Release Date Musical Chairs - Dreamworks moves Puss In Boots to October 28th.

Well this comes out of left field, or perhaps not.  As you can see above, Dreamworks Animation has shifted the release date for their Shrek spin-off from the plum 'start of the holiday season' date of November 4th (where cartoons such as The Incredibles, Monsters Inc, Megamind, and Madagascar 2 all successfully debuted) to the crowded Halloween weekend.  What is odd about this is that November 4th was a pretty open weekend, with only Brett Ratner's Tower Heist and A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas representing competition.  But October 28th already has four wide releases - In Time, Anonymous, Johnny English Reborn, and The Rum Diary.  Puss in Boots would have likely won the weekend no matter which of these two weekends it chose to debut on, so the question is, 'why the date change?'.

I have two theories, both of which are PURE speculation (I tossed an email to a Paramount contact and I'll update if I actually get a response).  First of all, I have to wonder if the announcement regarding Mission: Impossible IV's early IMAX release played a role.  If Puss in Boots were promised a certain number of weeks in IMAX, then  the easiest way to accommodate both parties (since Dreamworks Animation is, for the moment, still under the Paramount umbrella).  The second, and most logical assumption, is merely that Dreamworks felt that the four relatively minor releases (in regards to box office, not necessarily quality) would  still be weaker competition than the all-star Tower Heist and the ever-popular Harold and Kumar series.  Megamind debuted to $46 million last November, and its presumed that the film took an opening weekend hit from the respective strengths of Due Date (which opened with $33 million) and Tyler Perry's For Colored Girls (which debuted with $19 million).

It's no secret that Dreamworks thinks that Kung Fu Panda 2 took a hit domestically (it was a $661 million monster worldwide) because it opened head-to-head with The Hangover part II, a film that dominated the young male demos that a big-budget cartoon needs to justify the large budgets (you can't be a blockbuster just servicing kids).  It is reasonable to assume that Dreamworks felt that Harold and Kumar Apologize For the Awful Second Film and/or Tower Heist represent the same kind of quadrant threat that the respective Todd Phillips comedies did the last two times at bat.  Whatever the case, it stands to reason that the film will open with the usual Dreamworks $43-48 million and end up in their $145-165 million comfort zone.  Let's just hope the movie is half-way decent...

Scott Mendelson        

Chris Nolan to use his extensive capital at Warner Bros to... helm another Twilight Zone Movie? And is Warner missing out by having Nolan go it alone?

First off, the various articles all chiming with SHOCK that Chris Nolan is at the top of Warner Bros' list to helm a new Twilight Zone Movies is pretty funny.  OF COURSE Chris Nolan is on the top of Warner's list for this project.  I'm pretty sure he's on the top of the list for every single project at Warner Bros, including a Sex and the City prequel and whatever variation on Valentine's Day and New Year's Eve they trot out next year (Halloween?  Oh wait...).  Saying that Chris Nolan is the preferred choice to direct anything at Warner Bros. is like saying that the connoisseurs at Ruth Chris would prefer to have a fillet as opposed to chicken or ribs.  He's the studio's most valuable resource, and he has delivered the critical and commercial goods on a shockingly consistent level.  So it stands to reason that he's at the top of the list for any project that Warner deems a high priority.

Second of all, it is not a little depressing that Chris Nolan is basically being courted to do a feature-length version of a long-beloved TV show.  Wasn't Christopher Nolan supposed to be the great white hope in the realm of big-budget original filmmaking?  I like his films as much as the next nerd, but since Memento, he's helmed a remake of a foreign film, a comic book trilogy, an adaptation of a novel (arguably his best film and arguably counting as 'original' as defined by the movie gods), and a genuinely original science-fiction thriller.  Oh, and he's also producing yet-another comic book reboot and possibly getting involved in yet-another Howard Hughes biopic.  So while a Twilight Zone movie could provide the best of both worlds (an original genre film hidden inside a safe brand name), it is disconcerting that one of the more talented filmmakers is again jumping on the franchise train.

Aside from that, I do believe that Warner Bros is missing a massive opportunity here.  The articles list Michael Bay, Alfonso Cuaron, and Rupert Wyatt as also being on the mythical 'short-list'.  Well, here's a not-so novel idea.  Instead of just doing one feature-length film that "touches on several themes from the Rod Sterling TV show...", Warner Bros. should just let them all run wild.  If you recall, the first Twilight Zone movie, released in 1983, had four 20-30 minute segments helmed by Steven Spielberg, John Landis, Joe Dante, and George Miller.  Whatever Chris Nolan (or whomever gets picked) can cook up in 120 minutes, I personally would be far more intrigued at the idea of four or five major directors all taking their shot at a Twilight Zone segment.

Why not do an old-fashioned anthology film, in the vein of the original Twilight Zone Movie or Three Extremes...?  I for one would love to see Chris Nolan, Michael Bay, Alfonso Cuaron, AND Rupert Wyatt play in this particular sandbox.  And if the film is successful, there are countless other directors who I'd love to see dabble in this world (M. Night Shyamalan surely has about a million ideas for Twilight Zone episodes).  Anyway, point being, Twilight Zone at least has the potential for original genre storytelling under a familiar brand name, which may mean it's the best of both worlds.  But why should Chris Nolan have all the fun?

Scott Mendelson

Thanks to the glory of time travel, enjoy this Real Steel trailer from 1987!

It's a frankly amusing coincidence that there are two remakes (official or not) of 1980s films coming out over the next two weeks; both films remade from originals that featured theme songs by Kenny Loggins.

Scott Mendelson

Because the twist was beside the point... What those who've ripped off The Sixth Sense over the last twelve years have gotten wrong about its finale.

With Dream House opening today, sans press screenings, audiences will get a chance to discover, if they choose, just how much of the film has been spoiled by the trailer.  Early reviews indicate that the movie is both stunningly boring and basically a hodge-podge of classic twist ending cliches.  While it's fashionable to blame The Sixth Sense for the last ten years of last-minute 'gotchas!', the would-be thrillers that have followed in M. Night Shyamalan's footsteps missed a crucial distinction.  The last minute reveal that closes The Sixth Sense isn't really the finale of the film.  It's not a big zinger that the entire movie revolves around.  The movie, at its core, is a human drama about a troubled young boy and his struggling single mother.  With painfully good work by Haley Joel Osment and Toni Collette (both of whom damn-well should have won Oscars) and a genuinely sympathetic and thoughtful screenplay by M. Night in his prime, the climactic reveal, and really all of the supernatural material is merely a means to an end.  It is, to paraphrase one of the film's last lines, always second to the heartbreaking human drama.  The movie doesn't climax with the revelation about Bruce Willis's ultimate fate.  It truly climaxes one scene earlier, as mother and son finally open up to each other and reach an understanding that will truly strengthen their relationship.  The emphasis on character over thrills and chills is among a handful of reasons why The Sixth Sense is still a masterpiece and one of the best films of the 1990s.  The scene above, the true finale to The Sixth Sense, is probably the best thing M. Night Shyamalan has ever filmed, and it is one of the main reasons I still haven't given up on him.

Scott Mendelson     

Review: Fault of Abduction (2011) lie not with the star, but with its script, stunts.

Abduction
2011
105 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

A good movie can overcome a weak central performance (see - On Her Majesty's Secret Service), just as a sparkling central performance can make a mediocre movie feel like a great one (see - Iron Man).  But a poor story combined with a mediocre lead performance is a pretty toxic combination.  Thus we have Taylor Lautner's Abduction.  I had a token amount of hope for the picture because I like trashy thrillers, even ones that star actors I don't generally care for (see - Shooter).  But the movie is just-plain bad.  It's not bad because Taylor Lautner can't act, although this is surely not a convincing testament to his star power.  It is weak because it fails to excel in the areas that had little to do with whether or not its lead actor was up to the task.  John Singleton is saddled with a weak script and a shocking lack of big-scale action.

To say that the film is painfully unoriginal is not exactly an insult.  The Bourne Identity was not the first film to deal with an assassin who realizes that he doesn't want to kill people (IE - the plot of 50% of all direct-to-DVD action thrillers), and so Abduction being a somewhat derivative variation of the whole 'your life is a lie and now you're on the run from villains' template isn't that much of a problem.  So the story stinks, but John Singleton's would-be thriller completely botches the two things that would make this film worth-watching regardless.  While the film seems filled with notable actors, only Alfred Molina registers any real screen-time.  Jason Isaacs and Maria Bello play Lautner's would-be foster parents, so if you've seen the trailer you know they don't last long.  Isaacs does have a couple nice moments to play, including oddly enough the best action beat in the film, but Bello's best moment occurs once she's already dead (the film remembers to have Isaacs mourn the death of his wife).  Sigourney Weaver exists primarily for exposition, and she's barely around after the first act.  So the heavy lifting is left up to poor Alfred Molina, who is supposed to be an top-notch CIA operative even while his fellow agents get (bloodlessly) bumped off in shocking numbers.  With Isaacs and Bello dead and Weaver gone for the entire last half of the film, the film pretty much rests on the shoulders of Lautner and Lily Collins, as the token girlfriend/occasional hostage (her second-act imperilment is odd since she rescues herself but does not aid in the battle... it's purely so she can be threatened and then tied and gagged for bondage fans).  Lautner has the six-pack, and Collins is awfully attractive, but it's not enough.

So without a strong lead performance, a decent story, and a stable of character actors, the film could otherwise pass merit as an action film.  But, despite the sure hand of John Singleton, it comes up short in this area as well.  While the film is PG-13, and the body count is well into the double-digits (I counted nineteen, half enemy agents, half red-shirt CIA operatives), the action feels painfully slight and noticeably tame.  Oddly enough, the best action sequence in the film is a well-edited martial arts duel between Lautner and his adoptive father, as the father basically engages his son in a sparring match as punishment for some illicit partying.  The actual action, in terms of fights, chases, and what-not are quite flat and sparse.  The one trump card that Lautner brings to the table (other than his looks I suppose) is his genuine skill as a martial artist.  Why this film didn't actively feature his talents in the realm of action-movie combat, I cannot say.  Most of the fight scenes are painfully short and somewhat tightly-edited.  Lautner does have one genuine fight scene on a train, but it's quite short and decidedly not brutal. One can presume that the producers didn't want Taylor Lautner killing anyone for youth-centric reasons, and the film feels like a PG-rated action picture that happens to have a PG-13 by sheer weight of its arbitrary body count.  It's far too tame for action junkies, yet its pointless PG-13 precludes the very youngest audiences who might have flocked to a PG-rated action-adventure.

So without an interesting story, without clever dialogue (one potentially amusing line where a villain threatens to kill Nathan's Facebook friends is botched in the delivery), without credible lead performances, without a decent slate of grizzled character actors, and without the necessary thrills and action beats to make up for any of the above deficiencies, John Singleton's Abduction is a pretty bland across-the-board failure.  Worse yet, it fails to showcase the kind of skill-set that might allow Lautner to survive as an action star without the whole 'acting ability' issue.  It fails as drama, fails as an acting treat, and fails as an action picture.  Abduction surely could have survived Taylor Lautner in a leading role had it made up for it in even one of the above areas.  But because it does not, it merits no reason for existence.

Grade: C-                    

Kinda neat: IMAX schedules a week of discounted 'old favorites'.

http://www.amctheatres.com/imaxbigmovies/

Since Contagion isn't exactly burning up the IMAX box office and Real Steel still has a week before opening, IMAX is trying something a little different.  For one week, starting tomorrow, various IMAX theaters will be showing a slate of three popular IMAX titles over the last three years.  For just $7 a ticket, you can opt to revisit Star Trek, Inception, and Fast Five on the large-screen format.  Nothing much to add here, but I almost hope this starts an occasional trend.  I'm not sure if my schedule would permit such a thing, but I'd love the opportunity to revisit Batman Begins and The Dark Knight in their IMAX glory before seeing The Dark Knight Rises.  Anyway, click on the link below the big banner ad for tickets and what not, otherwise consider this a plug for what I think is a rather fun and smart idea.  Will you be attending any of next week's bargain rereleases?  What movies would you like the chance to revisit in IMAX, or what older movies would you pay to see reconverted to IMAX (IE - the Lord of the Rings trilogy?).  Share below if so inclined.

Scott Mendelson

Avengers assemble in poorly-photoshopped Entertainment Weekly cover.

It's no great tragedy, but the photo-shopping on display is pretty terrible.  The only real harm is that this poorly constructed and awkward Entertainment Weekly cover will probably count as a 'first look' for a large number of general moviegoers, just the sort that need to be intrigued to get this sure-to-be expensive comic book epic over the $185 million mark that seems to be the ceiling that non-Iron Man Marvel Studios projects seem to be reaching for.  Of course, Tony Stark is in this picture, but it really isn't going to be Iron Man 3 (especially since Thor and Captain America both did well this summer).  Anyway, enjoy Mark Ruffalo giving his best 'blue steel' look.  Derek Zoolander would approve.

Scott Mendelson

Did Sony just kill 3D? Who foots the bill when studios won't pay for 3D glasses?

The Hollywood Reporter uh, reported (sorry) yesterday that Sony Pictures will be the first of the major studios to no longer pay for the 3D glasses in the Real-D format (as opposed to specialized IMAX 3D glasses), but rather demand that exhibitors pay for the $3-4 glasses themselves.  Several studios have apparently been looking into such an arrangement, but Sony struck first blood, in a move that could have devastating consequences for the 3D movie business in America.  The policy is set to go into effect May of next year, just in time for Sony's two big summer films, both live-action 3D franchise pictures.  Men in Black 3D comes out over Memorial Day weekend while The Amazing Spider-Man drops on July 3rd.  While the reality is that the situation won't affect most kinds of 3D (Real-D is just one of several kinds offered in first-run theaters today), the perception could do real damage to the format if the theaters choose to pass down this extra expense to the consumers.  And all-things considered, I can't imagine why they wouldn't.

Right now, theaters get those $3-4 glasses from the studios for free.  But if they were forced to fork over said extra cash for each pair of glasses used, they would pretty much negate the $3-5 3D-ticket up-charge they currently enjoy for a 3D film.  Moreover, since theaters split their ticket revenues with the studios to varying degrees (generally 50/50, but sometimes MUCH lower for the theaters in the first ten days), theaters are technically looking at a loss for each 3D ticket sold compared to what they would have made for that 2D ticket.  If an audience member pays $10 for a 2D evening show, the theater gets around $5 of that ticket, right?  But if the theater charges $15 for the 3D show, AND must pay the studios $4 for the pair of glasses, then the theater is looking at just $3.50 for that 3D showing.  So, unless I did the math wrong (always possible...), a theater chain showing a film in 2D and Real-D 3D would have to either charge the consumer an additional $4 for the privilege of buying the glasses or eat the extra cost, an extra cost that would make said theater disinclined to show the film in 3D if they have a choice in the matter. Better to make $5 showing The Amazing Spider-Man 2D then make $3.50 showing The Amazing Spider-Man 3D.

So if the theater owners want to at least restore the prior profit margin for 3D films, they'd have little choice but to charge consumers for those 3D glasses.  The problem here is one of perception.  While many overseas markets already charge consumers for the 3D glasses they use, America thus-far does not.  But, most moviegoers arguably operate under the perception that some, if not most, of that $3-5 3D ticket up-charge comes from the rental of those 3D glasses.  Telling them that they have to pay that up charge AND an additional $4 to see a movie in 3D will either drive them away from the format or (worse for the theaters) severely cut into their purchase of concessions.

Even if we argue that audiences will be able to keep and reuse those 3D glasses each time they return to a participating theater, that still puts a burden on the consumer to remember to take their 3D glasses with them each time they go to the theater or risk paying an additional $4 per ticket.  Point being, even under the best case scenario, a consumer would basically pay an additional $8 per 3D ticket ($4 for the up-charge, $4 for the glasses) the first time they see a 3D movie and each time they forget and/or break their 3D glasses.  Obviously many airplanes have different in-flight entertainment options now, in the older days, you basically paid $5 to rent the earphones to allow you to watch the in-flight movie. If you kept your earphones and they fit in the seat slot, you saved yourself $5 each time you flew.  But of course, not everyone flies all that much, and even if they forsake the earphones, they can still fly one the plane.

Point being, if this comes to pass, especially if it comes to pass from other studios and involves the other 3D glasses formats, it could really be the would-be death of 3D.  Theaters will be forced to choose between basically losing the extra money that they get from 3D ticket sales or pass along the cost to consumers, which would likely lead to a genuine revolt against the already over-priced format.  Why Sony (and theoretically the other studios) are willing to risk this is beyond me.  Generally speaking, when your format is going through growing pains, you make it more appealing to the consumer and/or middle-men (exhibitors), not less so.  This may turn out to be nothing of note, especially if the other studios do not follow suit.  But unlike the poorly-advertised and thus ultimately irrelevant 'premium Video On Demand' from last year, this change will have immediate and noticeable consequences as early as this summer.  Just what those consequences are will be determined by how the theaters react, as well as whether or not other studios choose to follow suit.  But with theaters facing the choice of either eating their 3D profit margins or pricing the format out of reasonability for most moviegoers, Sony's somewhat greedy move could very-well permanently harm the format in a very real way. This one should be followed closely, as the outcomes could be severe...

What are your thoughts on this move?  For those who do seek out 3D movies, how much is too much?  And, if I may, what effect does the price of your ticket have on how much you spend on concessions?  Feel free to share below.

Scott Mendelson

Begun, these IMAX wars have? Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol in IMAX will go head-to-head with Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows after all.

In the category of 'here's an interesting idea', Paramount and director Brad Bird announced today that Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol (see trailer) will be opening five days early in select IMAX theaters.  So while the film's wide release will stay occur on Wednesday, December 21st, the film will have its IMAX debut on Friday December 16th, 2011.  This is more-or-less a first of its kind.  Paramount did hold sneak previews the day before the wide release of Super 8 which occurred in most of its IMAX locations, but this selective sneak opening basically gives the fourth Mission: Impossible film a pre-release opening weekend of sorts.  Point being, it looks like M:I4 will be going head-to-head against Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (see trailer) after all, as December 16th is the wide-release opening day for the Robert Downey Jr/Jude Law sequel.

Brad Bird, in his live-action debut, has shot twenty-five minutes of the film in IMAX film, and he claims the sneak-opening "is to bring back a 'level of showmanship'".  IE - Bird and company are trying to bring back the concept of seeing a true 'first run movie' in a first-rate theater.  I distinctly remember going to see Dreamgirls on opening night of its limited release at the Arclight Hollywood back in December of 2006.  It was $25 a ticket, with a booklet/program and other token goodies which created an aura of actually attending opening night of a Broadway show.  As I put it at the time, it was a four-star presentation of a three-star movie. Anyway, I spent much 'ink' in 2008 and 2009 discussing what I felt were going to be the coming IMAX wars, when studios realized the appeal and value of IMAX theaters and started opening all of their big films in the large-screen format.  However, Avatar's massive 3D success changed the subject for two years.  But in the end, the key to the future of theatrical exhibition, in my opinion, was always IMAX.

3D is slowly becoming commonplace on the newer HDTV sets, so it will soon no longer require a trip to the theater.  But the so-called 'IMAX Experience', seeing a new movie on a 100-foot screen with wall-to-wall speakers, is arguably the last theatrical experience that cannot, for the near future, be replicated in a home theater set-up.  This move also represents a token pull-away from the obsession over opening weekend.  Even if it fills up nearly every single IMAX seat the 200-300 IMAX auditoriums available, it would open around $30-40 million, which is still likely less than what Sherlock Holmes 2 (or Alvin and the Chipmunks 3) will open with that weekend.  Or, if you want to be a pessimist, you can speculate that the move is purely about building word of mouth in advance of its wide release, to perhaps offset some of the damage that has been done to Tom Cruise's drawing power since 2006.  Either way, this move has the potential to be a game changer for mega-budget movies that are also debuting in IMAX.

IMAX CEO Richard L. Gelfond offered this official statement: "This is something we've been working on with our studio, exhibition and film maker partners for some time. We're still working out the details, but this would be the first meaningful step in a new early release strategy. We believe this has significant possibilities and we will be exploring this further." 

As for the movie itself, I am heartened to see Bird referencing the Vanessa Redgrave scenes in Brian DePalma's original classic.  Fifteen years after its release, what was once criticized for being 'too confusing' (IE - you had to pay attention and have at least 85 IQ points) stands tall as perhaps the last mega-budgeted summer tent-pole film that was made for adults, by adults, and with adult sensibilities.

What are your thoughts on this sneak-opening gambit?  How badly will this bite into the opening weekend of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows?

Scott Mendelson

Trailer: Katherine Heigl's One For the Money panders to gender stereotypes.

This one dropped a couple days ago, so pardon the tardiness.  Anyway, I know nothing about the Stephanie Plum character or the Janet Evanovich novels that this film is adapted from.  All I can say is that it's a big clearer why Lionsgate moved this film from its original mid-summer 2011 slot to January 27th, 2011.  It's no secret that I'd be all smiles about a female-centric action franchise.  But this looks quite terrible, feeling like a rehash of The Bounty Hunter (of course the novel in question was published in 1994) and, most crucially, refusing to take its premise remotely seriously.  Again, I can't say if this is faithful to the novels, but why must this female-driven action film be burdened by camp and in fact sell the idea that women cannot be convincing action stars?  Before she became a star on Grey's Anatomy, Heigl dabbled in action (macing Everett McGill in Under Siege 2: Dark Territory) and sci-fi tinged adventure (she had a supporting role on Roswell).  The basic source of the comedy seems to be "ha ha, look at how incompetent that chick is with traditional action tropes!").  I'm surely giving more thought to this trailer than it deserves, but it really was eye-poppingly bad.

Scott Mendelson     

More thoughts on Drive, in response to Salon's "The Drive backlash: Too violent, too arty or both?" (where I am paraphrased).

I was paraphrased, somewhat disparagingly in an article from Salon last week that dealt with audiences not quite being as on-board with Drive as critics. I was referred to as "champion of the mainstream, audience-pleasing cinema" and held up as one of the few critics who did not like Drive.  This was my response (HERE is my original review), and I thought I'd share it here as well.

I suppose I've earned the 'defender of the mainstream' tag, as I've long felt that it's important to point out when a major studio picture does it right, as much as when an arthouse picture does it wrong. As I've often said, when we write-off The Mummy or Avatar, we deserve Prince of Persia or Tron: Legacy.  Having said that, what I most disliked about Drive were what I felt its bids at mainstream pandering, or at least its ideology that seems more fit for a fourteen-year old boy.

We're supposed to think 'Driver' is cool and sophisticated, icy and prone to acts of sudden violence. Yet we're also supposed to think that he's some kind of hero (so says the soundtrack, quite literally) because he has token feelings for his cute neighbor and is nice to her son. At the end of the day, we're supposed to actively root for him purely because Ryan Gosling is a handsome movie star and because Carey Mulligan is pretty.  I have no problem with anti-heroes, but I loathe films where the anti-hero is supposed to be 'a hero' because he is played by a big star or because said scoundrel takes a token interest in the token love interest. It's just a variation on the 'He's not so bad because he cries at Opera' cliche.

Drive has been compared to Point Blank quite a bit, but at least that picture had the courage of its convictions. Lee Marvin was an unsympathetic bastard from start to finish. There was no need to make him 'relatable' or heroic by pairing him with a pretty girl or a kid. Heck, even Mel Gibson's Payback (even the compromised theatrical cut) didn't actually make his character into a hero in any conventional sense.  Despite the title of the Salon piece in question, Drive didn't turn me off because it was 'too violent' (it's no worse than any conventional R-rated action picture) or because it was 'too artsy'. It turned me off because it was a painfully conventional and contrived narrative that guises up its by-the-books story and utter lack of character with a token amount of visual panache.  To paraphrase Albert Brooks's stunningly self-referential line, critics said that Drive was cool, artsy, and European, but really it's simplistic and conventional. I'd no more give a pass to Drive for being 'cool' than I would let Tron: Legacy slide because it had lots of lights and 3D effects. Be it at the megeplex or the arthouse, I do demand some substance with my style.

HAVING said all of that, the film has been financially successful to the extent that it needed to be. At a cost of $13 million plus token marketing, it opened with $11 million and will likely gross around $25 million or more before overseas and home-video money rolls in. It was never a film that was meant to appeal to everyone or be a massive across-the-board hit. It was a small movie that will make a small profit, having been seen and enjoyed by those who it was intended for. If we want more movies like Drive (or, arguably better variations like The American), we can't whine when they end up grossing under $50 million, as long as they didn't cost $50 million to make in the first place.

Now you get a chance to tell me I'm an idiot all over again.  Enjoy...

Scott Mendelson

Why Jason Statham can't break out of the B-movie action genre.

For all intents and purposes, Jason Statham has been an action star since 2002, when Fox released the Luc Besson-produced The Transporter.  Yes, more hardened film fans knew him from his Guy Ritchie work and from his supporting role in The One (a Jet Li vehicle from late 2001, the first of three times he would spar with Jet Li onscreen).  But for general moviegoers and action junkies, Statham was introduced as Frank Martin eleven years ago as of October 11th.  In that time, Statham has arguably become the king of an all-but vanished genre.  He is basically the last action hero, the lone movie star known primarily for kicking ass in a non-fantasy and non-period setting.  But nine years is a long time to toil in the underbelly of grind house B-movie cinema.  He's had the occasional high-end picture (The Bank Job), supporting roles in A-level studio thrillers (The Italian Job) and flirtations with the big time (playing the second lead in The Expendables).  But nine years since he literally kicked down the door to stardom, Jason Statham remains pretty much where he started.

So why hasn't the biggest pure action star of his generation eventually found his way to bigger and better things?  Call it bad timing, or the misfortune of being a star in the wrong era.  Just as George Reeves became a television star at just the wrong time (after the studio contract era but before the 'playing against type is cool' era), Jason Statham is an action star in a time when pure action pictures are all-but extinct.  He is a B-movie action star in an age where A-movie action pictures more or less don’t get made anymore. In the 1980s, Arnold Schwarzenegger could move from B-movies like The Running Man, Raw Deal, Red Heat, and Commando to more A-level features like Predator and finally Total Recall in 1990. Steven Seagal could go from Hard to Kill or Marked For Death to something like Under Siege. But big-budget, R-rated, non-fantasy action pictures are more-or-less extinct in the post-Columbine era.  As I've noted before (HERE), the post-Columbine crackdown on marketing to younger audiences have all-but completely put the kibosh on big-budget, R-rated action pictures. There really isn’t a bigger, more ‘mainstream’ action vehicle for Statham to graduate to. Studios don't make A-level action thrillers anymore.

Today the ‘stars of tomorrow’ get their PG-13 sci-fi/fantasy/comic book franchise, which is something that Statham is arguably not suited for and/or already too old to do (since the studios generally want a younger guy who can do 2-3 sequels before he’s 40). Unfortunately, the kind of action films Statham is ‘stuck’ doing, due to their general B-movie vibe, practically scream ‘rent me’ for all except the most hardcore action junkies (I say this as someone who saw and enjoyed The Mechanic in a theater). Short version, Statham is stuck forever doing Out For Justice because studios no longer make Under Siege.  If he truly desires 'bigger and better' (and who is to say he's the least bit unhappy about his relatively long career and aforementioned typecasting?), he has little choice but to try more pure thrillers like The Bank Job (easily his best film) or take supporting roles in other people's big-budget vehicles (be they genre fare or aforementioned fantasy spectacles).  For better or for worse, Jason Statham is the undisputed king of a genre that no longer has an upper level to aspire to.  The kind of films that turned Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, or even Steven Seagal into megastars no longer exist.  We can debate whether or not that is a tragedy.  But it will be interesting to see what Jason Statham does now that he has reached his potential in the genre that made him an icon.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (09/25/11): Moneyball scores near-record for a baseball pic, comes in second to Lion King 3D anyway.

 Defying even the most optimistic of predictions, The Lion King 3D (HERE for the film's big not-so-fatal flaw) repeated at the top of the box office this weekend.  The shockingly popular 3D-converted re-release dropped just 27% in its second weekend, grossing $21.9 million in what was allegedly the last weekend of its 'limited engagement'.  I cannot imagine Disney not keeping this one in theaters until it plays out naturally, as we could easily be looking at a $100 million domestic total for the refurbished 17-year old cartoon.  The Lion King 3D now has $61.4 million, giving the film a $390 million domestic total.  Once it gets past $67 million, it will surpass the 1997 re-release of The Empire Strikes Back and become the second-biggest re-release of all time, behind the $137 million gross of Star Wars: Special Edition.

Unless Disney does pull the movie next Friday, it should pass $400 million at the end of next weekend, putting it within spitting distance of the $410 million domestic total of Toy Story 3.  The $441 million domestic total for Shrek 2 seems out of reach for the moment, but we'll know for sure by the end of next weekend.  Again, there is no reason to assume that every 3D-converted rerelease coming down the pike in the next year will perform like this one, anymore than other nationwide anniversary re-releases were expected to match the astonishing 1997 Star Wars Trilogy: Special Edition roll outs (HERE for a review of the Star Wars Blu Ray set).  Considering this release was basically a glorified advertisement for the October 4th Blu Ray release, Disney is basically pulling pure profit on this one.

Coming in at second place, but with no cause for shame, was Sony's Moneyball (review).  The well-reviewed Brad Pitt vehicle grossed a solid $19.5 million.  The film scored an A from Cinemascore across all demos.  The picture played 51% male and 64% over-35.  The latter stat makes its opening even more impressive (older audiences don't generally rush out to opening weekend) and its long-term legs that much more likely (as the word of mouth bleeds down to younger demos).  Like an old-fashioned adult drama, the film pulled a weekend multiplier of over 3.0x, something that rarely happens in this day and age.  Unless the film completely collapses for reasons unknown, Brad Pitt is (deservedly) guaranteed to receive a Best Actor Oscar nomination, and he is quickly looking like one of the front-runners to win.  As for its chances in other major Oscar categories (Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Picture, etc), the final gross will determine its fate.  Anything over $60 million makes it a likely nominee, anything over $75 million arguably makes it a lock (Pitt's huge international appeal will make this a boon overseas as well).  Regardless, this is EXACTLY the kind of film we all claim we want from the studios: mid-budget (about $50 million), star and character-driven dramas aimed at adults.  It may have been put in turnaround at the last minute two years ago (see me whine about it HERE), but Sony eventually did the right thing and will profit accordingly.

The other solid opening for the weekend went to Dolphin Tale, a true-life drama about an injured dolphin and its (I presume) eventual recovery.  Without the unexpected success of The Lion King 3D, this one would likely have won the weekend derby.  But Warner Bros. will have to 'settle' for a terrific $19.1 million opening for this well-reviewed $37 million family drama.  The film polled an A+ from Cinemascore, which of course only means something if the film opened well in the first place.  The legs on this one will be somewhat dependent on the continued strength of The Lion King, as well as the opening muscle of Real Steel on October 7th (a, um... Hugh Jackson robot-boxing drama that is being heavily sold to the family market).  Regardless, Dolphin Tale, which sold 50% of its tickets in 3D, will easily recoup its money by the end of next weekend, with overseas and the eventual family DVD market resulting in big profits.

The other two wide openers were pure action pictures, and they both debuted with relatively middling results.  Lionsgate's Abduction opened with $11.2 million.  The film was primarily an action vehicle for Taylor Lautner as well as a test of his drawing power.  While $10.9 million for an action picture isn't uber-impressive on its own, Lautner is arguably responsible for every single ticket sold this weekend.  The film received horrible reviews and advance word let action-junkies know that it was a soft PG-13 (thus defeating my reason for wanting to see it).  So if you bought a ticket to Abduction, you did so because you like Taylor Lautner (or are dating someone who does).  The John Singleton thriller cost just $36 million, so it will probably break even somewhere down the road.  There are two things worth noting: First of all, this opening is about on par with the $12.3 million opening of Zac Efron's Charlie St. Cloud and above the $8 million opening for Robert Pattinson's Remember Me, although an action thriller is arguably a more mainstream attraction than the latter two romantic dramas.  Second of all, and connected to the first thought, Taylor Lautner's biggest threat to longterm bank-ability is falling into the same trap as Patrick Swayze.  Swayze's two massive hits were Dirty Dancing and Ghost, both of which were romantic dramas.  Yet Swayze (or his agent?) insisted on doing a whole bunch of low-rent action pictures (Road House, Next of Kin, etc), which turned off the primarily female audience that turned him into an icon in the first place.  Lautner is known as a romantic hero of sorts, so his repeated dabbling in similarly low-rent action pictures could be a long-term problem.  We'll see...

The final opener was The Killer Elite.  The Jason Statham/Clive Owen/Robert De Niro action drama pulled in the standard-for-Statham $9.4 million (he generally averages $9-12 million for his action vehicles).  The good news is that this was the first movie from Open Road Films, so a halfway decent debut on the first time should be noted.  The bad news is that the film cost $70 million!!  Open Road picked this up and is only on the hook for marketing costs, but someone somewhere is going to take a bath on this one.  Since breaking out with The Transporter back in 2002, Jason Statham has of course made his name as 'the last action hero'.  But he has yet to find that big project that (perhaps temporarily) lifts him to the A-list, his Under Siege if you will.  The film will do the normal Statham $20-25 million and be on DVD in 90 days, where I will happily rent it (HERE for tips on how not to get killed by Jason Statham).

In holdover news, Straw Dogs (review) took the biggest fall of the weekend, dropping 60% and ending weekend two with just $8.8 million.  It deserved better...  Drive dropped 49%, a somewhat high drop indicating that audiences are trending less towards the majority of salivating critics and more towards my take.  Anyway, the film only cost $13 million, so its $21.4 million ten-day cume is just fine.  I Don't Know How She Does It dropped 54% from its lousy opening weekend, and thus has $7.9 million in ten days.  Contagion (review) passed the $50 million mark ($57 million), while The Help zoomed right past the $150 million mark (it now has $154.4 million).  Oh, and The Smurfs passed $500 million worldwide this weekend, which of course just confirms that 3D is dead, right?

That's it for this weekend.  Join us next time when Dream House (a Daniel Craig/Rachel Weisz haunted house movie that isn't being screened for critics) squares off against What's Your Number? (an Anna Faris romantic comedy) and the Joseph Gordon-Levitt/Seth Rogen cancer dramedy 50/50.

Scott Mendelson

A place at the table: Patty Jenkins (Monster) to direct Thor 2. Why it matters.

Variety has apparently confirmed that Marvel Studios is indeed in talks with Patty Jenkins to replace departing Kenneth Branagh in directing Thor 2, which is due for release on July 26th, 2013.  I generally don't comment on news about who is 'in talks' or who is 'on the wish-list', but Patty Jenkins inclusion on this specific wishlist is worth commenting on.  Jenkins is best known for having helmed Monster, which won Charlize Theron a Best Actress Oscar in 2003 for her portrayal of serial killer Aileen Wuornos.  Since that triumph, she has unfortunately been relegated to directing occasional episodes of television, most recently helming the pilot for the AMC series The Killing.  This is a pleasantly out-of-left field choice that plays to Marvel's greatest strength as a studio, picking talented filmmakers who aren't necessarily known for comic book spectacle and/or aren't 'the hip new flavor of the month'.  While much of the coverage will focus on 'YAY, Marvel is possibly hiring the first-ever woman to direct one of its superhero movies!', there are two things worth noting.  First of all, Lexi Aexander, who directed Punisher: War Zone in 2008 (review) is also of the female persuasion.  Second of all, the lack of credits on Jenkins's IMDB page brings up a troubling double-standard.  Had a male, arguably any male, directed a critically-acclaimed and Oscar-winning drama like Monster, they surely would have been on every studio's wishlist for every major project (see Hopper, Tom or Forrester, Marc).  But, Jenkins has barely worked in the last eight years.

The problem is of course not there there is a fiendish conspiracy to keep female directors out of the big leagues.  The problem is that there is an expectation that female directors cannot possibly helm the kind of pulpy, big-budget and special-effects-filled genre pictures that currently dominate the landscape.  I joke about it quite a bit, but why couldn't Sophia Coppola helm the next James Bond picture?  For that matter, why can't Drew Barrymore, who juggled a large ensemble cast with the dynamite Whip It, take over for the rebooted Fantastic Four franchise?  Why did it take Kathryn Bigelow winning a bloody Oscar for Hollywood to take her seriously?  Hell, why has Mimi Leder, who helmed two big-budget genre pictures (the emotionally engaging Deep Impact and the ahead-of-its-time The Peacemaker) been in the proverbial doghouse for ELEVEN YEARS (!!) following the disappointment of the character drama Pay It Forward?  She is only just now prepping for her first big screen feature since 2000, a remake of All Quiet On the Western Front.  Not only is it almost impossible for female directors to be considered for films that aren't stereo-typically 'womens' pictures', but once they do get their foot in the door, it's One Strike And You're Out! (as opposed to someone like Marcus Nispel, who fails with Pathfinder and then is given $90 million to fail with Conan the Barbarian).

The real progress of Marvel hiring a female to direct one of its comic book tent-poles is not that a woman is directing a big-budget comic book film (Punisher: War Zone cost just $30 million and more-or-less tanked).  It's the potential for female directors writ-large to be considered on the same 'wish-list' as male directors when the next big action picture or fantasy spectacle goes into pre-production.  Once we see at least one or two female names on the studio wish-lists for the next 007 film or the next big comic book adaptation... that's real progress.  What are your thoughts?  What female directors do you think deserve a shot at directing more mainstream genre product?

Scott Mendelson              

Review: Puncture (2011) is low-key, intriguing, half-hearted true-life legal drama.

Puncture
2011
99 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Adam and Mark Kassen's Puncture, with a screenplay by Chris Lopata and a story by Paul Danziger and Ela Thier, is a rare film based on a true story where one cannot help but wonder if the actual nonfiction version is more interesting than what we see on the screen.  The film details a true story of a suit filed by a young nurse (Vinessa Shaw) who was pricked by an HIV-contaminated needle while on the job.  But the film spends less time on the legal aspects of the case than on the personal life of its lead crusader.  That the film would rather be a character drama than a legal thriller is I suppose admirable, but the legal story is far more interesting than the character melodrama.


The lead character in question is Mike Weiss (Chris Evans), who runs a small personal-injury firm with Paul Danziger (Mark Kassen).  The firm basically survives on Mike's legal acumen and Paul's business sense, with the occasional support of their friend Daryl (the underutilized Jesse L. Martin), who refers small cases that his bigger firm won't be bothered with.  Weiss becomes emotionally invested in the plight of Vicky (Shaw), who is quickly dying and wants her death to mean something.  Alas, Weiss has his own issues, as his personal life (drugs, prostitutes, etc) becomes a liability, both in terms of his ability to do the job and his ability to get high-profile support for the cause.  As the corporate attorneys (personified by Brett Cullen's Nathaniel Price) put their pressure to bear to make sure that Safety Point needles never make their way into hospitals, Weiss and Danziger start to realize just what it costs to do the right thing, and whether or not either of them can afford it in the end.

The crux of that suit is that the hospital had refused to purchase a new, safer needle despite its ability to save lives.  Issues are brought up regarding what duty a private entity has to buy and implement an improved version of a given product, and whether or not large corporations would rather save money in the short term rather than in the long term (we all know the answer to that one).  As mentioned above, the legal drama takes a backseat to the slow destruction of Evans's protagonist, as the actual litigation doesn't really even begin until the second half of the picture.  That leaves about 50 minutes to get through quite a bit of legal maneuvering, and the second half of the picture feels rushed where the first half felt somewhat running in place.

The film has an admirable buttoned-down tone, with claustrophobic interiors and a certain low-to-the-ground nitty-gritty nature that makes it feel more realistic than a more open and rousing legal drama.  The film is filled with strong performances, although Evans and Cullen get the majority of the juicy material.  At its best, the film is a sobering reminder that having an impassioned and emotionally-invested attorney on your side may be as much of a hindrance as a help.  The last reel or so hammer home the true difficulty of a would-be David indeed triumphing over Goliath, especially without any help from sympathetic Goliaths elsewhere.

This is not an inspiring 'triumph for the underdog' empowerment fable, but a somber, occasionally contemplative drama about the high cost and often lack of reward for doing the right thing.  While it is admirable that Puncture focuses on its not-entirely sympathetic lead character over the procedural of civil litigation, it loses sight of what makes its story unique.  The aftershocks of the actual case, good and bad, are indeed noteworthy, and the film gives its true story a token disservice by focusing on another damaged would-be savior.  It is technically two stories for the price of one, but it falters in the end because it miscalculates which story is the most worthy of being put on film.

Grade: C+ 

A cast photo for Tim Burton's Dark Shadows.

From left to right, we have... Helena Bonham Carter as Dr. Julia Hoffman; Chloe Moretz as Carolyn Stoddard, Eva Green as Angelique Bouchard, Gulliver McGrath as David Collins, Bella Heathcote as Victoria Winters, Johnny Depp as Barnabus Collins, Ray Shirley as Mrs. Johnson, Jackie Earle Haley as Willie Loomis, Jonny Lee Miller as Roger Collins, and Michelle Pfeiffer as Elizabeth Collins Stoddard.  

Anyway, it looks pretty sharp, and Depp's make-up certainly looks less weird than the paparazzi photos that made him look like Michael Jackson.  I know nothing of the Dark Shadows television show and would prefer to keep it that way so as to judge this picture as open-mindedly as possible.  It's no secret that I'm not the world's most optimistic Tim Burton fan at the moment, but the horror-fan has never actually dabbled with vampires before, so it would seem that this is something more than a paycheck job.  It is probably too much to hope that Warner Bros. lets this out with an R-rating, but that would certainly be a step in the right direction.  Come what may, the picture will be released on May 12th, 2012 (alas, the second weekend-of-summer death slot), so we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

David Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo remake gets a second trailer.

This is actually over a minute longer than a regulation-sized 2:30 trailer.  At 3:46, it's basically a trimmed down version of the footage that the press saw last week in front of selected press screenings of Straw Dogs or Moneyball.  As such, there isn't much new to add, other than to again remark how visually dynamic the picture looks.  This thing is chock-full of character and narrative exposition, and it's good that Sony now seems unafraid to highlight the somewhat unique title character.  Otherwise, I direct you HERE to read my thoughts on the eight-minute preview from last week.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Moneyball (2011) is a light, intelligent baseball drama that doesn't over-inflate its importance or historical significance.

Moneyball
2011
133 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

The greatest strength of Moneyball is arguably also its greatest weakness, at least in terms of mainstream appeal and would-be Oscar love.  It is a film adaptation of the Michael Lewis book which chronicles how Oakland A's manager Billy Beane (played in a near-flawless movie star turn by Brad Pitt) used Peter Brand's (Jonah Hill) groundbreaking statistical analysis to build a winning team out of low-cost players that were considered borderline useless by the bigger and richer teams.  That's the movie in a nutshell.  What is most refreshing about the picture is that it simply accepts that it is a small drama about one baseball team and how they achieved one successful season back in 2002. Moneyball is, give or take a few needless detours into Beane's family life, primarily about the game of baseball.  It's about how two people changed how the game was played by trying a different strategy that would allow poorer teams to compete against the likes of the New York Yankees.  If you are a fan of the game, a fan of statistical analysis, and/or a Brad Pitt fan, you'll more than get your money's worth. But the film makes little effort to appease casual viewers or those who don't already have an interest in its subject matter.  Like Gettysburg or Miracle, it is a procedural drama about its specific subject matter.  If you don't like baseball, then what you are even doing reading this review?   

No one cures cancer.  No one saves the world from tyranny or fights for the oppressed.  No one overcomes impossible odds to win the day.  In fact, the whole movie is about arguably, to use my wife's nickname for cheating, 'shifting the odds' in their favor.  The film does not pretend to be anything more important than what it is.  In fact, the only real flaw of the film is the insertion of a handful of scenes which highlight Beane's relationship with his twelve-year old daughter.  The first such moment, involving the purchasing of a guitar, is overly long but does have a call back in the third act of the film.  But the rest of the scenes are merely needless moments of young Casey Beane (played by a perfectly fine Kerris Dorsey) worrying out-loud about whether her father's unconventional strategy will cost him his job.  This fear is dealt with more succinctly in the main story, and the entire subplot drags down an already lengthy movie while feeling deeply cynical.  Let's just say if you're a 'stereotypical woman' who doesn't like sports, ten minutes of Pitt bonding with his daughter isn't going to convince you to see the movie.  I would argue that there a few too many scenes flashing back to Beane's history as a failed ballplayer, but at least that material relates to the core narrative.  The film is about how statistical analysis changed the game of baseball, and it works best when it sticks to that thread.

Fear not, sports fans, despite the paragraph above, the vast majority of the movie is about baseball, with quite a bit of 'inside baseball' to satisfy the experts.  This film is easily the smartest film primarily about the game since the genuinely insightful Little Big League back in 1994 (The Rookie and Sugar are better overall films, but they are human dramas that involve people who play baseball).  I am no expert, but I grew up around the game, as my brother and father are sports fans, I collected the cards in the late-80s/early 90s, and I played an awful lot of Nintendo and Super Nintendo baseball games (which is a great way to learn the rules and what the stats mean, by the way).  As such, I appreciate that the film didn't spoon-feed the basics, which allows it to concentrate on its sometimes wonky subject matter.

As a film, it works as a compelling, if slight, drama.  Pitt delivers another solid star turn, as he succeeds in disappearing into the intelligent, if not overly wise, aging manager.  Jonah Hill is mainly around as an entry-character, but he gives a solid low-key turn.  The only other major character of note is Phillip Seymour Hoffman's supporting turn as on-field manager Art Howe.  He has arguably the hardest role in the film, as he has to be an antagonist (he initially refuses to place the newer recruits on the field) who nonetheless is not a villain.  He's in a no-win situation, forced to attempt to win games with a seemingly doomed strategy, but also willing to defy his general manager so he has a shot in hell of landing another managing job after the season ends.  The rest of the cast is basically a series of cameos, including Robin Wright as Beane's ex-wife and Reed Diamond as the General Manager of the Cleveland Indians (how weird it was for this Akron-native to see the Indians being portrayed as an idealized powerhouse ball club).  The movie more or less belongs to Pitt and Hill, and they make a fine team.

The screenplay by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin is smart and grownup without being insufferably 'clever'.  There are moments of wit and sparkly character interactions (I'm personally fond of Pitt and Hill's first meeting), but the film's dialogue feels organic and not overly showy.  In other words, this the Aaron Sorkin of A Few Good Men rather than the Aaron Sorkin of The Social Network (both are with merit).  By the way, despite what prior critics have said, this film has about as much in common with The Social Network as The Adjustment Bureau has in common with Inception.  The film's greatest strength is that it doesn't try to inflate its own importance, nor does it attempt to imply that its story was one with world-changing implications.  It's just a good drama about a slice of baseball history.

Moneyball succeeds in its small goals, erring only when it takes its eye off the ball in order to make its lead character 'more relatable'.  It contains a strong central performance by one of Hollywood's biggest movie stars, and said performance anchors a quietly compelling and grownup drama that works.  Billy Beane didn't change the world, and it can be argued just how much he changed the game (something the pre-credits text hints at), but it was a noteworthy moment for what once was America's Greatest Pastime.  As a (I presume) somewhat-fictionalized version of a notable true-life event in baseball, Moneyball is undoubtedly a success.  It's a darn good movie about an interesting subject that honors its subject matter without inflating its importance.  Like the players that are recruited for Beane's experiment, Moneyball is not a grand-slam home-run hitter, but it does reliably get on base.

Grade: B+            

Review: Alas, Kevin Smith's Red State (2011) is an artistic mess and a social/political failure.

Red State
2011
88 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

There is something almost heartbreaking about seeing a popular filmmaker finally getting the chance to make his or her passion project, only to watch said film turn out to be an utter wreck and completely irrelevant both to cinema and to the subject matter that it attempts to discuss.  Such is Kevin Smith's Red State.  It is a failure on nearly every level and counter-intuitive to the ideas it seemingly wants to express.  Despite a cast of fine actors young and old, the film is a structural mess and resembles nothing less than the kind of bargain-basement direct-to-DVD thrillers that have littered the Netflix queues and Blockbuster shelves over the last ten years.  Whether or not this is Kevin Smith's worst film is beside the point (I have only seen about half of his films).  What matters is that Red State was his chance to put all of his cards on the table, to make a grand statement about a subject close to his heart.  Yet with a cast of his choosing and apparently no limitations beyond budget, Smith has failed artistically and ideologically. 

A token amount of plot: three young men (Kyle Gallner, Michael Angarano, and Nicholas Braun) answer an online ad for a random sexual encounter and make their way to the would-be meet-up house.  Once they arrive, they discover that the offer was basically a trap in order to ensnare would-be sexual sinners for denouncement and execution by the local fundamentalist church.  As they try to escape certain death, the chaos attracts the attention of federal agents (led by John Goodman) and a Waco-style stand-off seems imminent.  But as the body count rises and those trapped inside the compound begin to panic, just who is on the side of angels in this apparent battle between church and state?

On its face, the film wants to be a horror-thriller basically comparing the Westboro Baptist Church and its ilk to the more overtly violent cults such as the Branch Davidians.  The 'God Hates Fags' point-men are referenced by name in an opening scene that plays like a book report about intolerant Christian churches.  It's an interesting, if long-overdue idea, that is barely developed due to a jumpy and episodic first half that gives way to a wholly separate movie once John Goodman shows up.  Unfortunately, perhaps enamored by his actors, Smith doesn't know when to cut, so rambling 'tell, don't show' monologues go on for ten minutes at a time at several intervals during the film.  The initial fiery sermon delivered by Reverend Abin Cooper (Michael Parks) goes on for at least ten minutes, for no reason other than that Kevin Smith really wants you to know how vile he and his flock are.

The young victims are basically glorified red shirts, introduced only long enough to be killed (or perhaps escape?) when the plot requires it.  While it is nice that the film eventually expands beyond the 'young kids venture into parts unknown and get killed off' sub-genre, what it eventually becomes is no more satisfying.  The only character who carries any emotional and dramatic weight is Cheyenne (Kerry Bishé), a young woman who realizes that the government may not plan on leaving any survivors and desperately tries to save the young children living in the compound.  The rest of the solid cast, which includes Melissa Leo, Steven Root, and Kevin Pollack, is wasted and given little of substance to do or say.

Kevin Smith has always been a better writer than a director.  But the borderline amateurishness on display is shocking for someone who has been making films for nearly twenty years.  There are countless scenes of characters basically giving lengthy expository monologues that have no credence to the story or could otherwise have been shown.  Without going into details, the climax of the film basically feels like Smith and company ran out of money and merely had to inform us of what occurred in the finale.  What's equally annoying is that there are nuggets of an interesting idea or two hidden in the mush.  The idea of a bloodthirsty religious cult being beset by an equally bloodthirsty federal government is worthwhile.  However, the dramatic meat of such a story, the plight of those caught in the middle, is only given a passing acknowledgement through Bishe's strong performance.

In the end, Red State arrives too late to work as a shocking exposé of far-right Christian hate groups, while offering no new wisdom to share about them.  In also making the government into the bad guy, Smith does nothing less than neuter whatever issues he wants to discuss regarding the dangers of such religious sects. He also plays into the (theoretical) fantasy that the current government is far-more dangerous than any (theoretical) heavily-armed hate group (be they religious or Tea Party-ish Ala Jonah Hex).  Even if you agree that said point of view has merit, Martin Scorsese already made that ironic commentary with Gangs of New York (another deeply flawed passion project) in 2002.  But even putting aside how the film fails as a social tract (which of course can be debated), it is a dull, fractured, and often lifeless picture that fails to terrify, thrill, or intrigue.  With precious screen-time devoted to Smith's trademark potty humor and rambling monologues, the film feels both far too long and painfully incomplete.  It is not scary, funny, or informative.  It feels like a new filmmaker's rough draft, not the decade-in-the-making thesis statement from a longtime director.

If Smith is serious about leaving behind the world of Jay and Silent Bob (with the excellent Clerks II being the finale), then Red State is a troubling sign that the man behind View Askew may have no place else to go.

Grade: D+        

For (old) thoughts on Red State and the future of Video On Demand, go HERE.    

Weekend Box Office (09/18/11): What the massive opening of The Lion King 3D really means for 3D and the popularity of the theatrical experience.

In a slightly shocking result that has several notable meanings, Disney's 3D-converted re-release of The Lion King (essay) cruised into the number one spot over the weekend with a mighty $30.1 million.  Acting as both a two-week advertisement for the October 4th Blu Ray release and a test run for possibly reviving the old 'out of the vault and back into theaters' strategy of old, the film didn't just top the box office but very nearly set a record for the Mouse House.  In the realm of Disney cartoons that are NOT Pixar releases, The Lion King 3D is actually fifth on the opening weekend list, behind Tarzan ($34 million), Chicken Little ($40 million), The Lion King ($40.8 million), and Tangled ($48 million).  It is the fifth-biggest September opening in history and came within $600,000 of besting the $30.7 million domestic gross of Disney's Toy Story/Toy Story 2 double-feature 3D re-release October, 2009.  That re-release, which was both an advertisement for the Toy Story/Toy Story 2 Blu Ray releases as well as the upcoming Toy Story 3, opened with $12.4 million despite Disney offering two shows for the price of one (IE - half the show times in a given day).  So simply taking the Toy Story 3D opening weekend and doubling it gives you around $25 million, meaning that this weekend's result was not quite as unexpected as its being reported.

If The Lion King 3D matches the 2.4x weekend-to-total multiplier of the Toy Story double-feature, then we're looking at $71 million.  That accomplishes three goals.  First of all, it's already surpassed the $339 million domestic gross of Finding Nemo, which means that The Lion King is now the biggest-grossing non-sequel cartoon of all-time.  Second of all, a $73 million total will be JUST enough to get The Lion King over the $400 million mark, which just looks prettier.  And finally, with $12 million in overseas added to the new domestic total of $357 million, the worldwide gross for The Lion King now sits at $825 million (Up yours, Shrek the Third!).  If this re-release does $73 million in America and $32 million overseas (a reasonable guess), then ends with $890 million and leapfrogs over Finding Nemo ($867 million) and most importantly Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs ($886 million).  The $919 million worldwide total of Shrek 2 is the one Disney really wants to surpass (as it would mean that The Lion King and Toy Story 3 are the two biggest cartoons of all-time), but that seems unlikely, especially if this release does indeed close out after two weeks (doubtful...).

On its face, this big opening tells us two very important things.  First of all, despite what everyone wants to tell you, 3D is not dead (they are WRONG and WRONG!).  As always, it's the movie not the format.  There was a genuine interest for families to see The Lion King (arguably the most beloved of the Era-of-Katzenberg cartoons), and the 3D conversion was just a cherry on top.  Second of all, it does refute the notion that 'audiences don't want to see movies in theaters anymore'.  We had a $30 million opening for a 17-year old cartoon that most of the paying consumers probably own on a terrific-looking DVD that will look just fine on their 50" televisions.  This does bode well for the upcoming 3D converted releases of Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace and Titanic, as well as the threatened 3D conversions for Top Gun and Ghostbusters (better than Ghostbusters III, I suppose).  We can argue that it's not necessarily a good thing that audiences seem willing to see popular older movies in a theater over newer films (why remake everything when you can just turn the originals into 3D and re-release them?!), but people ARE willing to head out to the theaters if the product is there.

Also of note is that this opening may-well see the revival of Disney's abandoned practice of re-releasing their 'classics' into theaters on a somewhat regular basis.  That practice was stopped after the re-release of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1993, as widespread availability of these titles on VHS negated the 'see it now or wait!' factor (also, the growing popularity of Disney's new cartoons negated the financial need for these re-releases).  Yes, Disney re-released The Little Mermaid in November of 1997, but that was more about kneecapping the opening weekend of Fox's Anastasia one week later (and, as a bonus, getting The Little Mermaid over the $100 million mark).  As long as Disney keeps their expectations in check (IE - Hercules 3D is not going to open to $30 million), there is no reason they can't revive the re-release patterns of old.  The audience is clearly there and willing.

There were three other releases this weekend, but there is little news value.  The obscenely overrated thriller Drive parlayed good reviews to a solid $11.3 million opening.  The $13 million Film District release is another solid win for the new studio, as well as a decent bell-weather for Ryan Gosling's eventual future as an 'open it by yourself' movie star.  I kinda hated the film (review of course), but I have no qualms with an R-rated adult-driven genre picture opening well enough to be profitable.  Opening less well was Screen Gems' release of Straw Dogs (review), which pulled in just $5.1 million.  It played 51% female and 54% over-25.  The Rod Lurie-directed remake of the 1971 Sam Peckinpah thriller received mixed reviews (I'm on the mixed-positive side), but was hurt by direct-demo competition with Drive, and audience disinterest.  Those who actually have heard of the Peckinpah film were mostly turned off by the idea of a remake, let alone one that was sold as something resembling a Platinum Dunes revamp.  And the vast majority of the movie-going populace were possibly turned off by the symbolic title, the lack of real star-power (I adore James Marsden, but he's not an opener), and the ironic fact that the film did (accurately) look a bit more intelligent and cerebral than your usual Screen Gems horror-film remake.  It was clearly a damned-if you do, damned-if you don't situation.

The final new release was the Sarah Jessica Parker working-mother comedy I Don't Know How She Does It?.  The film pulled in just $4.4 million, which is not the least bit surprising.  First of all, the concept (a busy working mother struggles to juggle work and family) was probably pretty novel in 1981, but it feels almost insulting that this movie is being made in 2011 (or sad that so little has changed).  Second of all, the title IS probably pretty insulting to any number of working mothers who 'do it' without any fanfare.  Third of all, even if we argue that the film does appeal to its demographic (professional women with families), it is just this very target group that would probably be too busy to schedule a movie night on opening weekend (this is also, ironically, what hurt Sex and the City 2, which stupidly opened over the family-centered Memorial Day holiday in 2010).  Finally, Sarah Jessica Parker is not, and has never been an 'open it by herself' movie star.  I don't mean that as an insult.  Before she joined Sex and the City in 1998, she was trying to parlay her cult popularity into genuine movie stardom.  Sure, I fell in lust with her after LA Story in 1991, but she was unknown by most, only beloved by well, me, Rosie O'Donnell, David Letterman, and eventually Matthew Broderick.  After the show ended in 2003, she found success in The Family Stone (a moving ensemble piece that slowly found its audience over Christmas 2005) and Failure To Launch (a 2006 romcom with Matthew McConaughy).  Other than those two hits, only the Sex and the City films have brought box office glory.  She may be a pop-culture icon and a better actress than she's sometimes given credit for, but she's not a face-on-the-poster movie star.

In holdover news, Contagion (review) fell 35% in weekend two, which means that the Soderbergh pandemic drama is 'catching on' with older viewers and possibly bleeding into younger audiences.  The $60 million film has $44.2 million in ten days, having grossed $14.5 million in weekend two.  It's so far just trailing the respective numbers put up by The Town (review) and The Social Network this time last year.  Both of those films topped $90 million, so an $80-85 million total for Contagion is not out of the question.  Despite rave reviews and Oscar buzz, Lionsgate's Warrior (review) still sits at $10 million after ten days.  Alas... Crazy, Stupid Love (13 reasons I hate this one with a mighty passion) crossed the $80 million mark this weekend, and The Help is nearing $150 million. The Smurfs now sits at $482 million worldwide, meaning that a sequel is all-but guaranteed (here's an idea... set the whole film in Smurf Village!!!).  Rise of the Planet of the Apes has $171 million domestic and $391 million worldwide, meaning it has surpassed worldwide grosses of franchise re-starters Star Trek ($385 million) and Batman Begins ($371 million) and has cleared the $358 million (and counting) worldwide takes of Captain America ($358 million thus far) and X-Men: First Class ($352 million).

That's it for this weekend.  Join us next weekend when Brad Pitt's Moneyball (review on Wednesday) squares off against Taylor Lautner's Abduction (why I want to see it anyway...) and the Jason Statham/Robert De Niro/Clive Own romantic comedy The Killer Elite.  Also opening is A Dolphin Tale.                        

Scott Mendelson

Review: Drive (2011) isn't 'cool', but rather just an art-house, navel-gazing version of any direct-to-DVD action picture.

Drive
2011
100 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

There is an old Robert Rodriguez interview where he comments about how shocked he was by the positive reviews that greeted the release of El Mariachi.  He hinted at certain biases that critics have toward films that are supposed to automatically be 'better' than the rest.  To paraphrase, Rodriguez thought he was making an exploitation film, but because it was a foreign movie with subtitles, critics found all kinds of symbolism that wasn't really there.  Nicolas Winding Refn directs the hell out of Drive, itself based on a novel by James Sallis.  But the visual poetry is in service of a painfully contrived and hilariously generic narrative, and even said 'coolness' is so overwrought that it eventually turns into self-parody and becomes as boring as the story being told.


A token amount of plot: "Driver" (Ryan Gosling) works by day as an auto mechanic and stunt driver, while moonlighting by night as a getaway driver for thieves and the like.  His life is one of general isolation, but that changes when he takes a mutual interest in his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her young son.  Even when Irene's husband is released from prison, the so-far platonic affection still exists.  So when said husband (Oscar Isaac) ends up in hot water over protection money, Driver offers to help him pull of the heist to settle the debt.  The heist goes fine, no one gets hurt, and everyone lives happily-ever after.  That last sentence was a joke.

I purposely avoided any trailers and TV spots for the film, having been told that they were quite spoiler-filled.  Having seen the film, I can only wonder how this film could be spoiled, since it is so formulaic that anyone who has ever seen a crime film can accurately plot out what is going to happen and when.  Predictability is not in-itself a flaw, but Drive takes 100 minutes to tell maybe 30 minutes worth of story.  The vast majority of the running time is given to Gosling silently driving around the city and/or exchanging mostly silent glances with said damsel-in-distress.  You say these scenes are 'artistic' and filled with symbolic character moments.  I say it felt like a cheap direct-to-DVD action film filling up the running time with redundant driving scenes and scenes of two people staring at each other.  After a terrific and suspenseful opening action sequence (where stealth and silence prevail over loud vehicle crunching), the picture slows to a crawl as it introduces its primary characters (that's good) and spends oodles of screen time merely letting our two would-be lovebirds exchange 'romantic' glances (that's bad).

This is also one of those films where our two leads feel the need to barely talk about a whisper, so it's a good thing they have so little dialogue.  The rest of the cast fortunately adds a bit more life to the proceedings, as Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman, and Bryan Cranston helpfully talk at normal volume and actually give more than two facial expressions during the course of the picture.  But the film is very nearly a silent picture, which is mainly a problem because it is not a very engaging one, opting less for 'slow motion' than for extended scenes of 'no motion' (spoiler-free example: a major moment involves a distraction of an enemy, something that would take thirty seconds in a normal film but here drags on for two minutes).  We are supposed to believe that the relationship between 'Driver' and Irene is a potent one, that it is worth potentially sacrificing the life Driver has made for himself.  But since we get absolutely no backstory or character development for Ryan Gosling's brooding protagonist, we basically have to go on faith that this isn't just a case of two movie stars mooning over each other because the false notion that a bad or amoral man caring about a pretty girl (and/or a child) will automatically make him good.

Driver is presented as capable of savage violence when it is called for and when it is not.  During a climactic moment, he actually kills a more-or-less innocent bystander.  Yet we're supposed to somehow believe in his potential goodness or heroism, both because Ryan Gosling is handsome and brooding and because the soundtrack explicitly tells us as much.  A reoccurring song literally has the refrain: "He's a real human being, and to me a hero.", which makes me again wish that Baseketball (which hilariously spoofed on-the-nose film-song lyrics) was a bigger hit back in 1998.  Cary Mulligan has no character to speak of, other than to be pretty and give Gosling moon-eyes when its required.  We are supposed to be invested in this relationship, but it is so empty that it makes the Bella/Edward romance of the first Twilight film truly feel like a legendary love affair.  Again, we are given no background or development of any kind for any of the would-be heroes, and the film expects us to care (and approve) purely because they are played by beautiful movie stars.

Yes, the film looks relatively stylish, and yes there is a confidence and artistry to some of the compositions, but the visuals of the film serve no purpose other than itself and eventually becomes the whole reason.  Critics constantly complain when big-budget studio films are purely concerned with style over substance, yet artsy-fartsy films that commit the same sin are apparently given a pass.  Drive is in the end all about its own style, flaunting its lack of substance as some kind of extended-middle finger to those who will hail its 'coolness' and ignore the fact that there is nothing underneath the razzle-dazzle.  It is boring, uninteresting, and audience-insulting, playing as it does to the barest adolescent fantasies in a manner befitting a high school short story.  Take away the critics-choice actors and the intriguing but very Tangerine Dream-ish score by Cliff Martinez, and you have the plot, the pacing, and the character development of any given direct-to-DVD action picture.

The great irony is that I think director Nicolas Winding Refn and/or writer Hossein Amini know this.  There is a scene in the first act of the film where Albert Brooks (in the best performance of the picture) lays out some background exposition.  He states that he used to be a movie producer.  He then explains that (paraphrasing) 'I used to produce movies in the 80s. Kind of action films, sexy stuff.  Some people called them European. I thought they were shit.'  From whomever's mind that line originated from, it seems clear that the filmmakers may be laughing at the critics tripping all over themselves to praise this bargain-basement genre film due to its art-house sheen.  Drive may look 'European', but it's actually just a stripped-down, character-less variation on The Transporter.    

Grade: C-