  I know it's probably not (not the main theme anyway), but you'd think Sony would want to distance themselves a bit more from the Sam Raimi trilogy.  C) It would appear that Marc Webb and company have spent a bit of time watching the terrific Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon that aired from 2008-2009.  It also told of a high-school-age Peter Parker, who's best pal Gwen Stacy worked in Doc Conners's lab.  It's not bad material to borrow from (the cartoon was stunningly well-written), I just hope if the final film is as similar that the proper people get acknowledgment.  And at least said cartoon didn't make us rehash the origin yet again (and it also didn't try to be pointlessly 'dark and gritty').  Anyway, this one comes out July 3rd, 2012.  As always, we'll see...  If you have thoughts, feel free to share them below.

Scott Mendelson  

Review: Captain America (2011) saves best pre-Avengers film for last, offering wonderful characterization and old-school adventure.

Captain America: The First Avenger
2011
124 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Joe Johnston's Captain America is a gloriously old-fashioned bit of shoe-leather adventure. While there are plenty of elaborate special effects, the emphasis remains on character and narrative. Like the best of the recent comic book films, this is a genre film first and a comic book adaptation second. It is, at its core, a genuine World War II action picture that happens to be based on a comic book. It is filled with terrific actors doing wonderful character turns. It is filled with colorful heroes and dastardly villains, plus dames who have more important things to do than stand around and look pretty. It has a wonderful score, a variety of exciting locations, and a number of solid action sequences that feel real even when we can see the strings. It is, to put it simply, a real movie, a genuine piece of pop-art that is the kind of comic book film built for those who generally aren't in to comic book movies.


A token amount of plot: World War II is raging, and everyone is doing their part to beat back the Nazis. But Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) finds himself unable to enlist, due to well, the fact that he's really short and not very strong. But fortune smiles as his fifth attempt to enlist is witnessed by Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), who is searching for suitable candidates to test out a new 'super soldier' formula which he developed before defecting from Germany. Rather than looking for the biggest, strongest, and toughest soldier that he can find, Erskine is looking for someone who will not take this newfound power for granted, someone who is a genuinely good man. Rogers ends up fitting the bill. When tragedy strikes, Rogers soon finds himself as the one and only 'Captain America', which leaves the US government unwilling to put their prize possession into actual combat. But the machinations of Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) and his Hydra organization soon put not just the Allied forces but the entire world in immediate peril and the would-be Captain America may be the only man who can stop him.

What makes the film work is the genuine affection that Joe Johnston has not just for the character but for the whole World War II film genre. The picture walks a fine line between acknowledging the horror of global war and remaining a relatively fun movie. Of course, the movie does cheat a little bit by having Schmidt's Hydra organization morph into something more resembling Cobra in the latter half of the film, which allows Rogers and his fighting friends to eventually kill faceless super-villain goons as opposed to scared German soldiers. Being a war picture, the film goes out of its way to emphasize the random and arbitrary peril of war (it's quite violent, if relatively bloodless) and the off-the-cuff courage of those who fought in this particular conflict. Steve Rogers is not an all-powerful superhero, but merely another brave soldier who has a few physical advantages that he uses to help his fellow freedom fighters. We follow not just Rogers, but several other colorful soldiers, played by the likes of Neal McDonough, Derek Luke, Kenneth Choi, and Sebastian Stan. Aside from giving the film several colorful characters, this ensemble army gives weight to the action sequences, as they are never just 'Steve Rogers and a bunch of faceless soldiers do battle'. We always have someone familiar to cut to during the major set pieces.

Speaking of Captain America himself, Chris Evans is pretty terrific in the lead role. Yes, he is aided by special effects in the opening act, as Benjamin Button-ish effects are used to make Steve Rogers very short and very, very skinny (impeccable fx work, by the way). But Evans brings a lack of cynicism to his genuine do-gooder. He is not naive about what fighting overseas would entail, but merely believes that he should not be forced to stay home while his fellow countrymen go off to die in an unquestionably righteous conflict. What is refreshing about Rogers is that he starts the film as a man of kindness and morality and remains a genuinely good and decent human being throughout the entire picture. In an age where our big screen heroes are tormented and guilt-ridden souls or arrogant, narcissistic jerks in need of intervention, in a world where even Superman is plagued by demons, it is refreshing to see a big-budget superhero film where the main hero is actually a genuine role model and an honest-to-goodness hero on the inside and out. He is so compelling a character in the initial act that is was almost disappointing to see him running after bad guys wearing a t-shirt and tight pants to highlight his new muscles (it looked a bit generic). But the character's selfless quality takes front and center at all times. It is his answer to the question "Do you want to kill Nazis?” that truly makes him a representation of America at its best.  If it needs to be said, the film is strictly apolitical, and I suppose partisans on both sides will find ammunition for our respective ideologies.

Also doing well for the side of good is Stanley Tucci, who plays the defected German scientist who creates the super soldier serum. Tucci is flat-out fantastic with his limited screen time. His Dr. Erskine is easily the acting highlight of the film, as Tucci gives a performance that is so good, so layered, and so endearing that the film genuinely loses something when he departs (almost by default, the first character-driven act is arguably superior to the more action-packed 2/3 that follow). Like Gary Oldman in The Dark Knight, Tucci grounds the potentially campy material with a genuine low-key gravity and gives it weight and morality. Tommy Lee Jones provides able support as the commanding officer. While one could argue that it's mostly Jones doing his shtick, it's been awhile since he's been in a major movie like this. And who else could deliver a line promising to 'personally escort Hitler to the gates of hell' and make it completely credible? Hayley Atwell plays Peggy Carter, technically 'the love interest', but mainly existing as a fellow commanding officer who happens to be an attractive woman. She has a number of solid action beats (she is a crack shot) and a number of fine dramatic moments that have nothing to do with her role as a would-be girlfriend for Mr. Rogers. Although the romance actually works by unspooling over a decent period of time and letting the two form a real relationship). She is only let down by a brief moment or two when she becomes jealous after Steve is kissed by another woman, but even that is paid off in a moment that elicits a great look from Tommy Lee Jones.

The forces of evil don't fare quite as well, if only because they are given little shading. Hugo Weaving plays The Red Skull (although I don't believe anyone ever calls him that in the film), and while Weaving brings his usual arrogant charm, it's a surprisingly one-note character. To be frank, I almost missed Scott Paulin's shaded and tragic Red Skull from the otherwise terrible 1990 Captain America film. Toby Jones fares a little better as the Skull's chief partner in evil, as he has a survival instinct that the rest of his 'for the cause!' organization lacks. In the script by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, the forces of evil exist mainly to get punched, shot, and blown up. The action sequences are plentiful and compelling. There is quite a bit of practical effects work, and the whole picture has a refreshing reality to its story and action mechanics. This is the rare super hero movie with actual, genuine super heroics. Captain America runs, jumps, and swings into action, doing battle on snowy terrains, in secret fortresses, and atop speeding trains. This is, quite frankly, the first Marvel Comics production that doesn't feel hamstrung by budgetary concerns. Despite being the cheapest of these films thus far (around $140 million), you won't feel the least bit shortchanged in terms of popcorn spectacle and genuine adventure.

Equally refreshing is the extroverted nature of the main conflict. By that, I mean this isn't another comic book film where the main villain is primarily concerned with killing or tormenting the hero, where the hero is somehow 'responsible' for the death and destruction at hand, and where the climax is merely a highly personal battle with little at stake. This is arguably the closest thing we've seen in the modern comic book genre to a 'day in the life' movie. There's a diabolical villain who wants to kill a bazillion people, and only the hero (who is not at all responsible for this villain and who is not the target of the villain's wrath) jumps into action to stop him. By keeping the film relatively free of the complex comic book melodrama that infuses these films (for better or worse), Captain America positions itself as a comic book adventure that can be enjoyed by those with no knowledge of the character or even comic books in general. There are plenty of tidbits for fans of the character (including many that I missed, I'm sure), but the film is entry-level action cinema all the way. Well, almost all the way...

The core flaw of the film is going to involve basically the last scene of the film. So while I'm going to try to be vague, if you're one of 2% of those reading this review who don't know what I'm going to talk about, you might want to skip to the next (and final) paragraph... NOW. Okay, it's no secret that this film is the last film that precedes next summer's The Avengers.  Unfortunately, the film is book-ended by a pair of sequences that basically gets the Steve Rogers story into a place where he can join the 'superhero boy band' that exists in the present day. Like X-Men: First Class, the film shoots itself in the foot by rushing the character into a place where he exists in the current status quo. And doing so again robs the characters of storytelling possibilities. Since the incident that puts Steve Rogers on a crash course with the present day could have occurred anytime before the end of World War II, there is absolutely no reason why we couldn't have had one or two more Captain America films set in the 1940s, with Rogers continuing to do battle with Nazis. The finale feels arbitrary and shoe-horned in, robbing the film of a stand-alone finale and awkwardly ending the film with a quasi-cliffhanger that will please hardcore comic fans but will likely confuse and/or annoy general audiences.

Aside from problems with the finale, Captain America: The First Avenger is a genuinely terrific piece of popcorn cinema. It reminds us that even the pulpiest of 'movies' should still pay attention to character development and strong plotting. It brings on heavy hitters like Stanley Tucci and Tommy Lee Jones, who basically up everyone else's game while grounding the film in a quasi-reality. Chris Evans makes a perfect Steve Rogers and everyone around him serves the story. The special effects are as strong as they need to be, even if the 3D conversion does little more than darken the screen (it's good 3D work, but see it in 2D anyway). Joe Johnston has crafted a satisfyingly pulpy adventure and a genuinely respectful World War II action picture. That it happens to be based on a classic comic book is almost beside the point. I mean that as a high compliment.

Grade: A-

The Dark Knight Rises gets a sloppy, lazy teaser that looks like a bad fan-edit.

I admit, I did watch the bootleg version of this over the weekend, but I didn't want to comment too much until I had seen the official version.  Well, I've seen the official version.  It still looks like a half-assed fan-edit preview.  The two telltale signs of a fake preview have always been cheesy onscreen text and the use of copious footage from previous films of a given series. This has both, insultingly reminding us that 'every hero has a journey' (thanks Campbell) and every journey has an end (also knew that, but thanks).  The first 45 seconds is nothing but footage from Batman Begins, with a dash of The Dark Knight thrown with Liam Neeson's narration tossed in.  The only new footage we get is Gary Oldman lying in a hospital bed whining about how Batman left us, evil rose, and now Batman must Return.  We do get a brief shot of someone climbing up a well (the Bat Cave hole?), a worn-down Batman facing down a mostly offscreen Bane, and a single close-up of Tomas Hardy as the villain of the day, Bane.  Are we thrilled yet?

Yes, it's a teaser, but it's a laughably lazy one that substitutes suspense and tension for cliches and platitudes.  Does that mean the movie is going to be terrible?  Of course not, it just means that Warner Bros. should have waited until they had something worth teasing.  Last time around, they had The Joker, so all they had to do was give us a couple seconds of Heath Ledger talking in character to get us excited  ("Starting tonight... people will die!  I'm a man of my word.").  This time, they have a villain no one cares about (oooh... Bane!) and a quasi-villain (Catwoman) who's brand has been damaged by the 2004 Halle Berry movie.  Again, the movie may be a solid Batman story that suitably closes the book on the Nolan franchise, but this is a terrible and counterproductive piece of marketing.  Does this tease make you more or less excited to see the film?  And furthermore, if this was the teaser Warner was prepping, why the hell didn't they attach this thing to Green Lantern?  I'm pretty sure Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II didn't need the help, but Green Lantern sure could have used an exclusive Dark Knight Rises teaser playing in front of it over opening weekend.  Here's hoping the first real trailer (likely premiering in front of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows on December 16th) brings the goods to the table.  Anyway, the film itself opens on July 20th, 2012.  I'm absolutely sure it will be better than this teaser, but that's not the point of a teaser, is it?

Scott Mendelson         

Weekend Box Office (07/18/11): Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II dethrones The Dark Knight, earning $169.1 million in its opening weekend.

The Harry Potter series finished where it started, at the top of the box office with a record breaking opening weekend. Nine-and-a-half years ago, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone opened the series with a $90.2 million, breaking the 4.5 year old opening weekend record set by The Lost World: Jurassic Park ($72 million).  Over the next 9.5 years, said record was broken four more times, with the last such toppling this very weekend three years ago with The Dark Knight's $158 million Fri-Sun take.  With nearly ten years of anticipation, The Boy Who Lived has returned to the top of the opening weekend charts with a massive $169.1 million Friday-Sunday gross.  That includes a record $91 Friday (best single day, best opening day, best Friday) which in turn included a record $43.5 million at 12:01am alone.  As expected, the picture was massively front-loaded, ending the weekend with the second-smallest weekend multiplier on record, 1.85x (for newbies, weekend multiplier is the final weekend total divided by the first day).  It also set another 'negative' record, earning 25.7% of its weekend total in those Thursday at 12:01am showings alone (the previous such record was set by the last Harry Potter film, which grossed 19% of its $125 million Fri-Sun haul at midnight).

For the record, even with inflation and the 3D price bump, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II (review) still ranks amongst the very biggest weekends ever in terms of adjusted for inflation (third place behind The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 3), and tickets sold (also in third place).  The expected monster frontloading puts a token blemish on this new record, but $169 million in three days is still $169 million in three days.  Warner Bros's decision to split the final book into two films payed off financially and arguably artistically.  The Deathly Hallows part I was the best film in the series, and this series finale suffered only from being too short and rushed compared to its predecessors.  The Harry Potter franchise is without question this generation's Star Wars, and this final chapter brought out everybody who had even loosely followed the saga over the last decade.  For those who genuinely cared, this was THE event film of the summer, the pay off to seven previous films and the final farewell to any number of classic characters.  The film scored an A from Cinemascore, with an A+ from females who made up 54% of the audience.  It played 55% over-25 and 57% 2D (without the 3D boost, it would have grossed around $150 million, or just below Spider-Man 3). It remains to be seen whether the the allure of seeing Harry, Ron, and Hermione one last time will prevent this film from being as massively frontloaded as the previous three sequels. The last three sequels all did just over or just under twice their opening weekends (five-day openings in the case of parts 5 and 6), ending up between $290 and $301 million the last four times (The Goblet of Fire opened with $101 million in 2005 and made it to $290 million, a 2.8x weekend-to-final multiplier).

If the finale can pull in that 2.8x multiplier, it will end up with $474 million.  That's a bit pie-in-the-sky, even with the whole 'final film' hook.  Even the famously leggy The Dark Knight earned 'just' 3.4x its opening weekend (a multiplier that would give this new champion $575 million).  More likely is that it follows the path of the last film, with a 2.36x multiplier and a $400 million domestic total.  Worst case scenario, it merely doubles this opening weekend take, still ending with a series high of $339 million.  We'll know in the next couple days.  The Dark Knight had a pretty mediocre 2.35x weekend multiplier, and it wasn't until it earned a scorching $66 million on its first three weekdays that I knew it was more than just a quick-kill blockbuster.  Either way, it will be a brutal battle for first place in the US against Transformers: Dark of the Moon, which now has $302 million and will likely top out around $370 million.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II set a new worldwide opening weekend record as well, with $475 million.  The previous five-day worldwide record was The Half-Blood Prince's $394 million.  It is sure to become the third film this year (along with Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and, eventually Transformers Dark of the Moon) to top $1 billion worldwide.

How long this opening weekend (and single day/midnight) record stays intact is a good question.  As much as we hate to admit it, the 3D helped.  The last two Twilight films are, as of yet, not going the 3D route, while Chris Nolan is releasing The Dark Knight Rises in 2D and IMAX 2D.  I don't think either of the Twilight films have it in them to take down the weekend record, as the last book is disliked and/or loathed by much of the fanbase.  The Dark Knight Rises is the obvious likely contender, especially with just another $10 million separating The Dark Knight's opening weekend from the new three-day champion (why I'm not as excited for it as you might be).  But one wonders whether the mainstream appeal of the last film's street-level Batman vs. The Joker epic can be matched by a finale starring Catwoman and uh... Bane (that terrible teaser doesn't help either).  And there is frankly nothing left on the immediate horizon outside of Batman and Edward/Bella that has the innate appeal to beat this record.  Barring some unexpectedly huge debuts for The Avengers, Star Trek 2.0 (if it even gets off the ground), or The Amazing Spider-Man (don't count on it, the original record-breaking Sam Raimi film was capitalizing on 15 years of pent-up demand and post-9/11 patriotism/nationalism), this record may stand for a very long time if Batman can't take it back next year.

The only other movie to open wide this weekend was Disney's Winnie the Pooh (review).  The film was an attempt to revive the theatrical fortunes of the classic children's literary character, but Disney frankly picked a very bad weekend to open on.  The $30 million 2D, hand-drawn feature grossed just $7.8 million in its debut, putting the short-term profitability of this frankly delightful little cartoon in doubt.  This was clear a case of counter-programming that didn't take, or merely a case of Disney merely treating the film as a tax write-off.  I do know that the film would have likely been far more successful opening on a holiday weekend where the biggest franchise of all time was not debuting its final entry.  Put this in the Martin Luther King Jr weekend next year, and it probably flirts with $15-20 million.  Anyway, the film is pretty great, so hopefully the British can save it.  Opening in limited release was the Sarah Palin documentary The Undefeated (I'll let others make fun of the accuracy of that title).  The film debuted on ten screens but managed just $6,513 per screen.  If this were a wide release, that would be pretty impressive, but for a ten-screen debut, it is frankly not.  As tempting as it is to use this number as a political punching bag, would any of us fellow liberals pay $10 and drive to a theater see a 90-minute halo-agraphy about, I dunno, Russ Feingold?  Also debuting in limited release was Errol Morris's Tabloid, which pulled in $91,201 on seven screens.

In holdover news, Woody Allen's Midnight In Paris became Allen's highest-grossing film ever, passing Hannah and Her Sisters and upping its cum to $41.7 million.  The film is Allen's seventh-most popular film when adjusted for inflation and still stands his his most successful film since 1986, and after that his biggest hit since the late 1970s.  Bridesmaids now sits with $161 million, while Kung Fu Panda 2 crossed $160 million (with $582 million worldwide), and Super 8 sits with $122 million.  Bad Teacher has $88 million and will cross $100 million next weekend.  Horrible Bosses had a solid -39% decline and has $60 million in ten days.  The Zookeeper also had an okay drop, but its slightly smaller-than-expected opening leaves the expensive film with $42 million in ten days.  Cars 2 sits with $165 million, which makes it surely the first Pixar film since A Bug's Life in 1998 not to cross the $200 million mark (it's nearing $300 million worldwide).  Finally, Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life crossed the $10 million mark this weekend, despite stubbornly refusing to actually expand above 240 screens.

Join us next weekend, when Paramount and Marvel unleash Captain America (review coming Wednesday), while Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis try to be Friends With Benefits (which is totally different from No Strings Attached).  For a look at the previous Harry Potter films, read the retrospectives of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.  Plus the original reviews for 6, 7, and 8.  For a detailed look at the history of the modern opening weekend record-breakers (written the last time the record was broken), go HERE.

Scott Mendelson