Not much to expound upon here, but Paramount will be releasing all four Indiana Jones films on blu-ray sometime this fall (probably in late September/early October, so they can do a secondary discount during the holidays). All I can say is that the trailer above is unusual in that it outright hides most of the supporting cast of the last two pictures (no Sean Connery, no Shia LeBeouf, etc). On the plus side, it doesn't skimp on footage from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull out of misplaced embarrassment. Anyway, enjoy the above teaser.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Avengers gets one last trailer and it's... an improvement.
This is an improvement over the prior trailer and Superbowl ad purely because it actually has a few money shots and, for whatever reason, the footage looks more three-dimensional and 'film-like' than the comparatively flat ads thus far. It's good that Black Widow actually gets stuff to do this time around, and I'm genuinely impressed with the Hulk footage (that close-up at the end of the 360 shot actually looks like Mark Ruffalo). In terms of action, it still looks like we're looking at three key action sequences: the dick-measuring contest in a forest between Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man, some kind of second-act incident at the Avengers headquarters (invasion or a Hulk freak-out I presume), plus the all-important climax where the Loki's army of robot things (I'm not hardcore enough to know what those flying bugs are) wage war on a single block of New York City. The third act stuff looks solid, and I have to admit I'm pleased that we still don't know much about the nitty-gritty plot details, which is as it should be. Yes, I still wish the film felt a big larger in scale, but if the film works as quality entertainment it will be a moot point. Obviously you don't hire Joss Whedon for large-scale pyrotechnics, but for character development and quality dialogue, so we'll see if one outweighs the apparent lack of the other (I personally would rather have bad action in a good movie than vice-versa). Point being, despite my comments yesterday about Disney's marketing making a negative impact, this trailer actually makes me more excited than I was yesterday, so that counts as a win. Anyway, the film drops May 4th (although the UK gets it a week earlier) and as always, we'll see...
Scott Mendelson
Scott Mendelson
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
I hope Bully gets a XXX! NATO's John Fithian treats Harvey Weinstein like an adult, Weinstein responds like a bullying (and lying) child.
As part of the ongoing 'fall-out' of the documentary Bully getting slapped with an R for its profanity, Harvey Weinstein has threatened to leave the MPAA and/or release the film in theaters as 'unrated'. In response, John Fithian wrote the following letter:
LETTER FROM NATO PRESIDENT & CEO JOHN FITHIAN
Dear Harvey,
The National Association of Theatre Owners partners with the MPAA in the rules and operations of the Classification and Ratings Administration. Exhibition representatives participated yesterday in the appeal of “Bully.” As you know, the appeals board voted to uphold the ratings board’s decision that the prevalence of harsh language in “Bully” warranted an “R” rating. In response, you released a statement criticizing the decision, and threatening to remove your company’s movies from the ratings process.
As the father of a nine-year-old child, I am personally grateful that TWC has addressed the important issue of bullying in such a powerful documentary. The filmmaker and especially the brave young people who participated in this project deserve our attention and respect. Nonetheless, I believe that your public response to the decision of the appeals board is unwise.
Surveys of America’s parents reflect their very strong concern with the use of harsh language in movies. The vast majority of parents surveyed have indicated that the type of language used in “Bully” should receive an automatic “R” rating. You ask us to ignore the preferences of America’s parents and our own ratings rules because of the merit of this movie. Yet were the MPAA and NATO to waive the ratings rules whenever we believed that a particular movie had merit, or was somehow more important than other movies, we would no longer be neutral parties applying consistent standards, but rather censors of content based on personal mores.
You recently released the award-winning movie “King’s Speech” and must know the language rules very well. You should not have been surprised at the rating for “Bully.”
I have nothing but tremendous respect for you and the work of TWC. Our industry is so much the better for your involvement. But if you decide to withdraw your support and participation in the rating system, and begin to release movies without ratings, I will have no choice but to encourage my theater owner members to treat unrated movies from The Weinstein Company in the same manner as they treat unrated movies from anyone else.
In most cases, that means enforcement as though the movies were rated NC-17 – where no one under the age of 18 can be admitted even with accompanying parents or guardians.
Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts. And the best of luck to you on Sunday.
Sincerely yours,
John Fithian
President & CEO
NATO
As you can see, Fithian is correctly pointing out that Weinstein has been in this situation before and that he knows full-well that too much hard profanity can get an R-rating, so he shouldn't have been shocked by the outcome. He also correctly points out that "Yet were the MPAA and NATO to waive the ratings rules whenever we believed that a particular movie had merit, or was somehow more important than other movies, we would no longer be neutral parties applying consistent standards, but rather censors of content based on personal mores." Finally he states that should Weinstein decide to release Bully as 'unrated' then the film will be treated the way theaters treat most films that go out without an MPAA rating, which is the equivalent to an NC-17 with all the age-related restrictions that go along with that. All of the above statements are true, and you'll notice how Fithian talks to Mr. Weinstein in a measured and mature manner, treating Harvey Weinstein as an adult capable of rational dialogue and nuanced thinking. He even hedges his bets, stating that he too is a father and that he's thrilled that such a film got made, in a sort of 'of course we support the troops' sort of preemptive defense (which seems to be a patronizing necessity these days). This is how the Weinstein Company responded:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THEATRE OWNERS THREATENS NC-17 RATING STATUS FOR BULLY
THREAT COMES AFTER THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY’S MPAA APPEAL TO LOWER R RATING IN AN EFFORT TO USE FILM AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL FOR CHILDREN
New York, NY – February 28, 2012 – National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) President & CEO John Fithian sent Harvey Weinstein a letter dated February 24 on behalf of NATO stating that they may urge theater owners to treat BULLY as an NC-17 rated film. With an NC-17 rating, children under the age of 18 will not be permitted to see the movie even with a parent or guardian present. The NC-17 threat comes in response to The Weinstein Company’s (TWC) suggestion to release BULLY, which has the sole purpose of educating children and highlighting how bullying has become a national crisis, in theaters unrated after the MPAA failed to lower the R rating given for some language.
Both fathers of four children, TWC Co-Chairmen Harvey and Bob Weinstein see this as first and foremost a personal matter and one deserving its due respect from the MPAA and NATO.
“As a company we have the utmost respect for the National Association of Theatre Owners, but to suggest that the film BULLY could ever be treated like an NC-17 film is completely unconscionable, not to mention unreasonable. In light of the tragedy that occurred yesterday in Ohio, we feel now is the time for the bullying epidemic to take center stage, we need to demand our community takes action,” said Harvey and Bob Weinstein.
In response to NATO’s letter, TWC COO David Glasser said the studio will be fully prepared for this battle and is in negotiations with renowned attorneys Martin Garvis and David Boies to help TWC in their efforts to do whatever needs to be done to give BULLY, in theaters on March 30, the ability to be shown to audiences everywhere. All efforts and actions will be done to recant NATO’s letter to TWC.
“NATO’s letter is inflammatory and disrespectful not only to the children and families in the film who courageously let us into their lives so this epidemic can be stopped, but to the millions of children, parents, teachers and school officials for whom this film was made. NATO’s decision to treat BULLY as an NC-17 rating was extremely reactionary. I don’t know how they can do this to the children,” said Glasser.
TWC’s sentiments are shared by would-be viewers of the film. A Michigan high school student who is passionate about this cause recently began an online petition, which currently has more than 94,000 signatures, to urge the MPAA the give BULLY its deserved PG-13 rating. The petition is growing by thousands as each hour passes.
http://www.change.org/
As you can see, especially when you read the initial letter first, the inflammatory headline, and the crux of the response is based on at best a base misunderstanding of Fithian's statements regarding unrated films and at worst an outright lie meant to whip up an emotional response. The letter, which states objective truths and attempts to address the situation in a mature and responsible manner, is derided as 'NATO’s letter is inflammatory and disrespectful not only to the children and families in the film who courageously let us into their lives so this epidemic can be stopped, but to the millions of children, parents, teachers and school officials for whom this film was made'. Yes, coupled with David Glasser's quote at the end, they are actually pulling the "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!" card. I'd argue that it's shameful, but at this point I'm not sure the offending parties have any shame.
I'm sure Bully is a fine film and maybe in the broad scheme of things it should have gotten a PG-13 and/or led to a revamp of the MPAA standards regarding profanity. But, even if its merely a glorified promotional stunt, Harvey Weinstein's inflammatory and intellectually insulting response to an adult trying to have an adult discussion about a business matter is indicative of the sort of reactionary-ism that has long gripped politics and is slowly taking hold in Hollywood as well. We see it Rooney Mara (in-eloquently) mentions that she was repulsed by the character she played on an old Law and Order: Special Victims Unit and gets accused of trashing the show. We see it when Megan Fox unleashes a firestorm of 'controversy' when she compares Michael Bay to Hitler, which anyone with half-a-brain knows damn-well was in reference to Bay's infamously tyrannical film sets and grueling schedules and not the genocidal policies of the Third Reich. We see it when Brian White gets accused of 'hating black women' when he discussed the popularity of Tasha Smith's tyrannical character in the Why Did I Get Married? series and how that popularity speaks to certain cultural stereotypes. We see it when Capcom is forced to offer a formal apology for insensitive/inflammatory/rather immature comments made during a discussion *about* insensitive and inflammatory rhetoric (of a sexual nature) in the online gaming community. It is because of attacks like the one above that there is so little real substance in entertainment journalism. There is no room for nuance in the public forum, no room for adult discussion or cordial debate. Now, thanks to Weinstein and others of his disingenuous ilk , there is apparently no room for such things in private conversation either.
Scott Mendelson
The Avengers gets a hilariously bad new poster, but provides marketing insights...
Scott Mendelson
Pixar's Brave gets a terrific TV spot, which *should* be the end of their trailer campaign.
It's the music. A gorgeous hymn set to images that sell the mythical and epic nature of the story, which makes this the best piece of marketing for the film yet. Here's hoping Pixar just stops right now and doesn't reveal anything else. They have the teaser, the full trailer, the extended scene, and this TV spot. They are good to go at this point, so they might as well quit while they are ahead. Brave opens on June 22nd, 2012. As always, we'll see...
Scott Mendelson
Scott Mendelson
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Weekend Box Office (02/26/12): Act of Valor scores big, Good Deeds opens low for Tyler Perry, while Wanderlust and Gone tank.
In yet another stupidly crowded weekend at the box office (in such a crowded marketplace where only one new release debuted on more than 2,200 screens), we had yet another solid surprise, as the low-budget Act of Valor topped the box office with a $24.4 million debut. Relativity bought the $12 million production for $13 million and then spent another $30-$40 million to market it. Said marketing campaign highlighted the film's lone quirk - that it starred actual Navy Seals and allegedly presented a more accurate picture of how such soldiers conduct themselves in the battlefield (they also bought a couple Super Bowl ads and screened the crap out of the film all over the country prior to release). Of course, such lofty attempts at realism didn't prevent a Perils of Pauline subplot (Roselyn Sanchez plays a kidnapped CIA operative who must be rescued by these manly men from torturous bad guys), but the marketing campaign certainly played on the idea that this film was more 'real' than the likes of Navy Seals. The picture earned an A from Cinemascore, which means that audiences obviously didn't mind the fact that the real life Seals are better at killing people than the whole 'acting' thing. As somewhat expected, it played best in regions that have military bases and places that certain parties dismissively refer to as 'fly-over country' (don't be that asshole).
I'm not going to get into the politics of what began as a recruitment advertisement for joining the Navy, as I haven't seen the film yet (opposing views HERE and HERE), and its value as propaganda is arguably no better/worse than the countless video games that this picture felt like a film adaptation of. Moreover, those on the Dennis Kucinich side of the fence will claim that this film is conservative propaganda, those on the Ron Paul side will say it bolsters support for Obama's recent military 'adventures', while seemingly liberal pundits will again decide that a film that supports the military and emphasizes their bravery and operational successes is somehow a right-wing picture. They are all wrong. But I will say that this is yet another sign that R-rated adult fare can succeed in the marketplace as long as it doesn't have to break box office records to make a profit. And that's a message everyone can get behind!
Coming it at second was Tyler Perry's Good Deeds. The film earned a solid $15.5 million, which is his second-lowest weekend behind the $11 million debut of Daddy's Little Girls (in which Perry did not appear in at all). But considering that the film didn't feature Perry's trademark Madea character nor was it a chapter in the popular Why Did I Get Married series, this was never going to hit the top of his personal curve. The film was an attempt for Perry to do a straight star vehicle, something arguably more conventional than the ensemble family dramedies that made him an entertainment icon. I don't know how much the film cost, but Perry's budgets rarely top $20 million, so this will likely be another easy moneymaker for Lionsgate and the Perry empire. Next up for Perry is The Marriage Counselor in July. In October, Perry stars in Cross, as he steps into the shoes of James Patterson's literary superstar Alex Cross in an attempt to revive the franchise that gave way to two popular Morgan Freeman vehicles in 1997 and 2001.
The third major new release is where the bad news starts. Wanderlust, the new Paul Rudd/Jennifer Aniston vehicle helmed by David Wain (Wet Hot American Summer, Role Models), earned just $6.5 million. I often go out of my way to defend Jennifer Aniston as she often gets a lot of crap from other pundits who tend to cast her moderate hits as flops (The Bounty Hunter) and give credit to her unqualified smash hits to others (Marley and Me). But this is a pretty poor result, and the only real silver lining is that the film only cost Universal $30 million. Yes, the picture, about a Manhattan couple who end up living at a hippie commune, looked relatively unappealing, but true star power is often about selling a movie that has nothing to offer except your presence. As such, this is a big miss for Aniston and Rudd and proof that Rudd isn't so much a movie star as a likable asset when the premise is solid (Role Models, I Love You Man) or he's supporting a bigger star (Dinner For Schmucks). Aniston also isn't quite a 'by-herself' movie star at this point, as she needs a heavy weight like Adam Sandler to reach pure blockbuster status. Otherwise, her high-profile supporting role in the recent $117 million-grossing Horrible Bosses may be a sign of where she might want to play next. IE - play against type.
In holdover news, the somewhat soft debuts of most of the new releases led to better than expected holdovers for last weekend's not-all-that popular newbies. Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance dropped just 59%, which is almost impressive considering how bad the film truly is. Anyway, the unasked-for sequel grossed $9 million in weekend two and now has $38 million, meaning that, as predicted, it's playing more like an Underworld or Resident Evil sequel than a big-scale comic book film. This Means War dropped 51%, which again is large but not horrible when you consider the sheer amount of superior product out there right now (it's not a horrible film, just mostly unremarkable in every way). It has $33 million in ten days but hopefully overseas grosses will pull the $70 million McG picture out of the red ink. The Secret World of Arrietty now has $14.5 million, putting it within a day of surpassing Ponyo's $15 million gross as the biggest-grossing Studio Ghibli release on domestic shores. If it can get to $20 million, it will be the third-biggest Japanese animated film in US history behind the first two Pokemon films.
The rest of February's strong lineup continues to burn brightly. The Vow crossed $100 million over the weekend, becoming Screen Gems' first such milestone (it earned $10 million this weekend and now sits with $102.9 million). It's Rachel McAdams's fourth such grosser and her first in a lead role, while its Channing Tatum's second $100 million picture. Safe House has $97.6 million in 17 days, meaning it will become Deznel Washington and Ryan Reynolds's fourth respective $100 million grossers in due course. It will cross the $115 million-grossing Remember the Titans and the $116 million-grossing Green Lantern in two weeks to become Washington's second biggest domestic grosser (behind American Gangster) and Reynolds's third (behind The Proposal and X-Men: Origins: Wolverine).
Chronicle is holding fast, finishing the weekend with $57.9 million. The Woman In Black crossed the $50 million mark, meaning it needs just $193 million more to surpass Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to become Daniel Radcliffe's eighth-biggest grosser. Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace 3D sits with $40.4 million domestic and $46 million overseas, meaning that the first 3D-converted Star Wars film should end with $95-$100 million worldwide, if not more depending on overseas markets. But it has indeed surpassed The Dark Knight on the all-time biggest worldwide grossers list, so mazel tov! The Grey has crossed $50 million while The Artist passes $30 million on the eve of its likely Oscar triumph. And the quietest smash of the year so far is Journey 2: The Mysterious Island. The film dropped just 34% in weekend three, for a $13.4 million gross. It's at $76 million in the US, but it's at $235 million worldwide, with an eye towards $350-$400 million over the long haul. Also of note, The Muppets now sits at $88 million, meaning that it is now the second-biggest Muppet movie of all-time even when adjusted for inflation (The Muppet Movie's $65 million gross would equal $203 million today).
That's it for this weekend and this insanely crowded February. March has just eight wide releases, starting with the animated Dr. Suess adaptation The Lorax and the Todd Phillips-produced 'found footage' teen party romp Project X. Until then, stay tuned!
The last new release basically felt like a dump. Technically a Summit Entertainment release, Amanda Seyfried's Gone (review) felt like the newly acquired (by Lionsgate) company merely disposing of 'old business'. The film went out without press screenings and seemed to be playing in the smallest auditoriums around (I saw it on Friday in a pretty tiny theater), so its mere $4.7 million debut isn't much of a surprise. The film has a certain goofy entertainment value, even if it arguably won't lose anything when viewed at home. This is obviously not good news for Amanda Seyfried, who has been pulling it $12-14 million debuts for the two years (Dear John's massive $30 million debut was a case of the right subject matter plus co-star Channing Tatum in his strongest genre). But the fact that she's even getting all-by-herself star vehicles is something to not be taken lightly (she got top billing over Justin Timberlake in In Time despite merely playing the love interest/hostage). She has a part in the ensemble picture The Big Wedding later this year, but a major test for her will be the debut of Lovelace, where she plays Deep Throat star Linda Lovelace. Of course, she also plays Cosette in Tom Hopper's all-star adaption of Les Miserables, so Gone is arguably just a blip on her resume.
In holdover news, the somewhat soft debuts of most of the new releases led to better than expected holdovers for last weekend's not-all-that popular newbies. Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance dropped just 59%, which is almost impressive considering how bad the film truly is. Anyway, the unasked-for sequel grossed $9 million in weekend two and now has $38 million, meaning that, as predicted, it's playing more like an Underworld or Resident Evil sequel than a big-scale comic book film. This Means War dropped 51%, which again is large but not horrible when you consider the sheer amount of superior product out there right now (it's not a horrible film, just mostly unremarkable in every way). It has $33 million in ten days but hopefully overseas grosses will pull the $70 million McG picture out of the red ink. The Secret World of Arrietty now has $14.5 million, putting it within a day of surpassing Ponyo's $15 million gross as the biggest-grossing Studio Ghibli release on domestic shores. If it can get to $20 million, it will be the third-biggest Japanese animated film in US history behind the first two Pokemon films.
The rest of February's strong lineup continues to burn brightly. The Vow crossed $100 million over the weekend, becoming Screen Gems' first such milestone (it earned $10 million this weekend and now sits with $102.9 million). It's Rachel McAdams's fourth such grosser and her first in a lead role, while its Channing Tatum's second $100 million picture. Safe House has $97.6 million in 17 days, meaning it will become Deznel Washington and Ryan Reynolds's fourth respective $100 million grossers in due course. It will cross the $115 million-grossing Remember the Titans and the $116 million-grossing Green Lantern in two weeks to become Washington's second biggest domestic grosser (behind American Gangster) and Reynolds's third (behind The Proposal and X-Men: Origins: Wolverine).
Chronicle is holding fast, finishing the weekend with $57.9 million. The Woman In Black crossed the $50 million mark, meaning it needs just $193 million more to surpass Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to become Daniel Radcliffe's eighth-biggest grosser. Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace 3D sits with $40.4 million domestic and $46 million overseas, meaning that the first 3D-converted Star Wars film should end with $95-$100 million worldwide, if not more depending on overseas markets. But it has indeed surpassed The Dark Knight on the all-time biggest worldwide grossers list, so mazel tov! The Grey has crossed $50 million while The Artist passes $30 million on the eve of its likely Oscar triumph. And the quietest smash of the year so far is Journey 2: The Mysterious Island. The film dropped just 34% in weekend three, for a $13.4 million gross. It's at $76 million in the US, but it's at $235 million worldwide, with an eye towards $350-$400 million over the long haul. Also of note, The Muppets now sits at $88 million, meaning that it is now the second-biggest Muppet movie of all-time even when adjusted for inflation (The Muppet Movie's $65 million gross would equal $203 million today).
That's it for this weekend and this insanely crowded February. March has just eight wide releases, starting with the animated Dr. Suess adaptation The Lorax and the Todd Phillips-produced 'found footage' teen party romp Project X. Until then, stay tuned!
Scott Mendelson
Friday, February 24, 2012
Review: Gone (2012) is a cheerfully absurd thriller that either toys with genre expectations or just makes no sense whatsoever.
Gone
201295 minutes
rated PG-13
by Scott Mendelson
Gone is that strange sort of movie that actually grows in esteem when you look back on it and realize just how preposterous it really is. The plot technically involves Amanda Seyfried as Jill, a young woman looking for her missing sister. The twist being that she is absolutely sure that said sister (Emily Wickersham) has been abducted by the same serial murderer who kidnapped poor Jill and tossed her in a pit just over a year ago in a failed attempt to add her to his collection of corpses. That's all the plot you need, as what follows is a surprisingly relentless and fast-paced investigation thriller that barely stops to take its breath until late in the third act. While the events don't technically unfold in real time, there is such a propulsive forward momentum that the picture feels like a very low-budget, nothing-but-essentials variation on 24 meshed with Run Lola Run and an extended episode Busy Town Mysteries. I wouldn't go so far as to cal Gone 'good', but I admired its just-the-facts pacing and, in hindsight, its rather ludicrousness plotting.
My wife mentioned that she felt that the investigative techniques were something out of a Dan Brown novel, and she's got a point. The majority of the narrative follows Seyfried as she follows what amounts to a trail of breadcrumbs which may or may not lead to the fiend in kidnapped her sister and herself. She follows 'clue A' which leads straight to 'clue B' and so-forth with remarkable efficiency, often depending on blind luck that the latest witness or bystander remembered some tiny detail or a treasure-trove of valuable intel. There is just enough screen-time given to Jill's mental issues stemming from both her parents' untimely deaths and her prior abduction to actually leave the audience wondering right up till the end whether or not Jill is truly crazy in as 'shocking last-minute twist!' kind of way. I would never dream of revealing how the film ends, but I will say that Seyfried is surprisingly convincing at being painfully unconvincing during her various confrontations with disbelieving law enforcement officers, personified by Daniel Sunjata and Katherine Moennig. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn't believe her either.
One cop does inexplicably believe her, and he's played by Wes Bentley. Whether he is sympathetic because he's new to the department or because he notices that Seyfried is really quite pretty on this particular day is immaterial, but what is material is that he acts so absurdly creepy and looks so much like a pre-accident Joker that he's either the killer or the best red herring since Roger Rees showed up looking exactly like an aged Hugh Jackman in The Prestige. The film is full of would-be suspects, to the point where when one character describes a possible villain as having 'rapey eyes', we notice that pretty much every male character in the film has 'rapey eyes'.
It's tough to explain what's so amusing about the film without divulging major third-act details, but I will say that director Heitor Dhalia and writer Allison Burnett may be either borderline incompetent or devilishly playing with our expectations regarding these kinds of movies. Whether it's the apparently un-ironic use of the 'it's only a cat' startling device, the sheer number of potential serial murderers Seyfried meets on her journey, or the presentation of the least kinky serial killer in cinematic history (no gruesome sexual assault, no being forced to wear grandma's prom dress, no ritualistic games of Pictionary), Dhalia and Burnett are either too lazy to make a true exploitation picture or merely want to have fun with what we think these sorts of films should contain.
There is a genuinely compelling third act sequence, where Seyfried drives through the woods and engages in a lengthy dialogue with a possible Bananas Gorilla, and even that sequence is presented in such a way to possibly doubt its 100% authenticity. Even the final revelations subvert the cliches in a rather unexpected fashion, even if some audiences will be disappointed by what feels like a more plausible climax than you usually get in this genre. Like Chris Klein's performance in Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li, I'm not sure whether it is unintentionally terrible or a sly almost post-modern inversion of its genre. Either way, it has a true energy that is uncommon for low-budget thrillers, with a refreshing lack of distractions. Seyfried delivers the goods and elicits prurient interest while doing so, while a number of character actors have fun chewing through some pretty terrible dialogue.
It's a short 90-minute bit of cinematic goofiness. You won't cry, you probably won't gasp, but you will laugh. Whether or not you're laughing with-or-at Gone is a subject for debate.
Grade: B-
Read it and weep! The Phantom Menace is about to out-gross The Dark Knight! Or: What the onslaught on 3D reissues means for the all-time grossers list.
One immediate effect of these 3D-converted releases is the fact that a number of benchmarks will be arbitrarily altered as a result of these successful re-releases. If Titanic earns $161 million in the US during its 3D-release this April, it will swap places with Avatar (now at $760 million) at the top of the domestic box office chart. We all witnesses how The Lion King added $166 million to its international coffers to leapfrog several places up the domestic and worldwide list, ending as the biggest-grossing cartoon of all-time on both fronts. Should this September's 3D release of Finding Nemo proved as popular (if not more-so), we could again see another rearranging of the list for top-grossing cartoons. Hell, if Warner Bros cares (they probably don't), they may try to do some kind of Dark Knight re-release in early July to get fans pumped for the third installment, which may allow the film to make up whatever ground its lost to the Star Wars prequel.
What if Warner Bros. decides to invest in 3D-converted versions of Lord of the Rings, the Harry Potter series, and/or The Matrix trilogy? Now that Lionsgate has aquirred Summit Entertainment, there surely will be pressure to try to find a way to further profit on the Twilight Saga, which have all been released in 2D. What if Dreamworks crosses its fingers and hopes that Shrek and especially Shrek 2 (which is currently at $919 million) still hold enough cachet to merit 3D-conversions and subsequent theatrical releases, or Fox doing the same for the (insanely popular overseas) Ice Age series? The possibilities of an ever-revolving 'top-grossing films' list is endless. What it means is that the somewhat concrete list of 'the highest grossing films of all time' may become a highly malleable list of recent releases alongside whatever massively popular older title has most recently been re-released in 3D. Heck, should IMAX ever get enough screens to make a similar impact, they too would become a factor. So I guess the question now is merely to ask you... what older films would you pay to see on the big screen, either in 3D or IMAX 2D or IMAX 3D? Sound off below.
Scott Mendelson
Thursday, February 23, 2012
"Girl Power" animated films used to be 'no-big deal'. Why Pixar's Brave, and its feminist narrative, is not a step forward, but merely a course-correction.
I don't generally watch clips, let alone post them, for upcoming films. I somewhat dislike the practice of releasing full-blown scenes of upcoming films, as it's purely spoiler material, plain and simple. But I will make an exception, as posting the above clip gives me the opportunity to rant about something that came to mind about a month ago while I was on a Disney Cruise with the wife and kids. Point being, there will be any number of essays written over the next few months about how Pixar's Brave is some kind of groundbreaking picture because it has a female lead, a warrior princess no less. It's story seems to involve a young girl who rebels against her family's expectations regarding his place in life as a girl in 1300s (?) Scotland (see the teaser and the trailer HERE and HERE). That's fine. The film looks gorgeous and I'm a sucker for Scottish music (Patrick Doyle is handling the scoring duties). Alas, I think it's frankly downright regressive that we view this film as a feminist breakthrough. Quite simply, Disney released an animated film back in 1998 starring a female protagonist who rebelled against society's expectations of her. Mulan was as much a feminist fable as Brave is selling itself as, and there wasn't nearly as much huffing-and-puffing about it at the time.
Mulan is neither one of the great Disney animated features nor one of the lesser ones. It's a rock-solid cartoon, arguably stronger in its first third when it's centered on family drama than its later acts which are somewhat dominated by comic supporting characters (Eddie Murphy's dragon and Mulan's fellow soldiers). And, as much as I like Miguel Ferrer, I have never been able to buy his soft-spoken vocals coming out of a massive and physically imposing Hun leader. But come what may, it is a straight-ahead action picture (with a decent-sized body count to boot) that not only stars a female warrior but explicitly deals with the kind of 'girls can do what boys can' messaging that the marketing materials for Brave seem to be emphasizing. Whether or not Brave will be better or worse than Mulan is beside the point. When Mulan was released in mid-June of 1998, its female-centric action story was basically treated as 'no big deal', because at the time it somewhat was.
Mulan is neither one of the great Disney animated features nor one of the lesser ones. It's a rock-solid cartoon, arguably stronger in its first third when it's centered on family drama than its later acts which are somewhat dominated by comic supporting characters (Eddie Murphy's dragon and Mulan's fellow soldiers). And, as much as I like Miguel Ferrer, I have never been able to buy his soft-spoken vocals coming out of a massive and physically imposing Hun leader. But come what may, it is a straight-ahead action picture (with a decent-sized body count to boot) that not only stars a female warrior but explicitly deals with the kind of 'girls can do what boys can' messaging that the marketing materials for Brave seem to be emphasizing. Whether or not Brave will be better or worse than Mulan is beside the point. When Mulan was released in mid-June of 1998, its female-centric action story was basically treated as 'no big deal', because at the time it somewhat was.
Yes, it was unusual to see a female Disney character leading the charge into battle and even killing people as opposed to helping from the sidelines, but the idea of a big-budget cartoon featuring a female was pretty standard in the 1990s. Even aside from Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid, we had Pocahontas in 1995, which featured a headstrong Native American princess who prevented war through a show of moral force. The first big strike against Disney's monopoly was Fox's Anastasia in late 1997, which also featured a female lead who engaged in action as well as romance (while both are better films, its amusing to see how The Princess and the Frog and Tangled both take bits and pieces from that now-mostly forgotten picture). Going all the way up to 2002, with Lilo and Stich, it was just as likely that a major animated film would feature a female protagonist as a male lead. It wasn't until the Pixar mold basically took over Disney around 2004 and Shrek solidified animated films as four-quadrant event films that we started to see a run of 'no girls allowed' animated films.
That's not a swipe at Pixar or Dreamworks, per se. The Incredibles, Up, and Toy Story 3 were all my favorite films of their respective years, while Toy Story 2 was second only to The Sixth Sense in 1999 (and it's so secret Kung Fu Panda 2 was my favorite film of last year). I would argue that Pixar has worthwhile female supporting characters (Elastagirl, Violet, Dory, Jesse, Atta) in their male-centric narratives (I especially like how the climax of A Bug's Life involves Hopper kidnapping Flik with Atta flying off to the rescue). But at the end of the day, the last decade has not been a good time for female-centric animated films, to the point where Dreamworks' Monsters Vs. Aliens was actually considered 'a big deal' in 2009 because it starred Reese Witherspoon in a somewhat feminist narrative. Yes the decade closed and a new one opened with The Princess and the Frog and Tangled. but The Princess and the Frog's gender-demos was blamed for its mere $225 million worldwide take which caused Tangled to be infamously marketed as a boy-friendly adventure. Plus, Tangled marked the official end of fairy tale adaptations even as it out-grossed every prior non-Pixar Disney toon worldwide aside other than The Lion King.
That's not a swipe at Pixar or Dreamworks, per se. The Incredibles, Up, and Toy Story 3 were all my favorite films of their respective years, while Toy Story 2 was second only to The Sixth Sense in 1999 (and it's so secret Kung Fu Panda 2 was my favorite film of last year). I would argue that Pixar has worthwhile female supporting characters (Elastagirl, Violet, Dory, Jesse, Atta) in their male-centric narratives (I especially like how the climax of A Bug's Life involves Hopper kidnapping Flik with Atta flying off to the rescue). But at the end of the day, the last decade has not been a good time for female-centric animated films, to the point where Dreamworks' Monsters Vs. Aliens was actually considered 'a big deal' in 2009 because it starred Reese Witherspoon in a somewhat feminist narrative. Yes the decade closed and a new one opened with The Princess and the Frog and Tangled. but The Princess and the Frog's gender-demos was blamed for its mere $225 million worldwide take which caused Tangled to be infamously marketed as a boy-friendly adventure. Plus, Tangled marked the official end of fairy tale adaptations even as it out-grossed every prior non-Pixar Disney toon worldwide aside other than The Lion King.
Even in the post-Twilight age where The Hunger Games is set to open on a massive scale, female-centric franchise pictures are still considered a risky bet, arguably riskier than they were considered just 15 years ago. Hence, the seemingly progressive feminist narrative of Brave isn't actually a step forward, but actually a step back, but back to a time when a movie like Brave wouldn't have raised eyebrows in the first place.
Scott Mendelson
Scott Mendelson
To hell with 3D, Skyfall becomes the first 007 film to go the IMAX route.
Not much to report beyond the news itself. IMAX has announced that the Sam Mendes 007 picture Skyfall will debut day-and-day in 35mm and IMAX screens on October 26th, 2012 (in the UK) and November 9th, 2012 (in the US and elsewhere). Back in the post-Avatar era, there was talk of Skyfall becoming the first 007 film to be released in 3D. That seems to have been scuttled, which means that James Bond fans will be able to enjoy the next 007 entry in glorious IMAX 2D. The Hollywood Reporter also notes that the highly successful pre-release IMAX sneak of Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol will indeed lead to more IMAX pre-releases of major titles, although no specific examples were offered (I'm betting Warner Bros. goes that route with Superman: Man of Steel if it's any good).
There was also a promise of sorts from the company to do more 'fanboy-friendly' films alongside the animated fare, which doesn't seem like news to me, but oh well. Also of note? They are expecting big IMAX business for their one-week engagement of The Hunger Games starting March 23rd. Point being, this is rather good news for 007 fans, as well as further evidence that IMAX, not 3D, is going to be the sign of big-budget prestige in the near future. And if Sony makes good on their threat to charge theaters for Real-D 3D glasses in May, it could have a ripple effect throughout the 3D business overall. I've long argued that the only thing stopping IMAX from making further inroads (and thus booking more titles at a time) is the shortage of available screens, but that will slowly become less of a concern over time. To paraphrase the late Whitney Houston, I believe the IMAX is our cinematic future, the one thing (massive screens plus utterly surround sound) that home theaters cannot replicate. Anyway, share your thoughts below. Does the IMAX move give you more confidence in Skyfall? Does it make you want to see the film more?
Scott Mendelson
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Just bleep the f*^#ing profanity! Why getting a PG-13 for Bully is more important than fighting the MPAA on its lone ironclad rule.
Furthermore, even if the MPAA does reserve their decision and grant that PG-13 rating to Bully, the Weintstein Company will still have missed a major opportunity. I wrote about this in August 2010, when the studio fought the same battle over The Tillman Story. Point being, I'm sure that altering or bleeping a few choice profanities will not irrevocably harm Bully's impact as a probing study of the current problem with school-related harassment and assault. And I'd argue that eliminating said language would actually help the film achieve its goals, as such a film could actually be shown in schools where it could be the subject of in-class discussion and debate. This isn't about artistic freedom. The film will be released in theaters on March 30th, be it with an uncut R-rated version or an altered-PG-13 cut. But, however we might disagree with said ratings guidelines, Weinstein and company surely knew what they were and made the choice to intentionally flaunt them while they were editing their finished product.
I may not agree with the MPAA's stance on profanity, but I'd rather a film like Bully be able to be used as a teaching tool than be a 'restricted' title based purely on an unwillingness to budge. It's not a fight worth having because it's not a fight worth losing. And now it's your turn to chime in.
Scott Mendelson
Fool me once... Ironically, the Wrath of the Titans trailer looks spectacular in 3D.
As you may recall, the 2010 remake of Clash of the Titans became the whipping boy for lousy 3D-conversions after Warner Bros. hastily converted the 2D feature in order to cash in on the success of Avatar. The film opened with over $60 million (mostly due to some terrific trailers) and eventually grossed nearly $500 million worldwide. Alas, the picture was critically-slammed and took it extra-hard on the chin for some truly terrible 3D-conversion work, which was barely in evidence and served to only make the film so dark as to be occasionally unwatchable. The Jonathan Liebesman-directed sequel, Wrath of the Titans, is being released March 30th. Judging by the 3D version of the trailer, Warner Bros. doesn't plan on making the same mistake twice.
It was just one of a handful of trailers that played before Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, which, by the way, looked so dark, dirty, and fuzzy that playing it on Pacific Winnetka's 80-foot "Immersive 3D" screen almost counts as sabotage for the $17 format. But I had a free ticket and I wanted to sample the super-sized screen and check out some 3D trailers. Paranorman looked fine, although it seemingly lacked the hypnotic quality of Coraline. The Amazing Spider-Man looked better on the big screen than it does on a computer screen (as did Prometheus), but the 3D didn't quite have the same 'Spidey swings into the audience' effect for me that it's allegedly had for others. But Wrath of the Titans is easily the sharpest-looking 3D trailer in circulation at the moment. Obviously, you can't watch the above trailer in 3D on your computer, but since I never posted it when it debuted back in December, I suppose now is as good a time as any. Point being, the 2.5 minute trailer looked eye-poppingly intense, with truly impressive 3D visuals and an uber-bright palette that seems an overt apology for how bad the first picture looked with that extra dimension.
I have no idea whether or not Wrath of the Titans will be a better movie than the thoroughly mediocre Clash of the Titans, although I'm among the few who actually likes Jonathan Liebesman (I respected the flawed, but unexpectedly procedural Battle: Los Angeles and infamously loved Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning). But there is little doubt based on what I saw the other night that it will be a fine example of how to make people happy with their choice to pay the 3D-upcharge. Assuming I don't end up attending a press screening, it's just the kind of thing I wouldn't mind watching on an 80-foot screen.
Scott Mendelson
It was just one of a handful of trailers that played before Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, which, by the way, looked so dark, dirty, and fuzzy that playing it on Pacific Winnetka's 80-foot "Immersive 3D" screen almost counts as sabotage for the $17 format. But I had a free ticket and I wanted to sample the super-sized screen and check out some 3D trailers. Paranorman looked fine, although it seemingly lacked the hypnotic quality of Coraline. The Amazing Spider-Man looked better on the big screen than it does on a computer screen (as did Prometheus), but the 3D didn't quite have the same 'Spidey swings into the audience' effect for me that it's allegedly had for others. But Wrath of the Titans is easily the sharpest-looking 3D trailer in circulation at the moment. Obviously, you can't watch the above trailer in 3D on your computer, but since I never posted it when it debuted back in December, I suppose now is as good a time as any. Point being, the 2.5 minute trailer looked eye-poppingly intense, with truly impressive 3D visuals and an uber-bright palette that seems an overt apology for how bad the first picture looked with that extra dimension.
I have no idea whether or not Wrath of the Titans will be a better movie than the thoroughly mediocre Clash of the Titans, although I'm among the few who actually likes Jonathan Liebesman (I respected the flawed, but unexpectedly procedural Battle: Los Angeles and infamously loved Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning). But there is little doubt based on what I saw the other night that it will be a fine example of how to make people happy with their choice to pay the 3D-upcharge. Assuming I don't end up attending a press screening, it's just the kind of thing I wouldn't mind watching on an 80-foot screen.
Scott Mendelson
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Pet Peeve of the day: Attention movie bloggers/writers - Stop spoiling unreleased films by discussing what does or doesn't happen in the sequel!
I don't mean to keep picking on John Carter, I really don't. In fact, if nothing else, this article gives me an excuse to embed the above fan-made trailer (that Devin Faraci brought to my attention) which is not only a much better trailer than any of the official ones cut by Disney, but actually makes the movie look somewhat impressive. But I am again discussing John Carter because I happened to scan the headline for an interview with an actor who stars in the picture. I'm not going to name the actor/actress, but I will link to the piece out of fairness to the original writers over at the otherwise esteemed The Playlist. Said headline (and article) contains what would arguably be considered a massive spoiler. What does said actor reveal in the interview? Well, merely that said thespian is indeed signed for a sequel or two to John Carter should the film's box office performance merit a sequel. So, purely from the basis on that statement, we know that at least one of the major characters in John Carter does indeed live to see a sequel.
This is a minor pet peeve, albeit one that has intensified as mainstream Hollywood has gotten more and more franchise-happy over the last several years. In an action-fantasy film like John Carter or any of the various comic book adaptations, what suspense exists generally concerns what will or won't happen to the major supporting characters. Obviously we all know John Carter is probably not going to die in the first John Carter film. And we know that Jake Sully will probably survive the first Avatar adventure. But what about any number of other supporting characters, be they good or evil? If you were walking into last summer's Thor unspoiled, you may have wondered about the ultimate fate of the villainous Loki. But if you had read the countless online blurbs confirming that Tom Hiddleston's Loki would be the primary antagonist for The Avengers, you were probably watched the film with quite a bit less anticipation over who would survive the final confrontation. Moreover, assuming you knew what was coming next, the climactic 'death' of Loki would not have nearly the emotional punch as it would have without said prior knowledge (even if Loki's survival was foolishly revealed by a pointless post-credit cookie, but that's another rant). And the pre-release marketing blitz for Captain America basically advertised the climax and epilogue of its own movie, blatantly spoiling what is technically a twist ending.
In this day and age, actors and filmmakers seem willing to openly blab about who is and isn't signed for the next chapter of a would-be franchise, as well as blatantly reveal the plot of the next installment in a way that spoils the one we haven't even seen yet. Its a minor issue, yet one that is symbolic of a larger one. In our 'gotta-know-everything-now!' movie-fandom culture, we moviegoers are ever-more-unwilling to actually wait to be surprised by the actual movie itself. This in turn forces filmmakers to dole out bits and pieces of character and plot information to feed the beast that is modern movie journalism, information that would have been considered blatant spoilers in an earlier 'more civilized age'.
Maybe I'm having selective memory, but I do recall devouring Entertainment Weekly, Premiere, Movieline, etc and still being able to walk into a new movie relatively fresh. The articles discussed the basic plot, shared production anecdotes, and offered relatively basic character bits from the filmmakers. I honestly don't recall this level of wanton spoilers masquerading as straight news and/or speculative gossip. When I walk into big-budget franchise tentpole, I don't want to know who lives and who dies, nor do I want to know what the new status quo for the surviving characters happens to be. I don't want to know who is signed for the sequel. I don't want to know that the villain returns to menace again. In an age where a small minority of film fans demand a consent stream of steady information from the green-light to the release date, it is ever-harder to avoid knowing most of what you're about to see before the film even opens.
Your thoughts? Is this phenomenon merely a symptom of franchise-fever, has the movie gossip world become more casually spoilery, or did I just read the wrong movie magazines in the 1980s and 1990s?
Scott Mendelson
This is a minor pet peeve, albeit one that has intensified as mainstream Hollywood has gotten more and more franchise-happy over the last several years. In an action-fantasy film like John Carter or any of the various comic book adaptations, what suspense exists generally concerns what will or won't happen to the major supporting characters. Obviously we all know John Carter is probably not going to die in the first John Carter film. And we know that Jake Sully will probably survive the first Avatar adventure. But what about any number of other supporting characters, be they good or evil? If you were walking into last summer's Thor unspoiled, you may have wondered about the ultimate fate of the villainous Loki. But if you had read the countless online blurbs confirming that Tom Hiddleston's Loki would be the primary antagonist for The Avengers, you were probably watched the film with quite a bit less anticipation over who would survive the final confrontation. Moreover, assuming you knew what was coming next, the climactic 'death' of Loki would not have nearly the emotional punch as it would have without said prior knowledge (even if Loki's survival was foolishly revealed by a pointless post-credit cookie, but that's another rant). And the pre-release marketing blitz for Captain America basically advertised the climax and epilogue of its own movie, blatantly spoiling what is technically a twist ending.
In this day and age, actors and filmmakers seem willing to openly blab about who is and isn't signed for the next chapter of a would-be franchise, as well as blatantly reveal the plot of the next installment in a way that spoils the one we haven't even seen yet. Its a minor issue, yet one that is symbolic of a larger one. In our 'gotta-know-everything-now!' movie-fandom culture, we moviegoers are ever-more-unwilling to actually wait to be surprised by the actual movie itself. This in turn forces filmmakers to dole out bits and pieces of character and plot information to feed the beast that is modern movie journalism, information that would have been considered blatant spoilers in an earlier 'more civilized age'.
Maybe I'm having selective memory, but I do recall devouring Entertainment Weekly, Premiere, Movieline, etc and still being able to walk into a new movie relatively fresh. The articles discussed the basic plot, shared production anecdotes, and offered relatively basic character bits from the filmmakers. I honestly don't recall this level of wanton spoilers masquerading as straight news and/or speculative gossip. When I walk into big-budget franchise tentpole, I don't want to know who lives and who dies, nor do I want to know what the new status quo for the surviving characters happens to be. I don't want to know who is signed for the sequel. I don't want to know that the villain returns to menace again. In an age where a small minority of film fans demand a consent stream of steady information from the green-light to the release date, it is ever-harder to avoid knowing most of what you're about to see before the film even opens.
Your thoughts? Is this phenomenon merely a symptom of franchise-fever, has the movie gossip world become more casually spoilery, or did I just read the wrong movie magazines in the 1980s and 1990s?
Scott Mendelson
Blu Ray Review: Justice League: Doom (2012) is paint-by-numbers, lacks depth.
Justice League: Doom
201277 minutes
rated PG-13
Available for OnDemand on February 21st, available to purchase on DVD or Blu Ray on February 28th.
by Scott Mendelson
I've complained before about the inexplicable need for the DC Animated Universe features to be so bloody short. Only the anthology Green Lantern: Emerald Knights has run over 80 minutes and at least two (Batman: Year One and Superman/Batman: Public Enemies) were barely an hour. For whatever reason, the thirteen features since late 2007 have all hovered around the 75 minute mark, and it's almost always been a point of contention. But this time around, that truncated running time has become a fatal flaw, as this loose adaptation of a 2000 Justice League of America arc ends up sacrificing the entire dramatic crux of the story. All that's left, while not boring, is a rather route pure action tale with one large-scale set piece after another. And by holding off the story's key reveal until near the end of the picture, the film ends up being a giant set-up to a plot twist 90% of the viewers will already know about, and the other 10% will be spoiled by the synopsis on the back of the box.
A token amount of plot: Umm... not much. Most of the first act is filled up by a sprawling battle between the Justice League and the Royal Flush Gang. After the league goes their separate ways, we are introduced to what amounts to a new Injustice Gang/Legion of Doom, comprised of several B+-level super villains (Star Sapphire, Metallo, Ma'alefa'ak, Bane, and Cheetah) led by Vandal Savage. Long-story short, Mirror Master has some new intelligence that will allow this group to take down our super friends, and the second act basically plays out as a montage of one super hero after another being physically and mentally crushed. Can the Justice League survive this onslaught? What is Vandal Savage's master plan? And just how did this motley crew of super villains so efficiently bring down the Justice League? If you read "Tower of Babel" or the back of the box for this Blu-Ray release, you already know the answer to the last question.
It's difficult to discuss this film's failings without heading into third-act spoiler territory, so I'll hold off for now and offer a warning when the time comes. The film is visually gorgeous, as are pretty much all of the DCAU features up to this point. I could carp that Superman's facial features make him look a bit young, but that would be petty. Come what may, the picture is basically three large action sequences that take up about twenty minutes apiece, with 3-5 minutes before and after for 'plot and character'. The action sequences are suitably violent and well-staged (the film earns its PG-13), and the whole 'each hero gets taken down' scenario allows for a wide variety of action sequences. But there is no emotional investment and no real dramatic arc. It's obvious by the voice casting that this is intended as a kind of Justice League: Unlimited reunion (Kevin Conroy, Michael Rosenbaum, Susan Eisenberg, and Carl Lumby reprise their iconic heroic roles, as do several of the villainous voice actors). The film would have been stronger as a visual continuation as well, since we'd have the appropriate mythology to work off of as opposed to a one-off story.
If you've read "Tower of Babel", then you'll know that the story (which involves Ra's Al Ghul instead of Vandal Savage) revolves around a seemingly unthinkable betrayal by a member of the Justice League against his or her fellow members. In the original four-part story, said reveal occurs at the halfway point, leaving plenty of time to both wrap up the actual action story-line and deal with the repercussions of said actions. This film version barely touches on the moral and ethical ramifications of what transpires, giving but a few lines right before the climax and a brief epilogue where no real discussion is had. Without the meat of the story, what we're left with is just a 75-minute smack-down, without even the kind of clever dialogue and interaction that would have made it worthwhile beyond the visceral appeal.
Thus, despite some fine super-heroic action and perfectly solid vocal performances (even though I've gotten to the point where I prefer George Newbern as Superman as opposed to Tim Daly), Justice League: Doom is, like Justice League; Crisis On Two Earths, basically a glorified four-part Justice League: Unlimited episode with the meat removed. There are other minor nitpicks, such as swapping out Phil LeMarr's John Stewart for the more fanboy-friendly Nathan Fillion as Hal Jordan (Bumper Robinson as Cyborg shows up here, so I suppose someone decided that there couldn't be more than two black superheroes). There is a somewhat confusing bit in the second act involving a hostage situation where at least some of it is revealed as a visual hallucination, but how much of it was real is never revealed. Also, in the final battle, it would have been far more entertaining to watch the various heroes go up against villains other than their designated opposite number. Justice League: Doom is an entertaining, but painfully thin, animated movie. It is not boring, but it is also not very engaging and lacks any real reason to exist.
Grade: C+
The Blu Ray - Technical specs are snazzy per usual. There are two major bonus features, both of which exceed the main feature in both entertainment value and sheer quality. There is an eighteen-minute discussion entitled "Guarding the Balance: Batman and the JLA". It deals with the moral issues that the film skirts around and applies it with surprisingly thoughtfulness to our current post-9/11 surveillance state. Of course it makes it all the more frustrating that the feature feels so thematically empty. There are two six minute pieces, one is a look at the somewhat groundbreaking creation of Cyborg (a black super hero who was not defined by his race), as well as a preview of the next DCAU feature, Superman vs. the Elites. Also included is a crew commentary, the usual DVD and digital copy of the feature, and two bonus episodes of Justice League. In this case we get "Wild Cards", the two-part episode that features the Royal Flush Gang and, more importantly, Mark Hamill's last vocal performance as The Joker for a DCAU project (he reprised the role for Batman: Arkham Asylum and Batman: Arkham City video games in 2009 and 2011 before apparently retiring the role).
The prime bonus feature is an unfortunate one. There is a 36-minute documentary on the life and work of writer/producer Dwayne McDuffie, who suddenly died last year of complications from heart surgery at the age of 49. It's a touching and compelling documentary, discussing both his art, his apparent genius, and the ground-breaking strides he made in regards to African-American superheros in mainstream comics and cartoons. I said my piece about him last year, but I firmly believe he is responsible for basically saving the DC Animated Universe by pulling the animated Justice League cartoon out of its season one-slump and righting the ship. His loss is our loss, and this documentary makes you all-too aware of that (and makes me feel bad for basically panning his last couple DCAU movies, but I digress).
The film is thin but entertaining, and the special features are worth at least one gander. This is the thirteenth such feature since 2007, so you don't need me to tell you whether this is a rent or a purchase for you at this point.
Prior DCAU reviews -
Batman: Gotham Knights, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern: First Flight, Superman/Batman: Public Enemies, Justice League: Crisis On Two Earths, Batman: Under the Hood, Superman/Batman: Apocalypse, Superman/Shazam: The Return of Black Adam, All-Star Superman, Green Lantern: Emerald Knights, Batman: Year One
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Weekend Box Office (02/19/12): The Vow and Safe House fend off Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance and This Means War.
It was yet another 'photo-finish' at the box office over this President's Day weekend, but as always, it's the hard numbers rather than the arbitrary rankings that matter. But since we need to decide which movies to discuss first, in order we shall go! For the moment, it appears that Safe House will top the charts in its second weekend after barely missing the top slot last weekend. It grossed $23.9 million over the Fri-Sun weekend and $28 million over the holiday. Safe House will have grossed $82 million by Monday, a rather huge total for Mr. Washington. In just eleven days, Safe House is Washington's 7th-biggest grosser, out-grossing such films as Training Day ($76 million), Man On Fire ($77 million), and Unstoppable ($81 million). Barring a complete collapse, Safe House should become Denzel Washington's fifth $100 million grosser over the next weekend, with an outside shot of eclipsing the $130 million gross of American Gangster, which is currently his top grosser. While we can debate how much credit co-star Ryan Reynolds gets for this one (he certainly didn't hurt...), Safe House is already his fourth-biggest grosser and will likely out-gross Green Lantern's $116 million total in a few weeks. I'm frankly shocked at the strong legs for this one, as it's certainly one of Washington's worst genre entries in a long career with a number of solid adult-skewing action pictures (it looks like it was shot through a puke filter and edited in a blender, plus the script is so generic it could have been written in a Mad Libs book). Still, star-power is a rare thing these days, and Denzel Washington clearly has it.
So does Channing Tatum and, in the right project, Rachel McAdams, so it will be interesting to see how The Vow's popularity affect next month's 21 Jump Street. The Vow is estimated to gross around $23.6 million for the Fri-Sun period and $27.4 million for the Fri-Sun period. No matter who ends up on top, both films exhibited strong holds. With $89 million by Monday, The Vow is already Screen Gems's highest grossing film ever, topping the $80 million total of Dear John. The 43% drop for The Vow is slightly smaller than the 47% drop for Dear John, but the new film was bolstered by a record-setting $11 million on Tuesday, February 14th. Even if you count such special effects-filled entries as Titanic, Pearl Harbor, and Ghost, The Vow is currently the ninth-biggest romantic drama of all-time. If you remove the spectacle-filled entries, it's currently sixth, with an eye toward surpassing An Officer and a Gentlemen's $129 million gross and challenging Jerry Maguire ($153 million) for the top pure romantic drama.
Slightly more problematic (if only due to a higher profile) was the $17.5 million 3-day/$21 million 4-day debut of Fox's $70 million romantic action-comedy This Means War. The film was originally scheduled for a Tuesday the 14th opening on the back of strong test scores. But was moved back to a conventional Friday opening due to low tracking figures (tracking is not an estimate of potential box office, but rather a survey of whether potential audiences are aware of and are interest in an upcoming release) and the predicted box office might of The Vow. Alas, audiences were not all that interested in an (allegedly) watered-down mix of romance and action when they could get hard doses of the real thing with either The Vow or Safe House. Not helping was a painfully spoilerific trailer that basically laid out the first two acts of the picture and revealed most of the big set pieces. Star-power can only get you so far if the movie doesn't look good. Chris Pine, and Tom Hardy may be solid actors with plenty of screen presence and the good luck to be involved in massive franchises, but they are not 'movie stars' yet. As for Reese Witherspoon, this is her sixth-biggest live-action opening, coming in ahead of last year's solid (but much cheaper) Fox release, Water For Elephants and the 2005 romantic comedy Just Like Heaven (both of which opened with $16 million). This is a moderate whiff for all involved, but not a catastrophe yet. It IS a Fox release, so foreign numbers could be huge).
The Secret World of Arrietty has been available overseas since around 2011, and it has already grossed $126 million in foreign ticket sales. The Studio Ghibli feature, which was translated from Japanese to English with American voice actors, grossed a rather large $6.4 million over the Fri-Sun weekend and $8 million in four days on 1,300 screens. That may not seem like much, but said total already makes it the eighth-biggest domestic grosser among Japanese animation releases in America, or third if you don't count feature film versions of popular kids' animated series (five of the top ten are three Pokemon films, Digimon: the Movie, and Yu-Gi-Oh: The Movie). If it has anything resembling legs, it will surpass the $19 million gross of Yu-Gi-Oh: The Movie and become the third-biggest Japanese animated film in domestic box office history, behind only the first two Pokemon films ($43 million and $89 million respectively). Still, these Studio Ghibli releases are more about prestige than profit, as its Disney's way of showcasing some pretty phenomenal animated features made outside our shores. That they may make a couple bucks from it only makes the philanthropic gesture all the sweeter.
There isn't much to report in holdover news, other than to point out that nine of the top ten films are all within the last three weekends (The Grey, at number 10 and with a $48 million cume, was four weekends ago). Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace 3D turned out to be a one-weekend wonder, as it plunged 65% in weekend two. That's not surprising, as those who were curious went last weekend and the 3D wasn't quite entrancing enough (and the movie not quite good enough) to get people coming back. Still, with $35 million in eleven days (plus $37 million overseas thus far and counting), this is basically free money for Lucas and 20th Century Fox. Showing surprising strength was Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, which dipped 27% in weekend two for a $20 million Fri-Sun gross. It's at $53 million today and should flirt with $60 million by Monday or Tuesday. Comparatively, Journey to the Center of the Earth had $43 million after the end of its second weekend. Chronicle has displayed surprising legs and crossed $50 million this weekend and should hit $60 million next weekend. Also holding strong, even in the face of excessive competition, is The Woman In Black. The CBS Films release has grossed $46 million as of Friday, making it Daniel Radcliffe's ninth-biggest grosser ever. In Oscar nominee benchmarks, The Descendants topped $75 million while Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close crossed $30 million.
That's it for this weekend. Join us next time for another stupidly crowded weekend. The Jennifer Aniston/Paul Rudd comedy Wanderlust (from the director of Wet Hot American Summer and Role Models), squares off against the Amanda Seyfried thriller Gone and Tyler Perry's Good Deeds. The wild card is Acts of Valor, a seemingly generic (and cheap - about $18 million) Navy Seals action picture that stars actual Navy Seals. Until then, keep reading/commenting/trolling/etc!
Scott Mendelson
Saturday, February 18, 2012
News Commentary - By Grabthar's Hammer, Dean Parisot to helm Red 2!
One of the great mysteries over the last decade or so is deducing why Dean Parisot hasn't made a half-dozen more movies since 1999. The guy's second film, Galaxy Quest, is not only one of the best comedies of the last twenty-years but remains the best Star Trek movie ever made, bar none (ironically, there were actually a few elements from said parody that were cribbed with a straight face in the 2009 J.J. Abrams reboot). The film didn't become an out-and-out smash hit, partially due to a boycott of Dreamworks movies from Regal Cinemas at the time. But his second film, the underrated and ahead-of-its-time Fun With Dick and Jane (yes, it's a remake, but its middle class family struggles with economic obsolescence was about three years two early) was the last live-action Jim Carrey film to crack $100 million in the US back in 2005. And up until yesterday, Parisot has been relatively MIA. Variety is reporting that Parisot has been hired to helm Red 2, the sequel to Summit Entertainment's surprisingly successful 'retired spies get back in the game' action comedy from late 2010.
With a domestic gross of $90 million and a worldwide take of $199 million (off a $58 million budget), Red (review) stands as Summit Entertainment's biggest grosser outside of the Twilight Saga entries. I liked the first Red, but it was a sloppily and disjointed picture, awkwardly combining 'gee wiz, the old guys can still kill people!' comedy with some pretty dark political subtexts. The film prospered solely due to the strength of its cast, which featured Bruce Willis teaming up or sparring with Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Mary Louise Parker, Richard Dreyfuss, Ernest Borgnine and Karl Urban. For the sake of those who haven't seen Red, I won't reveal which characters may or may not be returning, but getting such an accomplished director of large-scale action comedy aboard is a promising sign and cause for optimism that the second film will be a sharper, smoother, and just-plain better picture than the original. Red 2 is slated for release on August 3rd, 2013 (oddly enough not August 16th, the spot occupied in 2010 and 2012 by that other aging action heroes franchise, The Expendables). For a piece last year detailing which new cast members I'd like to see in a Red sequel, go HERE.
Scott Mendelson
Friday, February 17, 2012
In a 'trash your last movie' era, why I'm glad that Pixar is defending Cars 2...
I find it to be narratively mundane, focusing on a somewhat obnoxious supporting character and basically ditching the small-town nostalgia elements that made the first Cars somewhat endearing (the first act is terrible, but once Lightning McQueen gets stranded it vastly improves) for the sake of a generic action narrative. But the film is visually striking, with a few interesting (and surprisingly violent) action sequences and, while the end result doesn't work, I can't entirely condemn Pixar for telling a wholly different story from the first Cars. Point being, it is quite refreshing in this day-and-age to see filmmakers actually defending their less-than-acclaimed projects. The status quo of late has seen stars, filmmakers, even studios trashing their prior pictures, usually in a bid to convince us that "This time it will be different!".
Disney basically based its entire marketing campaign for Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides around the idea that the sequels were terrible and that no one wanted to see any characters other than Jack Sparrow this time around. Michael Bay and Shia LeBeouf spent much of the last two years apologizing for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, although Megan Fox's somewhat similar statements ended up getting her fired from the franchise. And just this December, while doing rounds for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Daniel Craig took time out of his schedule to bash Quantum of Solace (a film that is vastyly underrated in the 007 cannon) while generically reassuring fans that Skyfall will be much, much better.
This isn't a new concept, as Sandra Bullock went on record trashing/apologizing for Speed 2: Cruise Control a few years after its 1997 release. And this is different from the rare case where a filmmaker or star bashes his or her own project prior to release (as Bill Cosby famously did with Leonard Part 6 in 1986). This new form of 'trash the prior entry to pump up the next entry' has become almost a given over the last few years. And this summer will surely see such retroactive criticism of all three of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films (even the critically-lauded second entry, although I prefer the initial installment), as well as Stephen Summers's G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra from many of the same people who swore that the films were both fantastic and well-worth your money at the time of their respective releases. And one must only wait until the junket tours for next month's Wrath of the Titans to hear star Sam Worthington and producers waxing poetically about how they knew full-well that Clash of the Titans was a narrative disaster and how they got it (and the infamously lousy post-conversion 3D) right this time.
I'm not saying that Clash of the Titans wasn't pretty lousy, or that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen wasn't abominable, but there is something deeply cynical about a studio basically admitting that they sold you an inferior bill of goods the last time around, but *this time* they are making a winner. It insults those who paid to see those films in a theater and further insults those who actually like the prior entries in question. I have long defended the relative artistic merits of all three Gore Verbinski Pirates of the Caribbean films. How nice of Disney to basically tell me that I'm wrong to do so while selling what turns out to be a painfully inferior cash-in.
Worse yet, most of these post-mortum mea culpas offer no real details into what allegedly went wrong, merely offering generic 'the script needed work' or 'we didn't mean to make a sequel' proclamations that shed no real light into the nitty-gritty of making a bad film that was intended to be a good one. Does anyone think we'll get an honest account of the infamous behind-the-scenes turmoil that went on during Iron Man 2 or X-Men Origins: Wolverine when summer 2013 sees the release of Iron Man 3 and The Wolverine? Nope, but the producers and cast will be sure to apologize and swear that "this time it'll be different!'.
I personally find it downright refreshing that John Lassetter is unwilling to throw his latest film, obviously one that was a personal project for him, under the bus merely to be seen as in agreement with the critical status quo. Just as I find it refreshing watching George Lucas defending the various changes he has made to the original Star Wars trilogy and the quality of the prequel trilogies, even when I don't agree with every defense he offers (I never found Han Solo to be immoral for shooting first), I am happy to see Pixar standing up for the product they made. John Lasseter made the Cars 2 that he wanted to make. That I didn't care much for the end product doesn't mean he is obligated to dislike it as well. He still champions the movie, and I have to give him credit for bucking the trend.
Scott Mendelson