Review: Sleeping Beauty (2011) has strong ideas in service of a lifeless film.

Sleeping Beauty
2011
105 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

It is not fair to writer/director Julia Leigh that I have such strong feelings about Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch.  (here, here, and here). It is not fair that I was so utterly annoyed by the critical community's absolute refusal to even acknowledge the rather unsubtle subtext and ideas that justified the fantastical elements.  It is perhaps ironic that within the same year we get two Emily Browning pictures that are sexually-charged and are knee deep in some rather pointed social commentary about how women are viewed in the culture.  Broadly speaking, Sleeping Beauty and Sucker Punch have many of the same ideas and opinions about the wholesale objectification of women.  Unfortunately, while Sucker Punch has fantastical environments and jaw-dropping action sequences to justify its existence as pop entertainment, Sleeping Beauty frankly has little to offer but its ideas.

A token amount of plot: In short, the film involves the exploits of graduate student Lucy (Emily Browning) who finds herself applying for a mysterious job.  While the job starts out with her serving as a waitress for an exclusive gentlemen's club, a job that calls for basically serving men while half-naked.  For an additional price, the men can receive a most unusual service.  The girls (including Lucy) will take a drug cocktail which will render them unconscious for several hours, during which the men can do, save for actual penetration, whatever they want to the sleeping women.  And that's about it.  The film is generally full of long, mostly silent takes, where characters silently do random tasks that fail to entertain or even engage.  Aside from a strong performance from Browning and a few key moments, the film almost plays like a satire of the conventional art-house picture.  While the subject matter is interesting and the ideas are worthy of discussion, it is a far more entertaining movie to talk about than it is to watch.

Which is a shame, because the ideas on display are indeed provocative.  At its core, Sleeping Beauty is a meditation on the inevitable end-point of female objectification.  In a society that views women primarily as objects to be played with, having an unconscious, silent, unfeeling,  and unthinking woman to 'play' with becomes the purest form of said philosophy.  But, thanks to its art-house pretension and its weakness as a film, it is unlikely to be seen by anyone who might actually take its moralizing to heart.  Moreover, the film is less daring than Sucker Punch, which had the courage to (and was punished for) be explicitly accusing mainstream culture, especially geek culture, of practicing old-fashioned misogyny under the guise of fantasy-laden 'female empowerment'.   Even had Sucker Punch not existed, Sleeping Beauty would still be a success on its intellectual merits but a failure in its delivery of its thesis statements.  Great ideas, mediocre and relatively dull movie.

Grade: C-               

DVD Review: Smallville: the Complete Series

Smallville the Complete Series DVD box set
Warner Bros. home video
Available Tuesday, November 29th
9,261 minutes (and thirty-seven seconds)
Not rated

by Scott Mendelson

This one is pretty simple, folks.  I liked Smallville during its initial five years, when the series had a pretty clear narrative arc.  However, when the show picked up surprising ratings strength during its fifth (what was to be its final) season, the show became a giant waiting game, as the creators kept trying to arbitrarily keep the show alive through guest stars and cast replacements as the CW failed to launch successful replacements.  I gave up at the end of season seven, although I kept up with major plot points and did tune in for the series finale last May.  By the time Clark Kent became Superman, it was the definition of anti-climax.  He had already gone through pretty much all of the major Superman beats and encountered pretty much every major friend or foe that the he had already been Superman in all-but name and costume for four or five years already.  Still, through hell and high water, the show was an uncommonly ambitious bit of fantasy storytelling, revamping the Superman mythos in a way that made sense for series television and creating its own mythology that can stand alongside the movies, Lois and Clark, Superman: the Animated Series, and the comic books themselves as a 'proper' Superman epic.

But if you're even considering buying this massive and relatively expensive box set, you probably already hold the show in pretty high regard.  So this set is a no-brainer if you like the show and haven't bought the majority of the seasons on DVD in prior years (due to quality issues with the first season or two, it is unlikely that the earlier years will ever be re-released on Blu Ray).  So let it be known that the series is contained on 60 discs, all of which fully replicate the bonus features (commentaries, deleted scenes, featurettes, etc) that were found on the standalone releases.  The big bonus is two new discs worth of "new" material.  I use quotes because at least 2.5 hours of this 'five hours of new material' is actually stuff we've seen before (the terrible 90 minute Secret Origins DC Comics documentary that is now included on every DC box set as required by law and the Aquaman pilot that has also appeared elsewhere).

Among the truly new material (including the 1961 Superboy pilot, the final SDCC Comic-Con panel, a specially-made Daily Planet newspaper, etc), only two pieces are worthy of note.  First off, you get the 2004 Paley Fest event.  If you've been to one of these, you know it's a fun and informal cast/crew Q&A that generally brings out the best in everyone and actually runs long enough to offer real insights and details.  The big offering, one that was previewed at this year's New York Comic Con, is a 100 minute retrospective documentary.  While 100 minutes to explore ten years of a series is a bit slight, the content that is offered is pretty solid.  Among the tidbits is an admission by Tom Welling that he indeed was learning how to act on the job, and yes that does explain why Clark was a bit stiff in the first season or so.  Anyway, if you're a fan of the series, this is a terrific little documentary, and one I hope will be offered as a separate purchase for those unable to afford the hefty price-tag of this box set.

So, ten seasons worth of television, about twenty-eight hours of extras, five of which are 'new', all in a box that is so heavy that Kal-El himself would break a sweat trying to lift it.  If you are reading this review because you liked the show, you haven't bought the prior seasons, and you can afford it, the Smallville Complete Series box-set is probably a worthwhile purchase.

Review: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) is Smart, Suspenseful, Engaging, Terrific.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy
2011
128 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Tomas Alfredson so badly wants to concoct a 1970s-style thriller that it would be laughable if the final product weren't so darn good.  From the somewhat hazy cinematography to the John Barry-ish score to the overtly cold and clinical nature of the narrative, this is a film that (appropriately) wants to take us back to what many consider to the peak of mainstream adult filmmaking.  What makes the picture work as more than just an acting-treat or period-homage is the undertone of impotence and irrelevance that makes the film into a grand tragedy.  By retaining the 1970s setting, Alfredson makes potent commentary about the futile and possibly irrelevant nature of modern espionage.  Point being, forty years later, none of the secrets that were fought over mean a damn thing anymore.

A token amount of plot: Following a botched operation in Hungary that caused collateral damage, Control, the current head of the British Intelligence Agency (John Hurt) is forced out along with fellow high level operative George Smiley (Gary Oldman).  But Control still believes that the original intent of the mission, to feret out a possible mole at the very top of the 'Circus', is still relevant, so Smiley is brought out of retirement to finish the work his supervisor could not.  That's all you need and that's all you get.  What follows is a low-key but endlessly gripping mole-hunt, which involves a token look at how the information game was operated a few decades ago.  But most importantly, Oldman's pursuit brings him into contact with a parade of notable character actors, all of whom deliver superb performances of varying degrees of emotionalism.

I'm not going to run down each actor and the role they play, but instead I will merely state that the film stars (deep breath) Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Toby Jones, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Ciarán Hinds.  Without going into details, some of these actors play to type (John Hurt passionately pontificates!) and some go off their respective beaten path (Tom Hardy and Mark Strong are surprisingly vulnerable), but everyone brings their A game.   Everyone excels, but special note should be made of Kathy Burke, who delivers real pathos during her big scene with Oldman and shines in an otherwise male-dominated line-up.  Oldman himself delivers a strong lead performance, as his unexpected cockiness reveals a confidence in his work which is balanced by his obvious regrets.  It is absurd that Gary Oldman has never received an Oscar nomination, but I fear this low-key and mostly buttoned-down star turn won't feel 'big' enough for the Academy.        

Aside from the parade of thespians and the procedural details of the hunt, the picture paints a grim picture of both the nature and the relevance of the 'spy vs. spy' game.  It is not the first film to openly question the broad point of seemingly arbitrary intelligence peddling (even more commercial pictures like Goldeneye, Mission: Impossible, and The Bourne Identity play with similar themes), but the period setting lends it a surprising topicality.  While it has a surface-level 'see how little its changed?' overtone, the picture soberly asks if any of it really matters.  When an antagonist states near the end that he's 'made a mark', it brings the stark realization that those who do evil are noticed while those who prevent evil do so in shadows.  The film acknowledges that these men have given their whole lives basically protecting or pursuing arbitrary pieces of information that mean little in the grander picture.  Again, not new ideas (I can only presume they represent the opinions of author John le Carre), but they give the film a potency behind its worth as a procedural acting treat.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy takes a trip into the past to show how little has changed and how little we notice the day-to-day effects of the espionage game.  It is a fine thriller and a powerful piece of pop entertainment.  Aside from the wonderful star turn by Gary Oldman and the host of other performances, the movie matters by acknowledging the futility of its world.

Grade: A-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SPOILER SPOILER END OF MOVIE COMPLAINT SPOILER!!!
NOTE (highlight to read)-  The one BIG problem I had with the film, the main reason I didn't give it an "A", is how it handles the identity of the mole.  Put simply, there is one actor who is just a little more famous than the others, yet has little or nothing to do for the majority of the film.  As such, anyone who has watched enough television crime procedurals can guess the identity of the villain in about five minutes.  The film goes by several 'catch the killer' tropes, including 'The Law of Inexplicably High Billing' and "The Law of the Seemingly Needless Character Played By An Actor Who Doesn't Play Needless Characters".  Fortunately, the journey is more important than the destination, I just wish the filmmakers hadn't cast such a major actor in such an otherwise useless role, thus giving away the game right off the bat.

Trailer: Ice Age 4 celebrates Scrat's 10th year trying to get a single acorn.

Yes, the first Ice Age was released in Spring of 2002, so it will soon be ten years since Scrat first started trying to catch that infernal acorn.  The third Ice Age was one of the most successful films of all time overseas.  As of this writing, it's seventh-biggest foreign haul of all time, it was third back in 2009.  So a sequel was inevitable.  For what it's worth, the third picture (Dawn of the Dinosaurs) was pretty entertaining, and even in a second-run 2D screening you could tell that those who paid for 3D got their money's worth.  I will always have a certain fondness for said third entry, as it's the first movie I took my daughter to, just shy of her second birthday.  To my surprise, she more or less sat in rapt attention, only losing interest during the final reel.  Yes, Scrat was her favorite character.  Fox drops this one on July 13th, 2012.  If Allison wants to go, I will be seeing it accordingly.  Thanks to Digital Spy for the 'get'.

Scott Mendelson          

Review: Young Adult (2011)

Young Adult
2011
95 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

I have often written about what I feel is a distinct double-standard when it comes to the relative morality of female protagonists (or even major female supporting characters) compared to their male counterparts.  Put simply, a male character can be a murderous criminal or a duplicitous emotional con-man and still be considered an 'anti-hero' if not a hero if he's doing it for a (pick one) hot girl, child, and/or animal.  But female characters are often judged as 'unworthy' (read - 'bitches') if they exhibit the slightest bit of selfish impulse and/or self-interest, and/or if they show the slight amount of characteristics which may be classified as 'unsympathetic'.  Male characters of this nature are considered 'complex', while female characters are considered 'unsympathetic' or 'unable to connect with audiences'.  Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody's Young Adult will be an interesting test case.  Aside from its other merits, it represents a star vehicle for a major actress (Charlize Theron) whose primary character does not bravely overcome adversity but rather openly causes adversity to those around her.


A token amount of plot - Like a lot of people, Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) arguably peaked in high school.  During her teen years, she was a prime member of the 'popular crowd' and someone who theoretically would go on to great things after leaving her small town Minnesota birthplace.  But nearly twenty years later, life has not been kind to Ms. Gary.  While she still has her looks, her employment as a ghost writer for a popular young-adult series is about to end and she remains unattached following the dissolution of her first marriage.  After receiving a mass email from her high school flame announcing the birth of his first child, Mavis convinces herself that Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson) needs to be saved from his small town suburban existence and drives back home to 'win him back'.

What's interesting about this particular narrative is how much it resembles the plot line of any number of male-driven romantic melodramas.  You know the one: a hometown boy made good who comes back to his birthplace and A) realizes what he's missing and B) rekindles a romance with his childhood sweetheart who of course was the right girl for him all along.  Heck, two television shows in recent years (Ed and October Road) revolve entirely around this premise.  Taken purely at face value, Young Adult works as a gender-switching skewing of these absurd fantasies.  But Cody and Reitman have other fish to fry as well.  Centered around Theron's bitingly witty performance, the film presents yet another example of arrested development, the kind of immature refusal to 'grow up' that we see in any number of bawdy male-driven comedies.  What is doubly-refreshing about the picture is that, aside from Mavis's queen-bee snark and plotting, pretty much every other character in the film is a genuine grown-up.  Sure, some of them have their issues, but there is a refreshing maturity to how they deal with the human cannon ball that is Mavis.

The film eventually comes down to two very strong central performances.  That Charlize Theron is fantastic is almost a cliche.  If anything her consistent quality in films both good and bad has caused her to become a bit undervalued.  But more surprising is the emotionally compelling supporting turn by Patton Oswalt, surprising perhaps only because I missed his acclaimed star turn in Big Fan back in 2009.  As high school nobody Matt Freehauf, who was the victim of a brutal hate crime that left him physically and emotionally crippled, Oswalt makes a fine foil for Theron and he crafts a complex character who also peaked in high school, but only because he never got the chance to truly shine.  The rest of the cast are pure slice-of-life performances.  Patrick Wilson gives a genuine credibility to 'the one that got away' and again reaffirms his worth as a valuable character actor.  Elizabeth Reaser brings token sympathy as Mrs. Slade.  She earns audience interest in attempting to read body language as her subtle work hides whether or not she is completely aware of Mavis's intentions.  Collette Wolfe has a small role as Matt's sister, and she has at least one great scene that is fascinating in its pathos.

There is an undercurrent of sadness that flows through Young Adult, which in turn makes its pitch-black comic tone all the more potent.  While there is a certain intensity in watching Mavis barrel towards her inevitable confrontation, creates a sense of dread more than gleeful anticipation.  It is oddly enough the third major release in the last month to deal with the pain of moving past your peak and how we deal with our past 'glories'.  But despite her scheming, Mavis earns our interest not because the film attempts to create sympathy, but rather because her ideas and her actions are, if not completely logical to the specific situation, understandable in regards to how she has been groomed to see the world.  I will not divulge whether or not Mavis succeeds in stealing away her high school boyfriend and/or whether or not she learns a valuable lesson about truly becoming an adult.  But I will say that the film deals offhand with a host of relevant social issues without being 'about them' in any overtly preachy fashion.

Young Adult is a surprisingly potent and insightful dramedy, all the more effective for its understated nature and its off-the-cuff black comedy construction. The film continues Diablo Cody's exploration of how women are treated (both by men and by other women), and how the superficial societal standards of feminine success  makes all women eventually feel like failures.  It will be interesting to see how the film is received in an era where female-centric franchises (Sex and the City, Twilight) are constantly on the defensive and romantic comedies featuring somewhat flawed heroines are put on the same moral plane as The Human Centipede II.  Theron's Mavis Gary may be a somewhat unique and uncommon character to be the lead in a mainstream comedy, but if she were a he, Mr. Gary would blend right in.

Grade: A-

Weekend Box Office (11/27/11): Breaking Dawn part I tops Thanksgiving weekend, while Muppets shines in family film pile-up and limited debuts score.

 As expected, Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I (essay) topped the holiday weekend box office as three new family films (including The Muppets) and three limited releases more-or-less cannibalized each other.  The big opener of the weekend was The Muppets (review).  All eyes were watching this much-hyped franchise revival, and the fans did not let Kermit and company down.  The picture, which Disney wisely spent just $45 million to produce, grossed $29.5 million on Fri-Sun and $42 million over its five-day opening.  The film (deservedly) scored an A from Cinemascore, although I don't know the demo stats yet (IE - did kids actually choose to see it and/or like it, or were the jerks dragged by their parents?).  As it is, the film is already the second biggest grossing Muppet movie of all time, out of seven, coming in under the $65 million gross of The Muppet Movie back in 1979.  Inflation-wise, The Muppets will have to gross $90 million to achieve that rank, although surpassing the adjusted-for-inflation $206 million gross of The Muppet Movie is pretty unlikely.  In even better (if arbitrary) news, the utter lack of any wide releases next weekend plus the likely downward plunge for Breaking Dawn part I means that The Muppets will likely top the box office next weekend.  So there clearly is an audience for this 35-year old franchise, all Disney has to do now is not overestimate their appeal.  Point being, if Disney decides to make a film sequel (as opposed to a new TV series or what-have-you), they shouldn't be spending $100 million on it.

The bad news started with the next major new release, Arthur Christmas.  The film debuted with $12 million over the Fri-Sun period and $17 million over the holiday.  Considering it was up against far more established properties, it's not a terrible debut.  But, the Aardman film cost $85 million and isn't making much of an impact in its foreign engagements either (it's at $39 million worldwide with most of its business coming from the UK).  Still, it's the only Christmas-centric movie playing over the next month and it's a pretty cute and clever cartoon.  Compared to The Muppets and Hugo, it's a bit insignificant (it's similar to An American Tail: Feivel Goes West opening against Beauty and the Beast), but it's pleasant and entertaining and may pick up steam as the casual family moviegoing choice for those who have already seen The Muppets or Puss in Boots (now at $136 million) and are intimidated by Hugo (don't be, your kids are smarter than you think).  The next two weekends will tell the tale.

The last wide release was Martin Scorsese's Hugo (review), which debuted to $11.4 million over the Fri-Sun portion and $15.4 million over the long holiday.  The film was only playing on 1,200 screens so it has a pretty terrific per-screen average of nearly $10,000 per screen over the Fri-Sun portion.  But this film cost around $140 million, so Paramount is going to need some uncommonly strong legs, plus big overseas business to put this one in the black.  Both of these things are possible, as the Paris-set period film is one of the finest pictures of the year and has absolutely jaw-dropping 3D photography that puts pretty much every such effort to shame (even James Cameron admitted as much).  On principle, I'd say that $140 million is far too much to spend on a 1930s Paris-set kids-centric drama with no real stars and a somewhat limited audience.  On the other hand, the money is absolutely on the screen and it's a terrific piece of high-quality entertainment.  So even if the film doesn't pick up steam in the weeks ahead, we can pretend that Paramount used some of its Transformers profits for to market this one (GK Films funded the production) and call it an 'art-over commerce' mitzvah.

Going slightly wide in 390 theaters was Alexander Payne's The Descendants (review and essay).  The Oscar contender grossed a solid $9 million over the five-day weekend and is now over the $10 million mark.  It's too early to guess if this will come anywhere near the $83 million gross of Clooney's Up in the Air, as this one went a little wider a little faster.  On the plus side, it's expansion and performance somewhat more closely matches Payne's last picture, Sideways.  That film, which eventually grossed $71 million, was on 497 screens by Thanksgiving and had amassed $9.9 million.  Two Weinstein Oscar contenders opened in limited release over the weekend as well. My Week With Marilyn, which is getting rave reviews more for Michelle Williams's performance as Marilyn Monroe than for the film itself, opened with $1.7 million on 244 screens, for an okay $7,266 per screen average.  Best Picture contender The Artist opened on four screens and scored $52,000 on each of those screens.  Both will expand in the coming weeks as they try to get Oscar love and box office glory.  Also scoring in limited release was the four-screen debut of David Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method.  The Frued vs. Jung romantic thriller earned a whopping $45,000 per screen and will likely expand over the next month.

Once again, Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I (essay) is playing so much like Twilight Saga: New Moon that there is little need for analysis.  The fourth film in the series grossed $42 million over the Fri-Sun portion of the weekend, which is a 70% drop from last weekend.  Still, the film's ten-day total is now at $221 million.  The percentage drop (-70%) and second-weekend total ($42 million) is identical to New Moon, but the older film's 10-day total was slightly heftier $230 million.  Still, Breaking Dawn part I has a slightly higher 10-day total than last year's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I ($219 million) and Twilight Saga: Eclipse ($214 million), and the fact that it's falling behind the above films only means that it will have to settle for 'just' $270-280 million in domestic box office.  We should all fail so well.

As some of you may notice, I try to find something positive to say about most films in regards to box office, mainly to counter-balance certain pundits who scream "FAILURE" at every opportunity as if it gives them pleasure (which is probably does).  Having said that, Happy Feet Two, in terms of likely final result versus budget, is an unmitigated disaster.  The $135 million (there was your first mistake...) cartoon has amassed just $43 million in ten days.  It's not only trailing the original Happy Feet (which opened on the same weekend five years ago) by $56 million in respective ten-day totals, it's trailing pretty much every kid-centric pre-Thanksgiving day release (The Cat in the Hat, The Grinch, Spongebob Squarepants, etc) in modern history.  Yes, overseas numbers may eventually save the day, but Warner Bros. severely overestimated both the fondness for this franchise.  The original was a huge hit ($198 million domestic) and an inexplicable Oscar winner for Best Animated Film (mainly for the trippy final third), but do you know anyone who remembers it with any fondness or watches it with any regularity in their household?

And that's it for this weekend.  You'll forgive my neglect of older movies, but I can make up for it next weekend when there are no new wide releases to discuss.  In limited releases, we'll be getting the Michael Fassbender drama Shame, the Emily Browning sexual exploitation drama Sleeping Beauty (IE - Sucker Punch for the arthouse - review this week), and the Japanese crime thriller Outrage (review hopefully this week).  Until then, take care.

Scott Mendelson    

Happy Thanksgiving to all of my readers...

I still think Christina Ricci should have at least received an Oscar nomination for this one, if not an outright win...

(Mini) Review: Hugo (2011) features the best live-action 3D you've ever seen, in service of a powerful and enchanting fable.

Hugo
2011
127 minutes
rated PG

by Scott Mendelson

Pardon my theoretical laziness, but I'm not in the mood to do a formal review for Martin Scorsese's Hugo.  And frankly, since I went in knowing almost nothing aside from the general time period and a few of the actors, I suppose I should do my readers the same courtesy.  But know this: Martin Scorsese has crafted the most impressive and beautiful 3D you've ever seen in a live action film.  Since the film somewhat revolves around the early days of cinema (it takes place in 1930s Paris), Scorsese uses 3D technology to create a dreamlike visual palette that attempts to replicate what it was like for the very first moviegoers, the ones who allegedly jumped out of the way of speeding trains and ducked when the train robber fired his pistol at the screen.  There are times when this live-action feature feels like a living cartoon, and I experienced a kind of fever-dream sensation that I haven't felt since Coraline.  If ever there was a movie to justify that 3D ticket-price bump, this is it.

As for the movie, it is a most curious sort of family film.  It is certainly appropriate for children and its two main protagonists are indeed kids, but it also serves as a passionate plea to respect and preserve not just cinema, but all forms of art that enthrall and captivate audiences of all stripes.  The film builds pretty slowly, with most of the first hour devoted to set-up and the friendship between its young stars (Asa Butterfield and Chloe Moretz).  But if the first hour almost qualifies as 'slow', the pay off is more than worth it.  Ironically, the film has more in common than you might think with The Muppets.  Both films deal with nostalgia.   But while The Muppets deals with how our generation clings to the entertainments of our past to deal with the disappointment of our present, Hugo presents characters who refuse to look back because it hurts too much to compare what was with what is.  Both films build to (completely earned) stunningly powerful finales, and I'd argue that Hugo wins a point for actually ending on said high note instead of having a couple false endings.

That's all you really need.  Just know that Hugo is one of the best films of 2011, one of the best films Scorsese has made in the last twenty years, and easily a new high-water mark for 3D filmmaking.

Grade: A-

Oscar Speculation - Last but not least - Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close wants to be the Million Dollar Baby (or the John Kerry) of the 2011 Oscar race.

There was much speculation over the last couple of days over Warner Bros' decision not to make sure that Stephen Daldry's 9/11 drama Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close in time for the first batch of critics' awards.  The first official screening will be December 2nd (no, I probably won't be attending that early), which means that the Tom Hanks/Sandra Bullock drama won't be eligible for consideration for the National Board of Review or the New York Film Critics Circle, both of which are so consumed with being 'the first' to announce their year-end plaudits that they aren't even waiting until the last month of the year.  The rumblings run the gamut from 'it won't be done in time' to 'it's not that good' to 'we want to capitalize on positive audience word of mouth'.  All or none of those could be true.  But I think that Warner Bros. is playing a slightly different game.

It's late November and nearly every major awards contender has screened for press.  The only other big ones left are The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (which will screen by the end of Thanksgiving weekend and no, I'm waiting until December) and Steven Spielberg's War Horse (which has screened for regional 'word of mouth' showings, but not officially for press).  With a month to go, there is no clear front-runner.  None.  Sure, some speculate that The Descendants is building momentum, while others swear that the allegedly crowd-pleasing The Artist can sneak in, and others still are sure that War Horse is such a prototypical Best Picture-type movie that it's a shoe-in.  But as of this pre-Thanksgiving Tuesday, the door is wide-open for a steal the momentum and ride away with the big prize.  And that movie is Million Dollar Baby, err, I mean Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.

We had the same situation in 2004, if you recall.  The field was so lacking a pure frontrunner that David Poland famously stated that Joel Schumacher's yet unscreened) Phantom of the Opera had a good shot at taking the prize.  Of course, once everyone saw the film, it was an absurd notion, but without any real consensus about which of the various year-end critical darlings (Sideways, Kinsey, The Aviator, Ray, Finding Neverland, The Incredibles, Hotel Rwanda, etc) would actually take the top prize.  But then, right over Thanksgiving weekend, Clint Eastwood and Warner Bros. dropped a bombshell on the Oscar race.  Written off my many as 'that Clint Eastwood movie about girl-fighting', Million Dollar Baby debuted to rapturous reviews, immediately becoming the presumptive front runner and never looking back.  While there was some possibility that Martin Scorsese's The Aviator might take home the two big prizes as a 'career award' for Scorsese, it was never really a contest.  Just like John Kerry unexpectedly winning the Iowa primary in January 2004, the critics and pundits who were so desperate for a front-runner clung to Eastwood's unexpectedly fantastic drama and kept the momentum going for the next four months.

That, I believe, is the game that Warner Bros. is playing.  Right or wrong, I think they believe that have the lightning in a bottle film that will both impress critics and win over audiences and Oscar voters.  And for the moment, while the film is finishing up post-production, Warner has the advantage of confusion amongst the pundits.  If the film is very good or even great (one hopes it is less cloying than the trailer), then it can easily rise to the top of the Oscar Watch lists and keep that momentum going for a mere three months.  The very 'oh, but it's about 9/11!' sentiment that personally annoys me is just the sort of thing that will only help the picture both with general audiences and with Oscar voters who generally want to give the award to the 'most important picture' among those nominated.  Not only is there no front runner at the moment, there is also no probable spoiler, ala The King's Speech.  Come what may, the Oscar race right now is arguably down to War Horse and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.  And, right or wrong, I think Warner Bros. knows they have the goods and see no need to prematurely get the punditocracy excited.  Obviously this is all speculation.  But when you're chasing Oscar gold and you think you have a winning hand, there is no need to show off the goods just to win a spot on the National Board of Review list.

Scott Mendelson

Waited for DVD: Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World (2011) - a darker, more pessimistic family adventure that reflects a director's broken home.

Spy Kids 4D: All the Time in the World
2011
89 minutes
rated PG

by Scott Mendelson

In a world where even G-rated cartoons seem aimed at somewhat adult sensibilities, the Spy Kids franchise was and is arguably the last of its kind: a full-blown franchise for kids and pitched directly to a younger audience.  All three prior films suffer from a bit too much kid-centric dialogue and on-the-nose moralizing, but they all also have a certain quirky and visually dynamic charm.  Spy Kids was a blast of fresh air in early 2001, coming ironically just before Shrek would change the landscape of kid-friendly entertainment for good.  It was endlessly colorful and inventive with an all-star cast (Antonio Banderas, Carla Gugino, Alan Cummings, Tony Shalhoub, Robert Patrick, Cheech Marin, and Danny Trejo in perhaps his first-ever good guy role) to support the title characters (Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara).  The second film, Spy Kids 2: Island of the Lost Dreams, was arguably inferior, but it contain its share of entertainment value, as well as a dynamite action sequence to close out the first act.  The third picture, Spy Kids 3: Game Over, was the last red/blue 3D picture, as well as the last big-screen 3D film in around 15 years.  It was pretty much a glorified video game, but it contained a stellar race sequence that put the Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace pod-race to shame, as well as a heartbreaking finale monologue from Ricardo Montalban.  Now, eight years after the previous installment and ten years since the series began, we have Spy Kids 4D: All the Time in the World.  It's not a good film, but it does have surprising potency if you view it through the lens of a Robert Rodriguez who is no longer the quintessential family man, both as a filmmaker and as a husband/father.

The first three films, made in 2001, 2002, and 2003, had a certain traditional and simple look at family.  In short, families were ironclad, to be there for each other through thick and thin, and contained bonds that were unbreakable. But as most of us know, Robert Rodriguez's family suffered a dissolution of sorts in the intervening years.  Following a heated affair with actress Rose McGowan in 2006 on the set of Planet Terror, Rodriguez separated form his wife of sixteen years in 2008.  Without going into gossipy details, it is clear that this latest Spy Kids installment represents a new reality for the director, one that acknowledges that not every family stays together and not every ending is a happy one.  The primary arc of this film concerns Jessica Alba's very pregnant spy, on her last assignment before giving birth to her first child with her new husband (Joel McHale).  McHale doesn't know what his wife does for a living, and in fact is trying to sell a pilot for a reality show entitled Spy Hunters.  But the primary problem is Alba's relationship with her stepchildren, who are reluctant to let her into their lives following the death of their mother.  When a new villain strikes with a weapon that can literally make time speed up, Alba must go back into action, and her two step kids (Rowan Blanchard and Mason Cook) eventually discover their new stepmom's secret life and become embroiled in the adventure.

The film pretty much follows the Spy Kids template, with the kids discovering various wacky gadgets and gizmos while learning a valuable lesson about the nature of family.  Where the film differs itself from its predecessors, apart from slightly more violent fisticuffs, is in its portrayal of the villain.  While I wouldn't dream of revealing the identity of The Time Keeper (although IMDB does), I will say that he/she's motivation is surprisingly tragic, and said villain's monologue-ing resembles something out a Saw film.  Like John Kramer, Timekeeper is punishing humanity for taking the gift of life for granted, in this case specifically not being grateful for the time they have with their loved ones.  While the film has a happy ending, and the Timekeeper does receive the token redemption that all Spy Kids villains obtain, the picture doesn't sugarcoat the harshness of either losing a parent or being unable to change the past to fix a life-altering mistake.

Again, the film is more interesting to ponder than it is entertaining to watch.  It menders when it should be racing along, the McHale subplot is a waste of space, and the title kids don't quite measure up to the charisma of Vega and Sabara.  But there is an undercurrent of sadness that is striking for this famously bouncy and upbeat franchise.  Other than young Blanchard's arc involving learning to trust and accept her stepmother as part of her family ("If she takes the time to love you", Jeremy Piven advises Blanchard regarding her stepmom,  "you love her back."), the primary lessons are those learned by the adult villain.  What stands out about the picture is that it's a Spy Kids film where the audience members being 'preached' at are not the kids, but rather their parents, if not specifically Robert Rodriguez pointing the camera right back at himself.

Grade: C+

Pre-release tracking for The Muppets shows that today's kids are assholes.

The New York Magazine blog Vulture has an article detailing the box office tracking for the three major family-skewing Thanksgiving releases set to drop this Wednesday.  For the purposes of this commentary, we'll be focusing on the pre-release data for The Muppets (review).  It appears that we are raising a nation of Statler and Waldorfs... According to NRG research polls:

93% of kids under 12 are aware of The Muppets, only 39% of that group expressed "definite interest" in seeing them return to the big screen.  Translation - 54% of said demographic is comprised of spoiled, good-for-nothing little shits who don't know how good they have it.  Fortunately, these kids are too young to make consensual decisions about movie-going, so use your parenting authority to drag their butts to a theater this weekend, under the threat of Safe Surrender if need be.     

Among kids 12-16, 78% are aware.  Of that number, just 29% expressed "definite interest".  Translation - 49% of kids aged 12-16 are useless, heartless douche-bags, which is just as well since they'd probably just talk to their friends and/or play with their brightly-lit cell phones for the duration of the picture anyway.  So you can just buy them a ticket to The Muppets and drop their punk asses off at Jack and Jill.

“Disney always wanted to make this a movie that reached all demos,” says an unnamed source in the article. “But something about the concept is not resonating with older kids.” It could be that today's youth are so used to flawless CGI and Pixar that a bunch of puppets seem distastefully low-fi, or maybe the Muppets seem as antiquated as Howdy Doody."  Translation - Kids need to realize that the reason most Pixar films and many Dreamworks movies are so damned-good is because they have stories and characters worth giving two shits about.  The 'flawless CGI' is no more responsible for the massive successes of Toy Story 3 or How to Train Your Dragon than the 3D was responsible for the record-breaking success of Avatar.

In the surveyed group known as "parents taking children," 87% of 'parents taking children' have strong awareness and 53% have a definite interest in seeing The Muppets.  Translation - Kids may not know what's good for them, but fortunately upstanding parents will be dragging their kids by the hair into a theater auditorium this weekend for a bit o' culture!  But 34% of said parents will probably be the first in line for Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked and probably were the carpooling parent(s) for opening weekend 3D showings of The Smurfs.  They are the problem, not the solution.

If the children truly are our future, then we may end up wishing that one of those late-1990s/early 2000s apocalyptic events forecast in the movies (Judgment Day, the plague of the 12 monkeys, giant dragons burning down the world, etc) actually happened.  No matter, Disney wisely spent just $40 million on The Muppets, so it will likely be a solid hit no matter how awful our nation's youth is.

Scott Mendelson

Actual Dark Knight Rises news! I think I get the title now...

Just as it did four years ago, Warner Bros has debuted the first official look of the primary Batman villain on the cover of Empire.  I won't comment too much on the images, and I couldn't give too craps about what that thing Batman is holding happens to be (we'll know when we know).  But the article does contain one huge plot reveal, from Mr. Nolan himself ironically.

"It's really all about finishing Batman and Bruce Wayne's story. We left him in a very precarious place. Perhaps surprisingly for some people, our story picks up quite a bit later, eight years after The Dark Knight. So he's an older Bruce Wayne; he's not in a great state."

The eight-year time jump does solve a few problems, notably removing the recent menace of The Joker from the picture and being able to ignore the immediate aftermath of the cliffhanger conclusion of The Dark Knight.  Also, if last July's teaser trailer does indeed speak to Batman disappearing for a long period of time and then 'returning', well I think we can now guess why the film is called The Dark Knight Rises.   Batman Begins was a loose interpretation of Batman: Year One combined with "The Man Who Falls".  The Dark Knight took bits and pieces from The Man Who Laughs, "Batman versus the Joker", "Eye of the Beholder", and "Soft Targets" to craft a very loose variation on The Long Halloween.  This time around, pardon the uncharacteristic speculation, but it appears that Nolan and company may be playing around with their variation on Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.  Again, pure speculation, and we'll know when someone officially tells us (or, heaven forbid, we see the movie).  But share your thoughts below.  Am I barking up the wrong (unsubstantiated) tree, or is Nolan closing out his trilogy with his take on that other Frank Miller story?

Scott Mendelson     

Male-driven dramas are Oscar-bait, female-driven dramas are Lifetime movies? Are male-driven melodramas given more weight than female-driven ones?

I'd like to toss out a random thought for discussion... I really liked The Descendants.  It's a very good drama with fine performances all-around.  It arguably deserves its status as an Oscar front-runner.  But let's discuss something for a moment.  If the film revolved around an aging woman who grapples with bonding with her daughters after her unfaithful husband goes into a coma, would we still be talking about its likely Oscar victories? Would it be considered an automatic Oscar contender or would it have to fight perceptions that it was a glorified Lifetime movie?  If the film centered not around George Clooney's husband/father, but rather Shailene Woodley's suffering older daughter, would the film still be considered 'prestigious' enough to be crowned an Oscar contender before most critics/press even saw it?

Or would the film have been written off as a variation on something resembling Miley Cyrus's The Last Song?  And why is Woodley only now being touted as a fine actress, when she's been delivering solid starring work on The Secret Life of the American Teenager for several seasons now?  The same phenomena applies to Blake Lively, who gave a fine debut performance in The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, as well as a solid supporting performance in the Robin Wright vehicle, The Private Lives of Pippa Lee.  But, even ignoring her starring work on several seasons of Gossip Girl, it was only after she played a strung-out junkie to fill out the virgin/whore dynamic of Ben Affleck's The Town that pundits and critics started crowing about her acting.  Am I right to believe that male-driven dramas are automatically given more weight and credibility than female-driven ones?  Would Something Borrowed, arguably not a good movie, have been written off as a bad romantic comedy (it's not a comedy) or its protagonists so swiftly condemned as spawns-of-Satan if they were men undergoing the same dramatic arc?  Would I Don't Know How She Does It? been so absurdly written off as a variation on Sex and the City (it's not...) if it had been a dramedy about the struggles of a working father trying to be a provider and an active parent?  Would Bridesmaids be (deservedly) in the Best Picture Oscar race if it weren't written off in many circles as 'The Hangover for Girls'?  I think we all know the answers.

Scott Mendelson

Amanda Seyfried's Gone gets a (possibly) uber-spoilerific trailer.

This looks pretty run-of-the-mill, although it's nice to see Seyfried back to doing star vehicles instead of being Justin Timberlake's hostage/love interest.  But if you watch this trailer, you might want to stop right before the 2:13 mark, or right after the title flashes.  The last ten seconds contain a button, which has apparently has Seyfried in a phone conversation with the killer in question.  Fair enough, except I think I recognize said murderer's voice.  While the murderer's identity shouldn't be too hard to figure as I'm pretty sure it follows two of the rules for deducing such a thing (which name actor is playing a seemingly useless character and which said actor gets unusually high billing for playing such a useless character).  Still, if I'm correct, it's awfully dirty pool for  Summit Entertainment to blatantly give away the game as such.  Anyway, the film looks generic if intriguing, Seyfried looks gorgeous per-usual, and it looks like serviceable junk to keep us entertained between the Oscars and the summer movie season.  But if you must watch, don't watch the whole thing.

Scott Mendelson   

Weekend Box Office (11/20/11): Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn scores 5th-biggest debut, while Happy Feet Two fails and Descendants scores in limited debut.

It is weird that I have so little to offer on a weekend when a film earned the fifth-biggest debut in US history, as well as the tenth-biggest worldwide bow.  But the Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I (essay) had an opening weekend that is so perfectly in line with the franchise, that it is not only unexpected, but leaves us with little doubt in regards to how the film will fare in the long haul.  For the record, Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I (trailer and teaser) opened with $139.5 million this weekend, $30 million of which came purely on Thursday midnight showings.  That's just shy of the $142 million debut of Twilight Saga: New Moon on this same weekend two years ago.  With a 1.93x weekend multiplier film was slightly more front-loaded than the first sequel (they both had $72 million opening Fridays), but less so than the original Twilight.  The original, with its $35 million opening day and $69 million opening weekend, opened with a 1.97x weekend multiplier this weekend three years ago).  The third film, Eclipse, opened on a Wednesday over the Independence Day holiday of 2010, which makes comparisons difficult.  The film played 80% female, 60% over-21, and earned a B+ from Cinemascore.

In terms of long-range forecasts, just look to precedent.  New Moon (essay) earned just 2.08x its opening weekend, ending up with $296 million domestic and $709 million worldwide.  Eclipse earned $300 million off a $176 million six-day debut, with a $698 million international total.  So it stands to reason, barring variables, that Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I will earn around $300 million domestic and around $700 million worldwide (it has already earned $284 million globally).  It stands to reason that the series will get a bump, at least over opening weekend, for its fifth and final installment this time next year (Breaking Dawn part II), as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II noticeably exceeded all of its predecessors save for the original installment even when adjusted for the 3D bump and inflation (it's still second in terms of pure tickets sold).  The key difference is that the finale of Harry Potter was relatively well-received in print form and received rapturous reviews in its film version, neither of which applies to Breaking Dawn (the book or the first of two movies).  Still, the series will end however it ends, financially, and the saga will still go down as a truly important one, a rare franchise that achieved blockbuster grosses without having to spend hundreds of millions to do it, and achieved 2D blockbuster grosses in an IMAX/3D marketplace.

The other wide release was Happy Feet Two, the generally unasked for sequel to the inexplicably Oscar-winning (cough-Over the Hedge-cough) dancing penguins environmental dramedy that opened on this weekend five years ago.  The film earned lousy reviews and debuted with $22 million, or about half of the $41 million opening weekend of the first Happy Feet.  The original film ended up with $198 million, which is still the second-highest grossing animated film not made by Disney or Dreamworks (behind Despicable Me).  While the original was somewhat unique and capitalized on a mini-craze of 'penguin fever', the sequel looked like just another needless 3D toon in a marketplace where animated sequels both terrific (Kung Fu Panda 2) and mediocre (Cars 2) have somewhat disappointed on the domestic front.  I don't know the budget for this one, but I can only presume it was at least $120 million (which is the norm for these 3D animated toons these days), so this is going to be pretty bad for Warner Bros unless overseas saves the day yet again.  With the onslaught of family fare coming this Wednesday (The Muppets, Hugo, Arthur Christmas) and the continued strength of Puss In Boots ($10 million this weekend, $122 million domestic so far with Thanksgiving sure to help business), this poorly received sequel is likely to disappear pretty quickly.

The major limited release debut was the 29-screen start for Alexander Payne's George Clooney vehicle The Descendants (review).  The Oscar frontrunner earned $1.2 million over the weekend ($1.3 million since Wednesday), for a scorching $42,138 per-screen average.  It's far-and-away the best per-screen average of the year for any film opening on more than six screens, and the 18th-biggest per-screen average for any movie  opening on seven or more screens ever.  The next few weeks will determine whether it goes the usual $35-50 million route for George Clooney dramas or whether it approaches the $83 million earned by Up in the Air two years ago.  It expands into semi-wide release this Wednesday.  In holdover news, it was grim all around, mostly due to the fact that last weekend's Friday was a school and work holiday.  Immortals (review) dropped 62% and ended its 10th day with $52 million.  It's no blockbuster, but the $75 million Relativity film will be a solid long-term hit, as its nearing $100 million worldwide and will be a popular impulse rental for years to come.

Jack and Jill dropped 52% for a $12 million second weekend and a $41 million cume.  It's customary for Sandler films to take large drops in their second weekend only to find their legs after that, but it's unlikely that this somewhat 'off-the-beaten path' Sandler comedy will have the legs of his more generic and audience-friendly comedies.  Point being, this could be the rare Happy Madison-produced mainstream release that doesn't make it to $100 million.  Life goes on.  J. Edgar (essay) dropped an okay 42%, but its $20 million cume means that it will need Oscar nods for DiCaprio (likely) and the film (not so likely) to get much past its $35 million budget.   Footloose crossed the $50 million mark, and The Help (remember that one?) now sits with $168 million.  Not only is it by-far the biggest grossing drama released in the summer that didn't have extensive special effects or action, it is just a few Oscar nominations away from surpassing Bridesmaids ($169 million), Captain America and Rise of the Planet of the Apes ($176 million) and eventually Thor ($181 million).  Oh, and with its US release a month away, Steven Spielberg's The Adventures of Tintin has already amassed $187 million overseas.      

Join us next weekend when Thanksgiving unspools three major family films.  Disney releases the friggin-terrific The Muppets (review), Paramount gives us Martin Scorsese's 3D live-action Hugo, while Sony delivers another Aardman Studios would-be gem Arthur Christmas.  Until then, take care and good luck preparing for the holidays.

Scott Mendelson

The Expendables 2 gets the most Expendables 2-ish poster possible.

Aside from the fact that a few of the top-billed stars aren't on the poster (where's Jet Li?), this looks like the best possible poster you could craft for The Expendables 2.  I expect we'll see a teaser before the year is out, perhaps attached to Sherlock Holmes 2 or Mission: Impossible IV.  It's a shame that Lionsgate didn't have the sense of humor to attach it to Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I, but oh well.  Thanks to JoBlo for the poster.

Scott Mendelson

Midnight Box Office (11/18/11): Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I scores another $30 million at 12:01am. Opening weekend between $118 million and $163 million.

Yup, Team Bella/Edward/Jacob did it again, as the fourth Twilight picture scored another massive midnight gross, which should lead the way to another massive single-day and a massive and hilariously front-loaded opening weekend.  Breaking Dawn part I earned $30.25 million at midnight, putting it just above the $30 million earned at 12:01am by Twilight Saga: Eclipse and comfortably ahead of the $26 million earned by Twilight Saga: New Moon.  The second film's numbers are better comparison points, since the first sequel opened on the exact same weekend two years ago (and the third film opened on a Wednesday, which negates any reasonable comparison).  This is also the weekend where Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I earned $24 million in 12:01am showings last year, which amounted to a $62 million opening day and a $125 million weekend.  The Harry Potter and Twilight films have both the biggest midnight grosses around and the most heavily-front-loaded opening weekends in the business.  As you no doubt recall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II scored an eye-popping $43 million in midnight shows just four months ago, which led to a $92 million opening day and a $169 million opening weekend (records, all three).  Long story short, here's how Breaking Dawn part I will measure up if its opening weekend trajectory follows its most obvious comparisons...  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II (3.9x its midnight number) - $118 million, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I (5.2x  its midnight number) - $157 million, Twilight Saga: New Moon (5.4x  its midnight number) - $163 million.  So there you have it, the 3-day opening weekend record is not in any plausible danger, but The Dark Knight may find itself as merely the third-biggest debut by Sunday evening.  Most impressively, Breaking Dawn part I is achieving these massive grosses without any IMAX or 3D price-bump.  Let's split the difference between $119 million and $165 million and call a $140 million opening weekend for Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I.  We'll know more when the Friday numbers roll in, although I will likely be otherwise occupied (family birthday party).

Scott Mendelson

Review: The Muppets (2011) is a touching and hilarious tribute to the iconic characters, plus a commentary on the pros and cons of nostalgia.

The Muppets
2011
105 minutes
rated PG

by Scott Mendelson

There is a part of me that doesn't want The Muppets to be a box office smash.  It's a wonderful film, one of the very best movies of the year, in fact. But there is a part of me that doesn't want this to be the opening chapter in another deluge of new Muppet movies, television shows, and the like. The film, as it stands, works fine as both a standalone film and an introduction to the world created by Jim Henson some forty years ago.  But it also has an unexpected power as something else: a farewell of sorts.  It is about the heartache of losing touch with old friends and not getting that last chance to say goodbye.  It is about, among other things, how we, as a society, seek a kind of closure for certain chapters in our lives, and can sometimes feel incomplete if we don't get it.  Maybe this new film will be a gateway drug to a whole new generation of kids, and I cannot begrudge them the pleasures that Kermit and his friends have given me.  But this new entry has our felt friends emerging out of exile and in arguably peak form, and it makes a strong argument for ending on top.  Come what may, The Muppets, if need be, exists as a triumphant last hurrah and/or fitting finale to a entertainment property that never really got its 'one last show'.

A token amount of plot: The film takes place in 'the real world', albeit ones in which the Muppets live among us without comment.  The old gang has long since separated, and the world has seemingly forgotten them. But after discovering that a greedy oil tycoon (Chris Cooper, with the best evil laugh this side of Mark Hamill) plans to tear down the classic Muppet Theater, young 'muppet' Walter teams up with his human best friends (Jason Segel and Amy Adams) in order to find some way to save the institution.  Now, if Kermit can just get the old gang back together for one last great show, they might be able to raise the $10 million needed to save the theater.  Yes, the 'McGuffin' (must save the theater from an evil tycoon, played back in 2002 by Joan Cusack in peak babe-hood) is pretty similar to the underrated A Very Muppet Christmas, but the picture is good enough that we may have to let that slide.

First and foremost, despite the heavy presence of Segel and Adams in the marketing materials, they are clearly supporting characters and in the service of the Muppet-driven narrative.  While the humans (and Walter) take center stage during the initial reels, the film quickly becomes about Kermit's journey and Kermit's pain.  There is a heartbreaking song number in the first act, "Pictures In My Head", which eloquently spells out one of the movie's core themes - the danger of holding onto the past glories.  It is ironic, in a film whose marketing campaign has been so heavily based in reminding us older moviegoers how much we loved the old gang back in the day, that the film eventually becomes a case study in nostalgia and how it can prevent us from moving on in our lives.  As Kermit tracks down each of the old Muppet cast members, he finds some of them have done well in the interim (while some have floundered).  All of them are eventually willing to reunite, and the film has the courage to question, however subtly, the wisdom of attempting to replicate past glories.

The picture implicitly questions the current trend of Hollywood executives relentlessly shoving recycled versions of their own childhood entertainment down the mouths of today's kids, even if this film serves as a prime example of said phenomena.  Yes, sometimes the reinvention works (the new Looney Tunes Show), but there is no shame in acknowledging that a certain entertainment property has reached the end of its natural life cycle and put it aside in order to create something new.  The drive to keep every remotely popular property alive and/or reinvigorate even not-so-successful properties (see - Tron, Teen Wolf, etc) is something that The Muppets is both an example of and a commentary on.

The two major characters, Segel's Gary and young muppet Walter, are both gripped by their obsessive love of the Muppets, although their fondness leads them to different paths.  Without going into details, Walter's nostalgia leads him to finally embrace something resembling adulthood, while Gary's love of Henson's creations has the more standard effect, in a fashion that jeopardizes his relationship with the woman he loves.  Amy Adams has little to do here, but she does get one song, and her relationship with Gary (a love affair more chaste than the first three Twilight films) is contrasted with Kermit and Ms. Piggy's far more complicated and arguably less healthy infatuation.  Frankly, one of the main flaws of the film is that it delves into the Kermit/Piggy relationship with such realism that we end up noticing how creepy and co-dependent it really is (at one point, Kermit blames Ms. Piggy for making him 'do things that hurt you').

But putting aside deeper meanings and somewhat complicated relationships, the film works splendidly on the surface level.  It is bright, colorful, energetic, endlessly warm, and laugh-out-loud hilarious.  The screenplay by Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller is endlessly inventive in the ways it acknowledges its own conventions, and it earns countless laughs with its meta-commentary ('How about we save time and pick up the rest of the gang using a montage?') without ever becoming smug or obnoxious.  The songs are a mixed bag, as the opening number is a bit of a drag (even if the pay-off is a killer), while the second-act climax song "Man or Muppet?" is so damn good that I sincerely hope it wins an Oscar.  Said song also contains the best cameo in the film, which I wouldn't dream of revealing here.  While the focus is primarily on Kermit and Walter, every other Muppet gets a moment or two to shine.  Personally, I wanted far more Statler and Waldorf, but them's the breaks.

Ironically, in a film that may or may not function as a 'last goodbye', the picture doesn't know when to end.  There are two (2) absolutely pitch-perfect climactic bits that darn well should have been the fade-to-black moments (you'll know them when you see them, and you may be welling up/crying during both of them), but both are then followed by somewhat redundant wrap-up material.  Still, minor quibbles and all, The Muppets is easily among the best films in the franchise, as well as one of the best films of 2011.  It is a wonderful gift for those who loved the Muppets as well as a ceaselessly funny and surprisingly thoughtful stand-alone family-friendly romp.  See it, not just with someone you love, but with someone who loves the Muppets.  Whether or not this will be the first in a new generation of Muppet entertainments or not, the film as it stands offers us, at long last something that we never got a chance to do.  The Muppets gives us a chance to say a proper farewell to Jim Henson, to forgive him for dying on us so young and unexpectedly, and to acknowledge the monumental work he gave us in the time he had.  Goodbye, Jim.  And thank you.

Grade: A-

Too grownup for grownup movies? Or why the movie I'm most looking forward to this Oscar season is Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

This was a bit more free association than I intended.  Do forgive me...

As of this writing, I have not yet seen Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar.  I had some free time on Monday and, faced with two new releases that were both playing around the same time, I chose Immortals in 2D.  I actually had a few opportunities to see the Leonardo DiCaprio picture prior to release, but passed each time.  Like a lot of would-be Oscar contenders that drop during this time of the year, the poorly reviewed 'good for you' picture felt less like nutritious entertainment and more like homework. The conventional wisdom is that the problem with mainstream Hollywood is that it fashions its films for the tastes of fourteen-year old boys, while adult films for adult film-goers are relegated to the art-house if they are released at all.  But my situation is a little different.  I find that as I get older I am less and less enticed by the so-called grownup films.  Faced with a choice between seeing the newest Oscar-bait film immediately upon release (or at a press screening downtown at 'pain-in-the-ass-traffic o'clock') or checking out something vaguely more escapist, the choice is harder and harder.  I used to relish the opportunity to see the so-called 'grown up movies' as soon as possible.  Now, due to obvious demands on my time, the insane time-crunch that is the year-end release schedule, and the glut of often mediocre art-house product (Gee, I sure hope that sensitive, quirky, and somewhat handsome young man overcomes his problems with the help of an out-of-his-league hottie who exists purely to make him enjoy life again), it sometimes seems more like a burden.

In my middle school, high school, and college years, I raced to the 'prestige pictures' whenever possible.  Growing up in Akron, OH, I was lucky enough to have two large multiplex literally across the street from each other.  Since there were only so many wide releases and not everything went on three screens apiece back then, the local Regal usually had one or two screens reserved for prestige pictures or artier fare.  I distinctly remember rushing out to see the likes of Affliction, Boys Don't Cry, and Croupier during their one or two week engagement at the local Regal 12 (IE - Montrose Movies).  I was the only white guy in the theater on an opening weekend Saturday afternoon showing of Spike Lee's Get on the Bus.  Sure I saw pretty much everything back in those days, but I took special pleasure in seeing the 'good' stuff.  The fifteen-year old me saw Dead Man Walking on the second day it was in wide release.  Would I today be as eager to see what is still the best film ever made about capital punishment?  I would like to think so, but...        

Part of the problem is that there are just too many movies to see around this time of year.  For reasons that still baffle me, the studios choose to unleash every single major awards contender during a 2-3 month period, rendering what should be a pleasure (seeing some of the year's best films) into a chore, a marathon of balancing screenings and before-work matinees and the like.  Maybe people would complain a bit less about how 'Movies stink these days!' if the studios actually spread out their quality product throughout the year rather than holding most of it for November and December.  Ironically, that is a problem that stems from me actually living out in LA.  Back in my younger days, I in fact didn't see many of the year-end films until they went into wide release, which was (and often is) well into the new year.  So while checking out In the Land of Blood and Honey (or Dead Man Walking) would be a treat in mid-January at my local AMC, now it remains just one more gosh-darned 'Oscar-bait' movie I have to squeeze in before the end of the year, playing only at The Arclight Hollywood and/or The Landmark (lovely theaters, but not the easiest drive).

Also adding to the fatigue is the genuine glut of product in general.  Since I live in LA, I indeed have access to everything.  So there really is no filter when it comes to separating the bad art-house films from the genuinely worthwhile independent cinema, other than my hopes that the initial critics were right (and of course blind faith when it comes to press screenings).  But in a year that has seen me loving Sucker Punch while more-or-less hating Drive and Midnight In Paris, even the critical seal of approval doesn't quite mean what it used to.  Back in Akron, something like A Better Life (which is one of the year's best films, by the way) didn't make it to a mainstream multiplex unless it was pretty terrific.  If Montrose Movies was showing Croupier in late-August 2000, then that meant that Croupier was damn-sure worth checking out.  

I have zero interest in seeing The Iron Lady or My Week with Marilyn, and my interest in Carnage stems mainly from Jodie Foster's starring role.  And while it looks interesting, I am not waiting on the edge of my seat to see Shame.  I saw Sleeping Beauty (review will drop closer to its theatrical release) mainly to compare it to Sucker Punch, and I will say that I was far more impressed at how the latter film was able to weave many of the same ideas and themes into a fantastical story featuring eye-popping action sequences.  The fact remains that many of these 'prestige pictures' just don't seem all that involving, and they offer little to entertain should their more scholarly attributes (writing, acting, direction) not resonate.  When you walk into a Jason Statham action picture, you are guaranteed a certain level of visceral entertainment.  With artier fare, it's a complete gamble.  If you stroll into The Last Days, it's a zero-sum bet.

In essence, mainstream films are the equivalent of treasury bonds.  Low risk, but generally lower reward.  Walking into Take Shelter (which I ended up loving, natch) is the equivalent of investing your money in the stock market.  The rewards are arguably greater, but you stand a chance of completely crapping out.  With my schedule, I don't have time for many crap-outs.  But the fact remains that, regardless of how the release schedule turns this game into an endurance contest, I find myself less and less intrigued by the so-called 'adult film'.  I have been married for nearly four years, engaged for a year prior to that, and basically living together six months prior to that, so I don't really need to spend time away from my wife to learn about how difficult relationships can sometimes be.  I have two children who I generally like, so I really don't need to spend time away from my kids to appreciate my family and/or better relate to my children.

It's cliche to say that general moviegoers want escapism, but there is a certain truth to that.  But it's more than about 'escaping from your problems in a world of fantasy'.  It's merely the fact that, for me at least, I don't generally need to go to the movies, especially when it means time away from work and family, to learn what one hopes would be pretty basic life lessons.  The mainstream stuff offers arguably the same morals, sometimes even going a bit deeper than they are given credit for.  Slight digression, but how many 'prestige' pictures had as much lump-in-the-throat wisdom to offer as Up?  How many 'prestige pictures' had the kind of insightful and unforgiving commentary about a generation being raised online and society's sadly still prevalent sexual double-standards as found in Easy A?    And there is no truer cinematic examination of what America turned into in the decade following 9/11 than The Dark Knight.  Should we not give equal, if not superior acknowledgment to films that can explore important ideas within the tapestry of popular entertainment?  Why should we hold Sleeping Beauty above Sucker Punch because the latter offers almost nothing but ideas?

So what to do about this?  Well, for starters, I am going to see the year-end movies I want to see, with the hopes that I can form a best/worst list that accurately reflects the year in film.  I saw The Descendants yesterday because I adore Alexander Payne and I ended up enjoying it more than any of his films since Election.  I will catch Young Adult next week because I still think Juno was a great movie.  I'm seeing the national sneak preview of We Bought a Zoo next Saturday because Almost Famous is one of my all-time favorite films and I want to see if Cameron Crowe can get at least some of his creative mojo back.  I'm seeing Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy at a press screening a week from Monday because I damn-well want to and it's apparently a great thriller filled with wonderful actors.  And I will relish taking my wife to Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows about as much as I will look forward to seeing what Brad Bird can do with a live-action IMAX action picture in Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol.

If I don't get around to seeing J. Edgar, the world will keep spinning.  In the meantime I have to get ready for a press screening of the film I'm most anticipating this season.  It's a dramatic comedy about a group of former entertainers who try to get the old band back together for one last hurrah.  Maybe you've heard of it, it's called The Muppets.

Scott Mendelson