Weekend Box Office (09-30-12): Hotel Transylvania scores record September debut while Looper opens strong and Pitch Perfect explodes in semi-limited debut.

As always, for historical trivia and additional context on the week's new release, John Gosling spells it out HERE.

While the whole 'measure the cumulative weekend box office' trend is usually stupid if not dangerous, I must admit that this is indeed an 'everybody wins' weekend.  Sony had the top two films, with one setting a record and the other merely opening in line with realistic expectations.  Hotel Transylvania scored a whopping $43 million this weekend, which at the very least crushes the previous September record, the $36 million debut of Sweet Home Alabama back in 2002.  The Genndy Tartakovsky (Dexter’s Laboratory, Samurai Jack, those snazzy Star Wars: The Clone Wars shorts)-helmed pic had a rather large 3,8x weekend multiplier, going from an $11 million Friday to a $19 million Saturday.  In other words, it performed how a non-frontloaded non-sequel animated film is supposed to perform.  Among animated films that aren't sequels/spin-offs and weren't release by either Dreamworks or Disney/Pixar, this opening actually ranks rather high.  If you count the two Dr. Seuess adaptations (The Lorax with $70 million and Horton Hears a Who with $45 million), Hotel Transylvania is the fifth-biggest non-sequel/spin-off animated opening not released by the two animation titans.  If you only count wholly original properties, then it trails only Despicable Me ($56 million) and the first Ice Age ($46 million) and comes in just ahead of Warner Bros' Happy Feet ($41 million). 

If you count it as an Adam Sandler vehicle (and it was arguably sold as one), then this is Sandler's second-largest debut, behind The Longest Yard ($47 million) and just ahead of the $42.2 million opening of Anger Management.  Among those older than 12, the picture played 60% female and 30% under 25. 76% came from families and among the under 12 set it played 52% female and 75% under 10 years old.  The film cost Sony between $85 and $100 million, still almost a bargain as far as mainstream animation goes.  It opened higher than every 2011 animated film save for Cars 2 and Kung Fu Panda 2 and but 2012 has done a better job of spreading out their animated fare (we of course remember the great glut of Spring 2011).  The last time Sony hit the animation jackpot was around this time 2009, when Cloudy With the Chance of Meatballs opened with $30 million and went on to earn $124 million domestic and $243 million worldwide.  Not even counting the larger presence of 3D auditoriums worldwide three years later, a similar path would give the new film $177 million domestic and $349 million worldwide.  Point being, this is a big win for all involved, even if Frankenweenie steals its thunder next weekend.

Also coming from Sony (courtesy of Tri Star) was Looper (review), which earned $21.2 million.  The well-reviewed picture had a strong 3.0x weekend multiplier.  The Bruce Willis/Joseph Gordon-Levitt/Emily Blunt time travel thriller played 59% male and 70% over-25.  The number is right in Bruce Willis's normal wheelhouse while it's easily the biggest debut for Gordon Levitt that doesn't involve Chris Nolan and/or a blink-and-you miss it appearance as a mostly masked Cobra Commander.  The $60 million picture was a rare example of geek/online interest actually translating to general audiences, as geek-friendly bombs like Dredd (-64% this weekend for a $2.8 million weekend and $10 million cume) and Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World are more common.  It earned a general B from Cinemascore and a B+ from males.  The big question now is whether or not the film will have legs.  Normally I'd say yes, with a multiplier of at least 3x the weekend, but there is a lot of adult genre fare over the next couple months, starting next weekend with Taken 2 and following up with Argo, Seven Psychopaths, Cloud Atlas, and Alex Cross further down the month.  Still, this is a good weekend for Sony, even as Resident Evil: Retribution continues to fall fast here, taking in $3 million and ending weekend three with $38 million.  Fortunately it's going gangbusters overseas, which was kind of the point.

The surprise success story of the weekend was Universal's platform release for the Anna Kendrick/Rebel Wilson comedy Pitch Perfect.  Sold as 'Bring It On meets Glee', Universal opened this surprisingly well-reviewed picture (I passed on numerous press screenings because I listed to the one fellow critic who didn't like it... whoops) on 335 screens, a real risk in this frontloaded era.  But a deluge of preview screenings and strong buzz powered this one to a stunning $5.2 million gross and a $15,000 per-screen average.  The $17 million film played 76% female and earned an A+ from women under 25.  The picture goes wide next weekend and expect it to succeed in ways that sadly Whip It could not.  Frankly, I can't recall a film making that much on that few screens since Paranormal Activity earned $7 million on 200 screens just over three years ago.  Come what may, the film's performance is yet another promising sign, along with the blockbuster success of Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol, towards the eventual end of the 'opening weekend is everything' mentality.  Fairing less well in wide release was Won't Back Down.  Sold as an inspirational 'let's fix our public schools' melodrama, word got out that it was actually right-wing propaganda that blamed teachers unions for everything and tried to sell charter schools as the answer.  I'm not sure whether a Viola Davis/Maggie Gyleenthal social issues drama would have been a blockbuster without the controversy, but it probably didn't help.  Anyway, the film earned $2.7 million so it's pretty much finished before it can begin.  

Not much holdover news, but Perks of Being a Wallflower successfully expanded this weekend, earning $1.1 million on 102 screens.  It earned $11,000 per-screen and an A from Cinemascore.  It played 70% female and 56% over 25.  The Summit release continues to earn solid buzz and goes wide next weekend.  The Bourne Legacy won't break $120 million here, but it has earned $224 million worldwide, surpassing the $214 million gross of The Bourne Identity.  Arbitrage is sticking around, having passed $5 million this weekend.  Still, a wide release for this purely commercial film would have easily netted a $10 million debut just a few years ago.  The three major wide releases from last weekend all had 35%-42% drops, with Trouble With the Curve, End of Watch, and House at the End of the Street have now grossed (respectively) $23 million, $26 million, and $22 million.  The Master is proving to be a for-arthouse fans/film geeks only affair, with $10 million after seventeen days.  Still, it got made and went wide, which is the real victory.  Finally, Robot & Frank topped $3 million this weekend.  I'm telling you this because you really should see Robot & Frank. 

Join us next weekend when Liam Neeson saves his family yet again in Taken 2 while Tim Burton remakes his own stop-motion short film from 30 years ago with Frankenweenie.

Scott Mendelson

Marc Webb will helm Spectacular Spider-Man after all! Thoughts and speculation on his somewhat surprising return.

It's a telling sign of behind-the-scenes tumult when it's actually surprising to hear that the director of a franchise-kick off is indeed returning to helm the sequel.  But after a summer filled with innuendo and rumors, followed by a final product that was clearly cut to ribbons at the last minute, and I am not a little surprised to see Marc Webb signing up for another go at Spider-Man 2.0.  But The Hollywood Reporter uh, reports that Webb will indeed helm The Spectacular Spider-Man, set for release on May 4th, 2014.  Andrew Garfield is back too, which is obviously less of a surprise, but at this point Emma Stone is still negotiating.  Expect Stone to get a massive raise, perhaps higher than Garfield, as her massive charisma and general attractiveness caused audiences and critics worldwide to convince themselves that the paper-thin romantic subplot was some kind of classic genre romance.  Webb is angling for a raise above the $1 million he got last time.  Purely speculating, but I imagine Sony offered him enough money to stick around under what will likely be rigorous studio control so they could save face for at least one more installment.  Losing the director after two installments is par for the course (Batman Forever, Iron Man 3, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, X-Men: The Last Stand, Shrek the Third, Chronicle of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, etc.) but losing the director after one film generally causes raised eyebrows.  In this case it would be an admission of error.

As you all know, Sony was allegedly not happy with the film Webb delivered and they went ahead and hired two uber-blockbuster screenwriters (Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman of Transformers and Star Trek fame) before the first film even came out.  And as we all know, huge chunks of what was seemingly the core narrative of the film (Peter Parker's "untold story" involving Doc Connor's connection to Peter's dead/missing parents) ended up proudly displayed in the marketing but removed from the theatrical cut.  What was left was a watered-down, generic remake of Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man.  The brand name was strong enough to overcome deja vu, if just barely.  The film made $260 million in America, well-below the $337 million gross of Spider-Man 3, and $755 million worldwide, just below the $784 million global haul of Spider-Man 2.  No small potatoes, but a franchise low on both ends for a film that A) cost $100 million more than Spider-Man, about the same as Spider-Man 2, and just $30 million less than Spider-Man 3 and B) had the ticket-price bump which comes with 3D, meaning it sold far less tickets than any prior Spidey flick.  Less money and far less anticipation to see what comes next means Sony and Webb have their work cut out for them this time around.  The Spectacular Spider-Man (I'd be shocked if they don't call it that) seems like a prime candidate for the "Tomb Raider trap".  

That doesn't mean all hope is lost.  If the sequel can manage to somehow be better than the first and Sony has the patience to build towards a Sinister Six film down the line (*and* not race to throw Gwen Stacey off a bridge as quickly as they can), then this could all be worth it. But that has to be a long term goal and the series has to survive long enough to make it happen.  Finding a way for Andrew Garfield to cameo in The Avengers 2 would be a good start and I sincerely think it's worth Sony spending whatever money they have to in order to make that happen.  Anyway, for now Webb is back on board.  All I can say is that all involved parties should actually read Brian Michael Bendis's Ultimate Spider-Man books this time while also seriously studying the two-season Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon from which they borrowed the whole 'Gwen Stacey is a lab tech for Doc Connors' bit (which made sense on the show since it was a small family-run lab).  Those two Spidey adaptations basically succeeded in everything Webb and co tried and failed to do with The Amazing Spider-Man.  But yeah, Webb is back in the director's chair and best of luck to him.  What are your thoughts about the second Spider-Man 2.0?  What lessons can they learn from the first film?

Scott Mendelson

Brandon Peters dissects the 007 series part 15: The Living Daylights

With Skyfall dropping in theaters in just a couple months, along with the 50th anniversary of the James Bond series, a close friend and fellow film nerd, Brandon Peters, has generously offered to do a comprehensive review of the entire 007 film franchise. Today is the fifteenth entry, with a full review of  Timothy Dalton's criminally underrated debut, and my introduction to the James Bond series, The Living Daylights. I hope you enjoy what is a pretty massive feature leading up the November 9th release of Skyfall. I'll do my best to leave my two-cents out of it, give or take a few items I have up my sleeve (including a possible guest review from my wife as she sings the praises of her favorite 007 film, you won't believe what it is). But just because I'm stepping aside doesn't mean you should. Without further ado...

The Living Daylights

1987

Director: John Glen

Starring: Timothy Dalton, John Rhys Davies, Maryam d’Abo, Joe Don Baker

Rated PG

Something we’re making for the Americans.  It’s called a ‘Ghetto Blaster’!

                        ~Q

STATS

Kills: 3 + unknown amount in a bridge explosion

Bond Girls:  Kara Milovy

Car:  Aston Martin V8 Vantage (Series 2)

Locales:  Czechoslovakia, Austria, Vienna, Tangier, Afghanistan

Odd Villain Trait:  We get the Red Grant archetype in Necros, but this guy wears headphones which he strangles people

Song:  “The Living Daylights” performed by A-ha (Yes, they did have another song)

Other Notable Song: “If There Was A Man” performed by Chrissie Hyde (of The Pretenders)

James Bond reloads and fires on all cylinders for the debut of Timothy Dalton as 007 in The Living Daylights (TLD).  John Glen gets a chance to introduce a new 007 to the film going audience and does it with much success.  TLD finally is able to bring back and emulate the sense of mystery, adventure and espionage found in From Russia With Love that the franchise had tried and failed many times.  Soveit General Georgi Koskov fakes his defection and recapture to the British Government.  Koskov has in reality, teamed with arms dealer Brad Whitaker.  Koskov is also purchasing opium from Afghanistan renegades and hoping to profit and make money back to purchase arms as well.  Bond is led onto the case by the would-be assassin of Koskov, Kara Milovy, a successful cello player.

Whether you believe Moore retired or was let go isn’t important.  His time was up, as was obvious from his previous 2 outings.  The search was on for a new Bond.  You’ll see names popping up all over the place like Mel Gibson or Christopher Lambert being up for the role.  They may have been discussed in preproduction, but none were ever a serious contender.  Three men were up for 007 this time around.  Sam Neil (Hollywood’s worst travel agent) was a favorite of everyone involved except top dog Albert Broccoli.  Star of the unofficially cancelled television show Remington Steele, Pierce Bronsan was given the under the table offer from Broccoli to play James Bond in TLD.  Word got out that Brosnan (whom many though during the series run would make an excellent James Bond) was to get the role and Remington Steele’s ratings saw a big uptick.  Brosnan’s contract for the show had a 60 day period in which he was obligated to return to the set if the network changed its mind on the cancellation.  On the final day of the contract, NBC optioned it and renewed Remington Steele for another season.  Broccoli rescinded his offer to Brosnan, citing he did not want his James Bond to be simultaneously the face of a television franchise as well.  When it was announced that Brosnan would not be 007, the ratings dropped for Remington Steele, the 5^thseason lasted five episodes before it was canceled, and also my mother was upset.

Enter Timothy Dalton.  Dalton was originally offered the role of James Bond for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.  Dalton turned down the role, saying he was far too young to play it at the time.  When it was assumed that Roger Moore would not return in For Your Eyes Only, Dalton was once again brought in as a possible replacement.  There was a bit of back and forth between Dalton and Broccoli before it was all set.  Timothy Dalton was put in to play with a script that was originally intended for Roger Moore.  Unlike Moore in his first films, Timothy Dalton is able to overcome this obstacle and make it his own.  Dalton brings a true sense of grit and realism to his role as James Bond.  You get the true sense that this guy has sacrificed his life to the service.  Its not painted as a glamorous world for him.  He’s quite gruff, a little cold, but this actually how James Bond was on the pages of Ian Fleming’s novels.  Dalton also did as much of the stunt work as he was allowed to as well, making for some more realistic action than we had been treated to in a long time.  To make things more brief, everything thing Daniel Craig is praised for in his portrayal, Timothy Dalton was criticized for.

And unlike his predecessor, Timothy Dalton’s 007 is given an introduction scene in the form of the opening teaser.  It clearly is structured to slowly reveal James Bond.  It begins with an aerial drop and then a truck chase with Bond parachuting out the back window.  It’s a sharp and dazzling intro the new James Bond.  Definitely an action packed, kick ass intro since nobody is going to pull of Connery sitting at the card table.  While the film is rather weak in the villain department, it covers it in many other places.  The action scenes are quite fun, including skiing (FIVE!) down a hill in a cello case.  Bond also gets the coolest car since Goldfinger to play around with.  The film features a lot of practical and real stunt-work that ramps up the intensity of the action and gives some real stakes.

Another strength in the film is that there is only one Bond girl to focus on.  And they really nail it.  Aside from On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, no romance has been this believable.  The actors have some chemistry but the script services well.  There are many scenes where you can just feel them falling for each other and building to them sleeping together.  Not just happening, this love is actually earned for once.  How is the Bond girl?  She’s pretty good, serviceable and works in relation to the plot.  My only qualm is how much involvement she has in the final action sequence, but the movie has been so good at this point, its not a bother. A few things show the sign of the times in the film, like the score having an 80s pop twist.  A big one is something you won’t see in a film today (or who knows how long).  Bond befriends and becomes allies with a group of Afghanistan mercenaries to battle the Soviets.  It didn’t bother me, but a more sensitive view may not understand or like it.  If you’re one of those people, avoid Rambo IIIlike the plague.

This film marks the final appearance of General Gogol.  I’ve not mentioned him since Spy Who Loved Me, but he’s been in every film since.  His presence has been there for jokes and villainy in each film.  But he’s as notable a presence as a Blofeld, even if he’s nowhere near a bad guy or threatening.  The character of Pushkin was originally Gogol, but due to the actor’s health complications, he was made into a cameo at the end of the film.  The Living Daylights provides one of the very best James Bond adventures featuring the extremely underrated Timothy Dalton in the role.  

Maybe I’m biased, because as Scott and I recently discussed, he was my Bond growing up.  I remember my mom saying that “he’s just doing this one, and they’ll have Pierce Brosnan in the next one”.  I wonder if any other people were thinking that as well.  Maybe that’s how Dalton had a bad rap for so many years, because people were blinded by their desire to see Pierce in the role and they weren’t getting it?  Too bad, Dalton was great and this debut blasts off.  This was the first film released from what I can recall from memory and it holds up quite well.  It’s a terrific adventure and does the series proud.  I highly recommend this film if you’ve been avoiding it, never seen it or haven’t watched it in a while.

Brandon Peters will return in License to Kill (cuz I got my sights on you)

Follow me on Twitter – www.twitter.com/@btpeters 

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos

John Gosling previews the weekend's new films (09-28-12)

Looper is a new science-fiction feature from Brick director, Rian Johnson and stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis and Emily Blunt. Levitt plays Joseph Simmons, a 'looper' who works for the mob. A very well paid assassin, it's his job to kill people sent back from the future, where time travel has been perfected, but outlawed. 'Loopers' only operate on one rule - never let your target escape. Major problems arise when Simmons comes face to face with his next hit and discovers it is a future version of himself (Played by Willis). In the confusion, the older version escapes, leaving a young Simmons in a race against time to put things right before the mob step in - all the while knowing that if he succeeds, he will become his own murderer.  Johnson began developing Looper once production on his previous film, The Brothers Bloom was completed in 2008, with a view to start work some time in 2009. While things didn't come together as quickly as anticipated, by May 2010 he had script and had cast Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the lead role, the two having previously worked together on 2005's Brick. Willis would join the picture later that same month, with Blunt added to the cast in October. Shooting on the $60M Looper got underway in January 2011 (after a short delay while Levitt worked on Premium Rush) taking in Louisiana and Shanghai among its locations.

 The central idea of time travel can be a difficult concept to pull off successfully - more so if one wants to avoid the usual pitfalls and paradoxes associated with it. Initially it looked as if the director had gotten support on this aspect from Shane Carruth, who handled multiple time-lines in his debut movie, Primer, but this was later played down. In fact, during a recent Q&A for the film, Johnson mentioned Carruth had offered advice on the script (which they ultimately had to disregard) and helped them shoot a sequence that ended up not making it into the picture. The first trailer for the film debuted in April 2012, alongside the now de-rigueur viral campaign. This was followed up with further footage, trailers and featurettes.  Film District and Tri-Star set Looper for release in September 2012, but in an interesting move, DMG Entertainment, who are responsible for the picture's release in China, requested a longer cut, reinstating some sequences Johnson had shot in Shanghai but removed due to pacing issues. Early word on the picture has been incredibly strong, with very favourable comparisons to Children of Men, 12 Monkeys and Moon. The only question now is whether a well-made, intelligent movie will translate into box office success.

Our second release this weekend is the family film, Hotel Transylvania, and marks the feature directorial debut for Dexter's Laboratory/Samurai Jack creator Genndy Tartakovsky. Even monsters need a holiday, is the concept behind the film. Count Dracula has run the titular five star hotel for many a year, and decides to invite some of its most famous guests (Frankenstein's monster, a Werewolf husband and wife, Quasimodo and many others) back for his daughter, Mavis' 118th birthday. The Count is proud of the fact that the resort has been human-free since 1898 but has to think fast when Jonathan, a young traveller stumbles into the place. Can Dracula keep Jonathan from discovering the secrets of Hotel Transylvania and protect Mavis from falling in love with this perfectly regular human? Adam Sandler provides the voice of Count Dracula, while his 'That's My Boy' co-star, Adam Samberg plays Jonathan. Both are ably supported by Kevin James, Steve Buscemi, Molly Shannon and singer Cee Lo Green, as an obese Egyptian mummy. Miley Cyrus was originally announced as the voice of Mavis back in November 2011, but left the film to focus on other projects, to be replaced by Selena Gomez.

The project has been a long time coming, having been announced back in 2006, with  David Feiss and Anthony Stacchi attached to direct. However, by 2008, they'd been replaced by Jill Culton, director of Open Season. She in turn left in 2010, with effects animator (and lately producer) Chris Jenkins stepping in to helm, with Todd Wilderman acting as co-director (or sole director, depending on which report you read). Tartakovsky was announced as the new director in February 2011 and set to work re-writing and re-imagining the film. Having worked fruitlessly on the project for a number of years, the crew of Hotel Transylvania took some winning over, but were eventually sold on the Russian-American animator's vision, and things finally began to move forward. Directorial and cast changes weren't the only alteration the film has seen - in the original version of the script, the hotel was actually a safe haven for the classic monsters who found themselves irrelevant in a 21st century world, and a long lost relative of Van Helsing is the one who ends up falling for Mavis. With such a long pre-production period, Hotel Transylvania has seen its budget continue to rise, and while Sony insist costs currently run to $100M, they may in actual fact be much higher (Tangled's long gestating production period saw its budget pushed beyond $250M). While the film will have the family market pretty much to itself this weekend (ParaNorman is all but done at this point), it's only got seven days before facing Tim Burton's Frankenweenie. It would seem Hotel Transylvania's toughest fight may yet be to come.

Our final wide release this weekend is the true-life drama, Won't Back Down, which stars Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis. The story follows Jamie (Gyllenhaal) and Nona (Davis) as they attempt to transform a local school which they feel is failing their children. The film is partly inspired by/based around the introduction of the 2010 Parent Trigger Law, which allows a parent to enforce changes in a public school if petitioned. Should the petition be successful, parents can push for staff dismissal, or even a conversion to a charter school (which would see it receive public money). Won't Back Down began life as Still I Rise, before getting a title change to Learning to Fly, then Steel Town and finally, the title it now carries. The film was written by Brim Hill and Daniel Barnz, who also directs, this being his follow up to 2011's Beastly, a Beauty and the Beast re-imagining. Along with the aforementioned stars, Won't Back Down also features Ving Rhames and Holly Hunter, who returns to film after a seven year hiatus. Of the three wide releases this weekend, this one is out to the least number of locations, but that doesn't necessarily discount it from making a splash. The Help, for which Davis won an Oscar, opened to 2,534 locations last August and made a stunning $26M during its first weekend. While Won't Back Down isn't expected to see such a strong start, with a solid critical backing, it should make enough to get noticed, especially given its subject matter is still a hotly debated topic.

Out to just over 330 locations this weekend is the musical comedy Pitch Perfect, starring Anna Kendrick, Brittany Snow and Rebel Wilson. Kendrick plays Beca, a freshman who is talked into joining the university's A Cappella group, The Bellas. Despite initially resenting the idea, she's soon working to convince the group that they need to update their songs if they're going to take on and beat a rival male group in an upcoming competition. Part Glee and Bring It On, Pitch Perfect marks the directorial debut for Jason Moore, a Broadway director who won acclaim for his work on Avenue Q, along with working on Shrek The Musical and a Steel Magnolias revival. The film actually started life as a book by former GQ editor, Mickey Rapkin, and was adapted for the screen by Kay Cannon. In terms of the cast, Kendrick can also be seen in current no.1 movie,End of Watch, while Wilson featured in the recent limited release, Bachelorette, opposite Kristen Dunst. While limited this weekend, Pitch Perfect rolls out nationwide next Friday.

Finally, two curios this weekend, the first of which is Solomon Kane. Based on the character created by Robert E. Howard (famed for Conan The Barbarian), the film stars James Purefoy as the title character, a late 16th century privateer seeking salvation after being damned by the 'Devil's Reaper'. The long-delayed action feature received its world premiere at the 2009 Toronto Film Festival, opening in France and the United Kingdom in December 2009 and February 2010 respectively. Why, after so long the film is making its U.S debut, is something of a puzzle, seemingly even to Kane's director Michael J. Bassett, though a contractual cinematic release clause sounds a possibility. Solomon Kane debuts at around 15 theatres this weekend.

The Hole, directed by Gremlins' Joe Dante also receives a very limited theatrical release this weekend. The fantasy horror follows three children (two brothers and their female neighbour) who discover a locked hatch in the boy's basement. Locating the keys and opening the door, they quickly discover 'The Hole' has the power to unleash their worst fears. Like Solomon Kane, it actually had its premiere at the 2009 Toronto Film Festival and saw release around the world in 2010. Hopes were high for the 3D picture, and it has reviewed incredibly well throughout the globe, but it's taken three years for the film to receive any kind of release in North America, despite making appearances at the AFI Festival in September 2009 and again at the New York Film Festival a year later.  It will be out on DVD next Tuesday.

John Gosling

Who should die in the Dora The Explorer movie? We need *your help* to decide who should be killed off!

As was announced last month, Paramount will be stocking up its post-Dreamworks animation slate with a number of Nickelodeon properties, among them being the long-awaited first feature film for Dora the Explorer.  It figures that we'd finally get a big-screen Dora adventure just as my daughter is about to outgrow said franchise, but them's the breaks.  Anyway, Dora the Explorer is still among the more entertaining shows aimed at the preschool set and few can deny that it revolutionized the kids-show format with its interactive 'let's go on an adventure' template.  And now, about twelve years after its premiere, we're finally getting a movie.  So the question immediately becomes: who's gonna die?  It's a movie and said big-screen adventure has to do something to matter in the broad continuity, otherwise it just becomes a 4-5 part episode projected in DLP 3D.  And we all know that the easiest way to achieve narrative 'relevance' in a longstanding property is to kill off a major character.  So, as we await the big-screen spectacular that is Dora the Explorer 3D, let us discuss just which longstanding character is the most likely to perish at either the second act climax or the very finale of the picture.

Aside from the title character herself, the two least likely to bite the dust are Backpack and the Fiesta Trio.  No matter what kind of scientific advances we make, Dora still needs something to carry her stuff in.  So unless Dora trades up her backpack for a Rescue Pack, good-old backpack is probably safe.  The Fiesta Trio are likely safe as well, for the simple reason that they have to appear in every episode.  If they don't make it, perhaps sacrificing themselves in a Lone Gunman-esque 'we all die together' moment, then we will be bitterly reminded of their passing at the conclusion of each and every Dora adventure, giving her episodic victory and the resultant 'We Did It' dance a bittersweet pang of regret.  Actually, speaking of Dora's 'stuff', advances in geographic technology makes Map a pretty likely candidate for extinction.  After all, what kid uses a map to get around when they have access to GPS?  Who do you ask when you don't know the way to go?  You sure don't ask a map anymore, do you?  Of course how the movie could finagle inserting Map into the narrative in such a way to place him in mortal peril is a question I'll leave to the screenwriters.

We can assume, for the sake of preventing childhood trauma, that Dora's immediate family is probably safe too, although I wouldn't write off a 'passing of the mantle' as Dora's mother (an archaeologist) is unable to solve a puzzle that only her would-be protege can crack ("We've been on many adventures Dora, but to the great beyond, I go first!").  But no, I don't think the film is going to whack either of Dora's twin siblings, even if once they spent an entire episode in a runaway stroller racing towards a fiery volcano.  That brings us to the three supporting characters that are the most likely contenders for extinction primarily because nobody gives a crap about them.  But on the other hand, would anyone be buzzing if Isa the Iguana, Tico the Squirrel, and/or Benny the Bull went down in proverbial flames during the action finale?  Their best defense may be their general irrelevance, as dispatching any of them would be akin to an Expendables sequel that whacked the young upstart who just joined the team with whom we had no emotional connection.

There's no plausible way for The Grumpy Old Troll to partake in the adventure in such a way that puts him in the line of fire, so let's move on to the big leagues.  That brings us to the heavy hitters, the major characters whose demise would have a massive impact on the Dora the Explorer universe.  Of the big ones, Diego is pretty much immortal for as long as Paramount/Nickelodeon still sees money to be made with Go, Diego, Go! merchandise. Putting him in climactic peril would be like The Avengers trying to convince us that Iron Man was going to flame out in the finale.  Speaking of Joss Whedon, if you're playing the 'who hurts the most' game, Boots would arguably top the list.  No, Boots probably isn't anyone's favorite character, but he's someone who everybody on the show wholeheartedly loves, we've met his family, and he's been with the series since the first moments of the pilot.  But despite that, there is one clear winner in this sweepstakes, and it's sadly Swiper the Fox.

Swiper the Fox is probably the most recognizable character outside of Dora herself, and he's a party to no small amount of romantic fan-fiction in various online circles.  He is technically the villain, but he is also the show's shining optimism, as the series has never relented on the idea that Swiper could be redeemed and cured of his obsessive-compulsive need to swipe stuff.  A noble sacrifice, preceded by an admission of love from Dora herself, would be the perfect caper to the Dora the Explorer universe up to that point.  In the end, Swiper, a tragic example of uncontrollable selfishness ever yearning to be generous, would make the ultimate act of selflessness for the sake of the people/animals who never ever gave up on him.  Take a minute to wipe those tears from the keyboard and then kindly move on to the next paragraph.

So that settles it.  If Nick Jr. and Paramount want to craft a Dora the Explorer movie that actually matters in the great narrative arc of the pint-sized explorer and her various animal friends, Swiper must pay the ultimate price.  Well, at least until we get Dora the Explorer 2: the Search for Swiper.  Okay, your turn.  Who do *you* think should be killed off in a Dora the Explorer movie?  Did I miss any major characters above and if so, what makes them ripe for the forbidden temple in the sky?  Let me know what you think about this pressing topic.  After all, I need *your* help!

Scott Mendelson

Review: Looper (2012) is thoughtful and intelligent sci-fi.

Looper

2012
119 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Rian Johnson's Looper is less an out-and-out original work as a hodgepodge made up from bits and pieces from other iconic science fiction stories stirred into a relatively tasty stew.  It has an admirable courage, both in content and structure.  It is unafraid to go to some very dark places and it establishes a perfectly clever initial premise but uses it merely as a springboard for a whole different kind of tale.  Its first half is relentlessly entertaining, clever, and unpredictable.  But once Johnson settles into his story of choice, the film becomes somewhat of a waiting game while we merely attempt to guess if Johnson has any more tricks up his sleeve and what they might be if he does.  But make no mistake, Looper is a strongly conceived and character-driven character drama wrapped up in a science-fiction thriller.  It is well-acted and expertly constructed, and I appreciated its eventual intentions.


I went into the picture knowing only as much as the first trailer revealed, so I will do you the same courtesy.  30 years in the future, time travel will be invented but immediately outlawed.  Still, the practice is used by various crime syndicates as a way of disposing of unwanted individuals.  Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is what's called a 'looper', a man from the present whose job it is to kill people sent from the future.  In a ravaged economy where opportunity is scarce, the financial rewards of being such a hit man allows him and his ilk to live a life of modest luxury.  But what happens when Joe's latest victim turns out to be himself, the Joe of the future (Bruce Willis)?  That's all the plot you need so that's all you get.  Just know that the film is arguably something very different from a conventional time travel thriller.  The film you think you're getting is quite different than the one you end up with, and its first half takes joy in subverting your expectations before settling into its groove.  Johnson is intentionally vague on the logic behind his scenario, and there is an amusing moment where Bruce Willis basically tells the audience to stop worrying about the logistics of time travel.  The first third of the film vividly sets up time and place, establishing a depression-era city where the homeless and desperately poor seemingly outnumber the remotely-well-to-do.

The picture implies that said misery may only exist in this city, but we are never given proof of that nor are we ever told how the city in question went to pot.  But the overwhelming misery on display ends up serving as a giant metaphor for the overall character arc of several major players.  To Johnson's credit, Looper keeps its action to a bare minimum, favoring character development punctuated by bursts of occasionally shocking violence (there is a moment around the halfway mark that may lose a number of general audience members).  Billing issues aside, this is truly Gordon-Levitt's showcase, and he is frankly superb.  The film focuses on just a few characters, and all I will say about third-billed Emily Blunt (who shows up towards the end of the first hour) is that this is relatively new territory for her and I'm happy to report that she has more to do than be the potential love interest.  I will acknowledge that Noah Segan, as an eager-to-please fellow looper on the chase, seems to have a missing subplot.  Lastly, Pierce Gagnon, as Blunt's young son, delivers one of the more interesting child performances I have seen in quite some time.

Where the film goes I will not say, but it deserves credit for actually crafting a tale of substance and weight.  While it plays emotionally close to the vest, Looper eventually becomes a tale of selfishness versus selflessness, nature vs. nurture, even if the moral playground isn't as clear as that might suggest.  It is less a head-spinning science-fiction thrill-ride than a somber and meditative quasi-tragedy.  It is about those with little attempting to live a life of worth and those with no incentive to be decent accidentally stumbling upon (or actively running away from) the chance to be decent. In the end, the time travel mechanics almost qualify as a red herring, as it's clearly the means to an end in terms of telling the specific story that Rian Johnson wants to tell.  The biggest surprise in Looper is not in the form of any eye-popping plot twist or revelation, but merely the fact that it makes an effort to be a real film.  Whether it is better than the various films it somewhat borrows from is beside the point.  It takes bits and pieces of the old and successfully stirs them into something that indeed qualifies as new.  As a piece of brainy and thoughtful popcorn entertainment that aims to deliver substance over style, Looper is an unqualified success.

Grade: B+                    

Strictly for kids: In defense of the idea behind The Oogieloves.

The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure is officially past tense.  After one of the worst wide-release theatrical performances in modern history, the picture is gone from every one of its 2,100 screens with just $1 million to its name.  Its fate is now that of "ironic" screenings in college dorm rooms and the phrase "pulling an Oogielove" entering our pop culture vernacular.  I have not seen the picture and can't say if I ever will.  But I cannot and will not mock the film because it represents something that has pretty much disappeared from multiplexes over the last ten years.  Scott Stabile wrote a passionate defense of the movie he wrote last week, which you can read here.  I don't agree with every word, but he's tapped into what The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure tried to be, something that I'd argue is indeed worthwhile: the truly 'for kids' movie.  It wasn't trying to appeal to all audiences, it wasn't trying to secretly be hip enough for grown-ups or 'cool' enough for older kids.  It was merely a movie for young kids, perhaps painfully so.  There is something to be said for a film that was arguably trying to be a kid's first movie.

In the last eleven years or so, the idea of the kid-friendly movie has pretty much disappeared from theaters.  We've had 'all ages' four-quadrant blockbusters that have deigned to serve all theoretical moviegoers in one broad swoop. We look at somewhat violent and/or dark PG-13 fantasies like Iron Man, Twilight, and Transformers as family entertainment purely because we can get away with taking the younger kids along with their older siblings.  To be fair, seeing theoretically age-inappropriate entertainment is arguably a part of growing up.  I still remember, twenty-one years ago, my brother letting me watch Total Recall on Showtime when my parents were out for the evening, thrilled to be watching it but sure that every stray noise was them coming home early enough to catch me (sorry for tattling Brad, but I think the statute of limitations expired a long time ago).  But what was once taboo or seemingly forbidden (films aimed at kids with somewhat 'adult' content) is now mainstream, with the other side of the equation, true 'for kids' live-action films, being forced out of the market.

But lost in the global blockbuster race was the actual 'for kids' category.  The PG rating is all-but extinct in live-action filmmaking and even the G-rating is somewhat rare now for animated films.  Now, eleven years after Shrek, it's almost unheard of for a mainstream feature cartoon to get a G rating (it was a big deal last year when Fox slightly reedited Rio to get a G rating).  Part of this is the MPAA, which seemingly slaps a PG rating on kids' flicks for any remotely thematic elements (why was The Muppets PG again?).  But the studios certainly don't fight it, knowing that a PG rating won't hurt the box office one bit.  With animated features, however excellent they may be (and many of them are) conceived Moreover as four-quadrant mega-blockbusters that squeeze by with a PG-13 are now considered officially 'kid safe', there are few if any actual live-action family films being produced in this current environment.  Content issues aside, the animated landscape is arguably better than ever, with a plethora of high quality animated features to choose from every year.  But the live-action family-film has pretty much vanished, replaced by a Hollywood that just tells young kids to see the same movies that their older siblings are seeing.

This is perhaps a complicated and even flawed argument.  I don't want to defend an apparent mediocrity like The Oogieloves in The Big Balloon Adventure purely because of what it doesn't contain. And it can be argued that the truly classic family films are indeed the ones that are a little dark, a little violent, or a little scary (think Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory or The Dark Crystal).  But one cannot deny that there is something very weird with (random example) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen being considered all-ages family entertainment and a go-to choice for family viewing on a hot summer day.  And without going into the film's quality, do any of the 'adult' elements (profanity, a rather leering borderline misogynistic sexuality, vulgar humor) make the film better?  Is the inclusion of that material, arguably to appeal to older audiences and make the film feel more 'hip' worth it to the many befuddled parents I've met over the years who complain about not being able to take their six year olds to a friggin Transformers movie because of the franchise's profane frat-boy mentality?  Moreover, as a result of this 'one for all and all for one' mentality, there really are next-to-no out-and-out live-action kids films in the marketplace today.  The likes of the painfully under-seen The Last Mimzy are all-but-extinct. So rare is the out-and-out kids film that I was flooded with inquiries back in April about Mirror Mirror regarding its appropriateness for the young fry (it certainly is, and my daughter liked it a lot more than I did). It would seem the old-school 'for kids' movie has become another victim of studios' 'all tentpole' strategy over the last several years.  Mid-budget adult films are making a comeback, but kids films are not.

It was neat in 1998 when Rush Hour slightly re-edited its profanity to allow what amounted to an R-rated buddy-cop action film to sneak by with a PG-13.  I'd argue that part of its success was the idea that it was offering forbidden fruit to younger audiences, something I'd say applies to certain old-school 'kids films' like The Goonies or The Monster Squad.  But what was an exception in 1998 is now the rule, with clearly R-rated-in spirit films (think Prom Night, Vantage Point, Taken, or The Bourne Legacy) being whittled down to a just-barely PG-13 with few actual 'for kids' films being made.  Now it's unusual when a science-fiction fantasy set inside a computer (Tron: Legacy) ends up with a PG.  How strange that in nine years we've gone from "wow, Disney put out their first PG-13 film under the Walt Disney banner!" (Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl) to "Wow, Disney's latest live-action genre entry, a science fiction adventure set inside a computer (Tron: Legacy)  is PG!".  Just last year we were stunned by the idea that Thor, a fantasy adventure featuring Norse gods and rainbow roads, might be 'kid-friendly' (and to its credit, it was absolutely PG in spirit even if it snagged the required PG-13 rating).  While most pundits complain about the lack of adult films, something that I'd argue the industry has started to remedy over the last two years, the other side of that equation is the disappearance of true kids films outside of the animated realm.

The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure may not be the solution, as its apparently quite bad and no one saw it.  But I'd argue that it's a step in the right direction.  It's a matter of serving all audiences in a varied marketplace with films for all theoretical demographics.  It's about making films for kids as opposed to making sure that the four-quadrant stuff isn't 'too much' for younger audiences.  It's about making more films like National Treasure right alongside films like Captain America.  I must admit that I like the idea of The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure, a genuinely G-rated 'appropriate for pretty much anyone' live-action film, and not one based on a prior property to boot.  There is a market for pure kids fare, as the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series, the Narnia franchise, and the recent series of kid-friendly concert documentaries have proven.  But films like those are seemingly few and far between, with nothing to truly fill the void between 'too young to go to the movies' and 'old enough to see The Avengers'.  I don't think The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure deserved to be a big hit, but I do think it represents something somewhat worth championing.  There is something to be said about live-action big-screen entertainment that is not only appropriate for young children but explicitly directed at them.  Now that we've got Hollywood back on track making adult films on a more regular basis, it's time for them to correct the problem at the other end of the scale.

Your turn.  What kids films do you remember loving while growing up?  What age-inappropriate films did you get to sample at a young age?  Is it enough that kids have a wealth of animated features to choose from, or is the live-action kids film a staple worth saving?  Discuss below.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (09-23-12): Four new releases cannibalize each other as The Master whiffs in wide release and Importance of Being A Wallflower explodes.

As always, for background and historical context for all the weekend's new movies, check out John Gosling's obscenely detailed weekend preview HERE.

It wasn't so much a 'something for everyone' weekend as it was 'multiple things for the same general audience' as four wide releases aimed at thrill-hungry moviegoers and/or adults debuted on the same day, creating a clear case of mutually assured destruction.  The top three movies are basically tied, but as always rank is irrelevant next to the actual hard numbers (why rank doesn't matter).  For the moment, the top debut of the weekend may be End of Watch, a 'found footage'-style LA cop drama, parlayed strong reviews into a solid $13 million opening, which is the second-biggest debut for Open Roads outside of The Grey ($20 million) back in January.  The $7 million film (purchased for $2 million) had a marketing and distribution cost of around $20 million, so even a $40 million final total will get this film in the black before home video.  It also proves that Jake Gyllenhaal  is a decent mid-range opener.  He's useful when the film you're selling doesn't cost $200 million ala Prince of Persia.  End of Watch is yet another installment in writer David Ayers's 'two volatile men in a car' sub-genre, which includes the likes of The Fast and the Furious, Training Day and Harsh Times (an underrated Christian Bale vehicle which he also directed).  He wrote but did not direct the the LA Riots-set cop melodrama Dark Blue while directing but not writing the frankly mediocre Keanu Reeves cop melodrama Street Kings.  Among films he directed, End of Watch should easily top the $26 million gross of Street Kings while it will be fifth (out of seven) if it can merely surpass the $9 million gross of Kurt Russell's Dark Blue. Fourth place is the $76 million-grossing Training Day, which is too far a bridge to cross at this point.

In a somewhat surprising turn, considering it felt like a dump, Open Road's The House at the End of the Street may also be the top film of the weekend, earning a halfway decent $13 million, which means the Jennifer Lawrence thriller (filmed a couple years ago and held back arguably until Lawrence's profile was high enough) has earned back its $10 million budget.  The film may be terrible (there was a single press screening right before opening day), but cheap horror is one of the more reliable standbys in the industry and no harm in Relativity for exploiting it (they purchased the film for just $2.5 million).  Considering the film looked like crap on rye, it does give ammunition to the idea that Jennifer Lawrence may soon be an 'open by yourself' movie star coming off The Hunger Games.  Her next film, the David O. Russell drama The Silver Linings Playbook will tell more (and possibly net her another Oscar nomination.  Still the opening could very well merely be the $10-$15 million that seems to attends PG-13 horror out of habit, although films like The Apparition proves that's not an automatic win.  Point being, the core audience for this kind of thing doesn't care about reviews or bad buzz, they just wanted to see the same thing these movies always offer: an attractive girl/young woman in seemingly supernatural peril from malevolent forces unrelieved in the trailers.  The film played 61% female and 70% under-25, meaning that this was pretty big with the stereotypical teen girl horror demo.

Clint Eastwood's Trouble With the Curve opened with $12.7 million, although it too may be the weekend's top film when finals are released.  As the first film has acted in since 2008's Gran Torino and the first Eastwood film that he did not direct since In the Line of Fire back in 1993, the baseball-centered father/daughter drama actually ranks up in the upper rankings of Clint Eastwood vehicles in terms of opening weekends (it's actually his sixth-best opening as an actor).  Gran Torino, which opened to a stunning $30 million in early 2009 (after an Oscar-qualifying platform release), is an anomaly as Eastwood's next biggest opening is Space Cowboys.  That 'old dudes go into space' epic opened with $18 million back in 2000 before ending with $90 million.  Eastwood's films are hit-and-miss in terms of legs.  It could go somewhat leggy and end up with $50 million ala Absolute Power in 1996 or it could perform like many of director Eastwood's less-than-break out films (think Changeling or J. Edgar) and top out around between $32 million and $37 million.  It all depends on A) how much of an effect Eastwood's speech to an empty chair at the RNC Convention had on his fan-base (minimal I'd presume) and whether or not the older-skewing moviegoers who generally don't rush out to the movies right away sample this one as opposed to the likes of Taken 2 in the coming weeks.

The last new wide release was Lionsgate's Dredd, which was frankly dead-on-arrival with just $6.3 million.  It will not be the number one film of the weekend.  The hardcore geek set may say it's superior to the Sylvester Stallone version of the same comic book (which opened with $12 million in June 1995), but no one else cared about the film at all.  This is frankly a classic case of online interest not translating into mainstream interest.  The Karl Urban-starrer had no high-profile cast members to lure general moviegoers into the futuristic 3D variation on The Raid: Redemption (the films accidentally share a very similar story).  Lionsgate, which acquired the $50 million-budgeted film from Reliance Entertainment and is only on the hook for marketing and distribution, sold this one almost exclusively to the committed faithful, which led to a predictably disastrous debut.  The film played 75% male and 60% under-25.  Of all the films opening this weekend, this is the one that would have benefited from opening mostly unopposed on September 4th after Warner Bros. moved The Gangster Squad into January 2013 (essay).  Why Lionsgate instead chose to dump The Cold Light of Day into 1,500 theaters with no marketing support instead of transplanting this far more important investment I cannot say, but it was a costly error on their part.  The general moviegoer crowd who wanted an R-rated action fix, especially couples, found it with End of Watch instead, as a star-driven cop drama is a much easier sell to a general audience member than a 3D sci-fi action comp based on a British comic book they've probably never heard of. Even surprisingly good reviews didn't matter.  Oh well, judgment is indeed served.

There was one major expansion and one big story in limited release.  First, Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master (review) expanded to 788 screens and didn't exactly set the world on fire.  It's second weekend of play brought in $5 million, giving the film $6 million so far.  It's above the $4.8 million expansion (on 885 screens) of There Will Be Blood.  The Daniel Day Lewis vehicle was in its fifth weekend of release but also had Oscar nominations to boast about.  Come what may, The Master was never going to be a mainstream hit and anything near or above $26 million gross of Boogie Nights (Anderson's second biggest grosser behind the $40 million finish of There Will be Blood) should be considered a win, especially if it can maintain awards momentum as the rest of the Oscar bait rolls into theaters over the next three months.  The big limited release story was the eye-popping debut of The Perks of Being a Wallflower.  Based on an allegedly beloved novel by Stephen Chbosky (who wrote and directed his own film adaptation) about teenagers finding themselves in high school, Summit debuted the film on four screens and snagged an astonishing $61,000 per-screen.  The film was relatively well reviewed and had the added bonus of being Emma Watson's first major role after the end of the Harry Potter series.  Anecdotal evidence (for what it's worth, I do get 'on the ground reports' from time to time) informs me that this thing was sold out in the evening for much of the weekend, with a rather large middle school audience treating this as their The Master.  This is the fourth-biggest per-screen average of the year and Summit's biggest ever.  It played 70% female and 60% under-25. Obviously a massive per-screen debut for a limited release doesn't always guarantee equally mainstream success, but expect Summit to expand this one much faster than they perhaps intended to.

In holdover news, Finding Nemo 3D earned a solid $9.4 million after a softer-than-expected $16 million debut.  A 40% drop isn't exactly indicative of great legs for an animated film, even a reissue, and two major 3D animated films are opening over the next two weekends (Hotel Transylvania and Frankenweenie) so expect some massive screen bleeding accordingly.  Still the film has earned another $30 million in ten days, which in turn trails every 3D reissue save for the Toy Story/Toy Story 2 double-feature back in 2009 ($22 million after ten days).  A final domestic total of around $45 million seems to be in the cards, giving the Pixar classic a new domestic cume of $384 million.  Overseas is a different story, one that isn't written yet, but $1 billion worldwide isn't out of the question quite yet (it will cross $900 million worldwide this weekend).  Resident Evil: Retribution continues to trail the prior three sequels with a $6.7 million second weekend but is still slightly on track to outgross the original film.  Following a brutal but-not-unexpected for this franchise 68% drop, the film has $33.4 million in ten days.  Comparatively the prior RE films had (in chronological order) $28 million, $37 million, $36 million, and $43 million after ten days.  Still, overseas is where the real money is at for this franchise, and it's already over $100 million in overseas grosses, giving it a $140 million worldwide cume.

Meanwhile, ParaNorman passed $50 million and  Lawless nears $35 million while The Possession hit $45 million and The Bourne Legacy crossed $110 million. Live and Let Die: Bourne Edition won't hit the $121 million gross of The Bourne Identity, although it's at $200 million worldwide and should out-gross the first film's $214 million global gross (although, ahem, this new Bourne cost twice what the first Bourne cost back in 2002).  Well down the charts, Madagascar 3 has now surpassed Kung Fu Panda in the US with $215.8 million.  Ted sits with $217 million while The Dark Knight Rises now has $443 million.  Raiders of the Lost Ark is still playing in 85 IMAX theaters and has now grossed $3 million.  The Expendables 2 has $82 million while Step Up: Revolution has $34 million here but $122 million worldwide, already outgrossing the $112 million worldwide total of Step Up and perhaps challenging the $150 million total of Step Up 2 the Streets and the $159 million global cume of Step Up 3D.  And in small victories, The Words has now crossed $10 million. Oh, and The Cold Light of Day now has $3.6 million.

That's it for this weekend.  Join us next time when Sony's Adam Sandler horror cartoon for kids Hotel Transylvania (my daughter wants to see that one so I may have a review on Saturday) squares off against the allegedly terrific (I'm seeing it Monday) Bruce Willis/Joseph Gordon Levitt time-travel thriller Looper.  Oh, and Viola Davis, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Holly Hunter, Oscar Isaac, and Ving Rhames teach us about the evils of teachers unions and the glory of charter schools in Never Back Down. Until then, take care and keep reading.  Oh, and see Robot and Frank if it's playing near you.

Scott Mendelson

Brandon Peters dissects the 007 series part 14: A View To A Kill

With Skyfall dropping in theaters in just a couple months, along with the 50th anniversary of the James Bond series, a close friend and fellow film nerd, Brandon Peters, has generously offered to do a comprehensive review of the entire 007 film franchise. Today is the fourteenth entry, with a full review of  my wife's favorite 007 picture, A View To A Kill (no, that's sadly not a joke). I hope you enjoy what is a pretty massive feature leading up the November 9th release of Skyfall. I'll do my best to leave my two-cents out of it, give or take a few items I have up my sleeve (including a possible guest review from my wife as she sings the praises of her favorite 007 film, you won't believe what it is). But just because I'm stepping aside doesn't mean you should. Without further ado...

A View To A Kill

1985

Directed by: John Glen

Starring: Roger Moore, Christopher Walken, Tanya Roberts, Grace Jones, Patrick Macnee

Rated PG

“What a view…”

“…to a kill!”

                        ~May Day, with Max Zorn finishing the sentence

STATS

Kills: 7

Girls:  Stacey Sutton, May Day, Pola Ivanova, woman in glacier sub

Car:  1984 Chevrolet Corvette

Locales:  Siberia, France (Paris & Chantilly), San Francisco

Odd Villain Trait:  May Day is a brute…woman

Song:  “A View to A Kill” performed by Duran Duran

A View To A Killis the concluding chapter in the twelve- year era of Roger Moore as James Bond 007 and a Mendelson family classic.  Also bowing out in this adventure is Lois Maxwell as Miss Moneypenny, ending a 23 year/14 film run in the role.  The film proves to be a step up from Octopussy, but doesn’t quite bring about a completely satisfying result.  The film does deserve some credit for really wanting to go all in and find some originality, but can’t quite execute to bring the potential to fruition.

When 007 finds a microchip on the body of 003 in Siberia, it leads him to the head of Zorin Industries.  Max Zorin, a KGB trained psychopath, is planning to set off a series of earthquakes in Silicon Valley.  After the wreckage is cleared he plans on gaining a monopoly on the market.  James Bond is able to find an in to Zorin through Stacey Sutton, granddaughter of an oil tycoon, whom Zorin is trying to pay off.  In an earlier article I gave credit to Roger Moore for having aged so well.  At the time of filming A View to a Kill, he was 57.  Somewhere between Octopussyand View, his age began to show.  This one definitely feels like grandpa Bond saving the world.  The film refuses to acknowledge his age.  At least Never Say Never Again conceded to this and made for an interesting angle on the story.  That might have added here.  Also, casting somebody a bit older than Tanya Roberts might have been a bit more comfortable to watch.  Apparently, Moore felt very uncomfortable when he discovered he was almost old enough to be Tanya Robert’s mother’s father.  And, you never know, this film might have served as a better launching point for a new James Bond rather than Moore’s final opus.

Moore’s age also affects a lot of the action beats in this film as well.  It’s clearly obvious he’s not involved in any of it.  The rear projection technology in this film looks like it has regressed in this film.  The effect is really bad, and it’s shocking, because it was somewhat passable in the last few films.  It doesn’t help that the opening gives us skiing (four!) again, and the lamest one at that.  Aside from that, the action scenes definitely do try to bring something different.  The Golden Gate Bridge finale is very epic on paper and in thought.  However, the execution is poor.  Rear projection and the whole thing obviously looking like it was done on a sound stage severely takes away any thrills and suspense this was meant to evoke. All in all, A View to a Kill looks and plays very much like a big budget ABC Sunday night made-for-tv movie that were a common place in the 1980s.

Not all the action is ambitious but lacking.  The jump off the Eiffel Tower is quite good, as well as the car chase that follows.  I really like the escape from the fire on City Hall and the fire truck chase (later done better in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines).  The horse chase in Chantilly does bring sense of dread and inescapable circumstances with it.  The music in this film is definitely good and the main highlight of the film.  They bring back the On Her Majesty’s Secret Servicetheme (one of the series’ best) finally and its more than welcome.  The title song is awesome too, if you weren’t already aware.  Duran Duran helps close the Moore era the way it began, with a rock band full creating a song for the film.  This song is bigger in its legacy than this film is.  I still here it to this day in stores, restaurants, radio, bars, you name it.  Its funny we get this intense crazy song to support an old aged Bond hobbling to the finish line.

Christopher Walken as a bad guy?  How is this movie not insanely awesome?  I don’t know.  Its almost forgotten that he was a Bond villain.  He’s not bad.  He’s actually very good.  It’s the first time we actually get a Bond villain who is a complete psychopath.  Walken plays it great.  I can’t imagine the original choices for Zorin, David Bowie and Sting, being able to pull this off.  A lot of critics at the time did not appreciate the scene where Zorin mows down a bunch of miners with a machine gun, but I did.  It just adds to the insanity of his character.  To add to Zorin’s insanity, his girlfriend May Day compliments it in appearance.  This woman looks like a man.  She always creeped me out when I was younger.  She was just disturbing in appearance.  And Bond sleeps with her!  However, in his defense, he was saving his own hide by doing it.  May Day tries to evoke some of the henchman menace that Jaws brought to some of the earlier films.  Also, she turns to Bond’s aid in the end just like Jaws.  I’ll go ahead and say, May Day is kind of underrated as a henchman.  She’s not the best, but clearly far from the bottom.  Grace Jones also brought her boyfriend at the time, Dolph Lundgren on for a short little extra-like role.  See if you can find him.

Tanya Roberts has garnered a lot of flack for her character of Stacey Sutton in this film.  I gotta say it’s well deserved.  She’s quite a dingbat.  She also gives a sense of being unnecessary in so many scenes.  And I’ve always thought this, but I’ll share.  Tanya Roberts has got to be an actress that the porn industry is kicking themselves for having not gotten to first.  I feel like she would have been a massive success as a porn star.  She’s got the look and that raspy voice that is so fitting of the adult entertainment industry of that era.  Shame.  A View To A Killwants to be that epic finish to Roger Moore’s James Bond career, but just doesn’t fill it out.  Its certainly not as embarrassing as Octopussy and its never terribly boring.  It feels a lot different than a lot of Bond movies.  It’s got some original action beats, but none of it is show stopping or memorable.  One thing I’ve always remembered this film for is the scene where Bond keeps alive underwater by breathing air out of a tire. 

Roger Moore was a fine James Bond for his first five efforts.  He should have hung it up after Moonraker or For Your Eyes Only.  These last two  films have tainted his run.  There’s a lot of poor memories associated with his Bond films, and much of them derive from Octopussy and A View to a Kill.  Some of his early work is no different than any Connery adventure.  He hung on a bit too long.  Moore even admits he should have let go sooner.  I went into this fearing his run as Bond, but it was only feeling tiresome or painful during these last two films.

Brandon Peters will return in The Living Daylights*

Follow me on Twitter – www.twitter.com/@btpeters

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos

*the film only ends on “James Bond Will Return” it does not give the title of the next film.