Wreck It Ralph vs Flight in the Weekend Movie Preview.

Easily expected to be the biggest film this weekend, Wreck-It Ralph is the latest release from Disney Animation. The plot follows Ralph, the protagonist in the fictional video game Fix-It Felix, who tires of being the bad guy and leaves his game to find another in which he can become a hero. Along the way he encounters Tamora Calhoun, a sergeant in the Call of Duty/Halo style game, Hero's Duty and Vanellope von Schweetz, an 8 year old girl in racing game, Sugar Rush. But while Ralph is trying to realise his dream, Schweetz discovers a problem within her own game, one that could have dire consequences not only for the cast of Sugar Rush but the entire arcade - and it looks like Ralph leaving his own game could be the cause of all the problems. Development on Wreck-It Ralph began a number of years ago, as an idea from story artist Sam Levine. At that point the picture was known as Joe Jump and featured an over the hill character attempting to make the transition into modern videogames. Levine was making good progress on the project (enough for a rough synopsis to turn up online) but when John Lasseter took over as head of Disney Animation in 2006, the status of Joe Jump became unclear. While the Pixar honcho let Levine (and his writer) work on the project for a further year, it began to languish, and with little sign of moving forward, Joe Jump was put on the shelf and Levine was assigned to another project. While Lasseter was impressed by the core idea, he wasn't sold on the story itself. 

Moving forward to October/November of 2009 and another project that wasn't working out - the still missing in action, King of the Elves, on which all work was halted while it was retooled. Requiring a project for 2012-2013, Disney dusted off Joe Jump and set Rich Moore to direct. Moore got his break working on TV shows like The Simpsons, The Critic and Futurama, amongst others, and also did sequence direction on The Simpsons Movie. He took on Joe Jump and completely reworked what Levine had done, erasing almost all trace according to those familiar with both version. The picture also received a title change, to Reboot Ralph and now resembled the plot detailed above.  In order to add an air of authenticity to Ralph's world, Moore and his creative team opted to write in a number of cameo roles for famous (and not so famous) video game characters, with the idea to secure the rights when scripting and storyboarding was complete. The vast majority of copyright holders granted permission (though Nintendo were said to have requested too high a fee to allow the use of Mario and Luigi), with some going so far as to work alongside the animators to ensure there was no misrepresentation. In all, there are said to be over 185 of these cameo appearance in the finished film, including Sonic The Hedgehog, Streetfighter's Chun Li and Zangief, alongside the cast of Q-bert and Pac-Man. For the voice behind the character of Ralph, Moore chose John C. Reilly, with Sarah Silverman as Schweetz and Jane Levy as Sergeant Calhoun (30 Rock's Jack McBrayer takes on the role of Fix-It Felix). 

Originally set for a March 2013 release, the picture was actually pulled forward to November 2012 thanks to being ahead of schedule. In June 2011, Reboot Ralph got its final name change, to Wreck-It Ralph, and the first footage debuted a couple of month later at Disney D23 conference. The first trailer appeared in June 2012, timed to coincide with the E3 videogame festival. The studio went all out on marketing the picture, producing fake commercials for the Fix-It Felix and Hero's Duty arcade games, retro-style posters and even going so far as to create an actual Fix-It Felix videogame for online and mobile devices. A second trailer appeared with the 3D release of Finding Nemo in September. Disney will be hoping that Wreck-It Ralph can play to both the old and the young, with the former recognising the retro characters from their youth. In terms of competition, Ralph will face the six week old Hotel Transylvania, which has had the family market almost entirely to itself, becoming the film of choice by default (Frankweenie aside). Expectations are high and while initial reviews haven't been quite as strong as anticipated, Wreck-It Ralph should comfortably open to figures north of $40M.

Flight marks the return of Robert Zemeckis to live action directing after a 12 year hiatus and stars Denzel Washington as airline pilot Whip Whitaker. When a flight runs into trouble, Whitaker manages to execute a safe emergency landing, saving everyone on board. However, during an investigation into the events, it's revealed that the pilot had alcohol in his bloodstream, something that could lead him to be prosecuted and face life in jail. John Gatins scripted the film, the idea coming during a flight he made in 1999, when he sat next to an off-duty pilot. He began sketching out the basic plot and air crash center piece, but unable to get much further, he moved on to writing and making his directorial debut on Dreamer. When Dreamworks' Adam Goodman (who had signed up Oren Peli's Paranormal Activity and worked with Gatins on Dreamer) asked him to write an outline for a new film, he turned in Flight. Despite the idea (at that point) being both unconventional and largely non-commercial, Goodman would bring it with him when he moved from Dreamworks to Paramount. Teaming Gatins with producers Walter Parkes and Laurie McDonald, the trio spent months working on the script, experiencing particular problems with its ending. The project still didn't move forward and eventually Gatins departed to work on the screenplay for Real Steel. In 2010, the script ended up in the hands of agent Ed Limato, who in turn showed it to his client, Denzel Washington. The actor liked what he read and met with Gatins, but wanted a more experienced director to helm the feature. Around this time, Robert Zemeckis found himself without a project and came across the script for Flight.

Motion Capture had been the reason for Zemeckis' absence from live action filming since 2000's Castaway. Beginning with The Polar Express in 2004, the costly festive release (produced through his company ImageMovers) did turn a profit but came in for criticism for the 'dead eye' nature of its characters, something the director attempted to rectify with his 2007 follow up, Beowulf and 2009's A Christmas Carol, to varying degrees of success. However, it was 2011's costly flop, Mars Needs Moms (that Zemeckis produced via ImageMovers Digital - a partnership with Disney) that was the final nail in the coffin, becoming the biggest bomb in cinematic history. After pre-production on his fourth motion-capture film, Yellow Submarine, was scrapped due to budgetary issues and concerns over the success of the mo-cap system, he opted to return to live action (though hasn't ruled out a return to motion capture particularly in regard to a long-gestating Roger Rabbit sequel).  

In April 2011, it was announced that Robert Zemeckis had signed on to direct Flight, with Washington's participation confirmed in June. Don Cheadle, Melissa Leo, Bruce Greenwood and John Goodman would all join the picture by late September, with a view to begin shooting mid-October 2011. Thanks to a huge tax incentive by the state of Georgia and the director and main star foregoing their usual salaries, Paramount were able to bring Flight to screens for just $31M (adjusted for inflation, the smallest budget Zemeckis had worked with since 1980's Used Cars, according to an interview he gave to the LA Times). Washington comes to Flight off the back of the second biggest domestic release of his career, February's Safe House, and has remained a reliable (if not always huge) box office draw for a number of years. Early reviews for Flight have been solid enough, with many pointing out Washington's dramatic turn and the central plane crash sequence as particular highlights. As a method to further reduce costs and their own risk, Paramount have opted to put Flight into 1,800 locations this weekend, worried that the R-rated drama may struggle to find an audience despite the recent success of the similarly dramatic (and R-rated) Argo.

The wild card entry this week is The Man with the Iron Fists, a Shaw Brothers style martial arts epic directed by RZA, a member of the rap group, Wu-Tang Clan. The film was officially announced back in 2008, but RZA and director Eli Roth had talked about the project as early as 2005. Roth joined in a producing capacity in 2007 and the duo spent the next two years turning RZA's story into a workable script, with the view that the Wu-Tang member would make his feature directing debut on the movie. While still in development, Quentin Tarantino agreed to get involved, offering to lend his name in a 'Presented By' capacity (RZA claimed in October 2012 that the two had planned a crossover with Tarantino's Django Unchained which would see the rapper cameo as his Iron Fist's character but time constraints meant it didn't come off). With a $20M production budget in place, shooting commenced in Shanghai in December 2010, with the legendary fight choreographer Corey Yuen co-ordinating the action sequences. The premise would see a blacksmith (played by RZA) forced to defend his villiage when a group of warriors and assassins descend upon it in a hunt for gold. 

Amongst its cast, The Man with the Iron Fists counts Lucy Liu, mixed martial arts fighter Cung Le and former-WWE wrestler, David Bautista. Joining them would be Russell Crowe, who had worked with RZA on the Paul Haggis film, The Next Three Days. By March 2011, the director was ready to assemble his first cut, which ran to an eye-watering four hours. Initially the idea of releasing two films was entertained but Roth convinced him to edit the film down to a tight 96 minutes (RZA admitted to leaving the editing process for two weeks in disgust at having to chop his film down to size). To promote the picture, alongside the usual trailers (standard and ultra violent red band which debuted in June and August respectively), the rapper turned director embarked on an 11 city music concert tour, and also narrated an animated prequel, detailing how the blacksmith had first encountered Bautista's Brass Body character. Universal are on board to distribute the picture and have opted to put the film into around 1,800 locations, perhaps a little unsure how the Grindhouse-style flick will play with the general public.

John Gosling

Um, so there's going go be a new Star Wars movie...

I'm sure you've read the news by now (Forbes).  If you haven't, Disney just spent $4 billion to acquire Lucasfilm and plans on releasing the first of three new Star Wars films in 2015 (press release after this essay).  George Lucas himself had been slowly lessening his role in the company he founded and Kathleen Kennedy will be the president and operate under Disney head Alan Horn. So first of all, Disney just paid another $4 billion to acquire another gigantic company and bring it under the Disney umbrella.  Second of all, we're getting Star Wars Episode 7 in 2.5 years (I'm  presuming it will open Thursday May 21st, 2015).  George Lucas will not be directly involved in these new films behind a consulting role.  And no, Paramount still holds the rights to the Indiana Jones series.  So what are my thoughts on this?  I almost didn't comment, because I'm wasn't entirely sure what I wanted to say.  Truth be told, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this...

I'm sure prequel-haters will cheer that news, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am seeing a Star Wars movie without George Lucas.  On one hand, it's *his* universe, for better or worse, and he's been its guiding light from the beginning.  On the other hand, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, the ongoing animated series currently in its fifth season on Cartoon Network, is without a doubt one of the best incarnations of Star Wars in any medium.   From a business point of view, it of course continues Disney's quest to build a fanbase with boys.  That was the point of the Marvel buy and that's arguably a big reason for this purchase.  Unlike the Marvel purchase three years ago, Disney has all of the Star Wars characters right off the bat, so we'll immediately see T-shirts with Darth Vader and Donald Duck standing together, even if they aren't looking at each other.  This makes Disney even more of a giant, now owning the rights to Marvel, Star Wars, and obviously the Disney universe.  If they can somehow wrestle away DC Comics from Warner Bros, it's game over (not gonna happen, but I digress).  As for a new Star Wars film, I can't muster too much excitement.  Obviously it will be interesting to see a film in this universe with whatever 'name' director Disney can pull in.  Seriously, who *wouldn't* want to direct a Star Wars film?.

On one hand, it's a classic example of not letting a franchise that has run its course just die with dignity.  On the other hand, it's astonishing that we'll soon see three generations of parents who can say they took their kids to a new  Star Wars movie in theaters.  With the exception of a moderate lull in interest from around 1990-1997 (where the series was still beloved but a lack of new product kept it from peak popularity levels), the Star Wars series has been consistently popular for nearly 40 years.  So yes the idea of taking my daughter, who will be around eight years old, to a new Star Wars film in theaters is kind of exciting.  She recognizes and likes the characters even if I've only shown her the first movie and a handful of Clone Wars episodes.  On the other hand this feels like a prime example of potentially force-feeding the heroes of yesterday onto the children of today.  Is Star Wars the exception due to its continual popularity and the relative quality of most of its incarnations?  And is there something negative to be said for a Disney studios that seems more eager to buy up the cherished properties of other companies rather than make new classics on their own?

The phrase of the day is "mixed emotions".  And with that comes a certain sadness.  By that I mean the teenage "me" would have been thrilled to death at the idea of three new Star Wars movies.  But then back in the 1990s, it was clear that Lucas had a specific story he wanted to tell.  This time around, there is really no motive other than the fact that Disney stands to make loads of money off of new Star Wars films.  Of course profit is the motive for most forms of entertainment, be they Transformers or Argo.  Oddly enough, I don't feel that much different than I would if they had finally/officially/absolutely announced a Ghostbusters III, even though I certainly vastly enjoy the Star Wars universe more than the much smaller world of Ghostbusters. I think there is real value in the Clone Wars cartoon, showing the moral shades of grey that were always on the outskirts of the films, especially the prequels.  And I would have loved a political-motivated television series set in between the respective Star Wars trilogies, showing the sad drift from relative democracy to absolute tyranny.  But the idea of merely just continuing the series in film form, it just leaves me indifferent.  Maybe the films will be outstanding, maybe they will be filled with superb action sequences and a group of characters worth investing in.  I concede, if they go said route, that a story of bringing a tyrannical world out of darkness, would be pretty interesting.  But I suppose it just comes down to one simple question: How long are we expected to continually cheer yesterday's heroes?

Okay, your turn, and this time I mean it.  I really want to know how everybody feels about this rather shocking development.  Is my borderline apathy merely because I'm getting old?  Is the fact that I can't get excited about another friggin Star Wars film a symptom of something deeper?  Or is your reaction equally mezzo-mezzo?  Please share below.

Scott Mendelson        

Continuing its strategy of delivering exceptional creative content to audiences around the world, The Walt Disney Company has agreed to acquire Lucasfilm Ltd. in a stock and cash transaction. Lucasfilm is 100% owned by Lucasfilm Chairman and Founder, George Lucas.

Under the terms of the agreement and based on the closing price of Disney stock on October 26, 2012, the transaction value is $4.05 billion, with Disney paying approximately half of the consideration in cash and issuing approximately 40 million shares at closing. The final consideration will be subject to customary post-closing balance sheet adjustments.

"Lucasfilm reflects the extraordinary passion, vision, and storytelling of its founder, George Lucas," said Robert A. Iger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Walt Disney Company. "This transaction combines a world-class portfolio of content including Star Wars, one of the greatest family entertainment franchises of all time, with Disney's unique and unparalleled creativity across multiple platforms, businesses, and markets to generate sustained growth and drive significant long-term value."

"For the past 35 years, one of my greatest pleasures has been to see Star Wars passed from one generation to the next," said George Lucas, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lucasfilm. "It's now time for me to pass Star Wars on to a new generation of filmmakers. I've always believed that Star Wars could live beyond me, and I thought it was important to set up the transition during my lifetime. I'm confident that with Lucasfilm under the leadership of Kathleen Kennedy, and having a new home within the Disney organization, Star Wars will certainly live on and flourish for many generations to come. Disney's reach and experience give Lucasfilm the opportunity to blaze new trails in film, television, interactive media, theme parks, live entertainment, and consumer products."

Under the deal, Disney will acquire ownership of Lucasfilm, a leader in entertainment, innovation and technology, including its massively popular and "evergreen" Star Wars franchise and its operating businesses in live action film production, consumer products, animation, visual effects, and audio post production. Disney will also acquire the substantial portfolio of cutting-edge entertainment technologies that have kept audiences enthralled for many years. Lucasfilm, headquartered in San Francisco, operates under the names Lucasfilm Ltd., LucasArts, Industrial Light & Magic, and Skywalker Sound, and the present intent is for Lucasfilm employees to remain in their current locations.

Kathleen Kennedy, current Co-Chairman of Lucasfilm, will become President of Lucasfilm, reporting to Walt Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horn. Additionally she will serve as the brand manager for Star Wars, working directly with Disney's global lines of business to build, further integrate, and maximize the value of this global franchise. Ms. Kennedy will serve as executive producer on new Star Wars feature films, with George Lucas serving as creative consultant. Star Wars Episode 7 is targeted for release in 2015, with more feature films expected to continue the Star Wars saga and grow the franchise well into the future.

The acquisition combines two highly compatible family entertainment brands, and strengthens the long-standing beneficial relationship between them that already includes successful integration of Star Wars content into Disney theme parks in Anaheim, Orlando, Paris and Tokyo.

Driven by a tremendously talented creative team, Lucasfilm's legendary Star Wars franchise has flourished for more than 35 years, and offers a virtually limitless universe of characters and stories to drive continued feature film releases and franchise growth over the long term. Star Wars resonates with consumers around the world and creates extensive opportunities for Disney to deliver the content across its diverse portfolio of businesses including movies, television, consumer products, games and theme parks. Star Wars feature films have earned a total of $4.4 billion in global box to date, and continued global demand has made Star Wars one of the world's top product brands, and Lucasfilm a leading product licensor in the United States in 2011. The franchise provides a sustainable source of high quality, branded content with global appeal and is well suited for new business models including digital platforms, putting the acquisition in strong alignment with Disney's strategic priorities for continued long-term growth.

The Lucasfilm acquisition follows Disney's very successful acquisitions of Pixar and Marvel, which demonstrated the company's unique ability to fully develop and expand the financial potential of high quality creative content with compelling characters and storytelling through the application of innovative technology and multiplatform distribution on a truly global basis to create maximum value. Adding Lucasfilm to Disney's portfolio of world class brands significantly enhances the company's ability to serve consumers with a broad variety of the world's highest-quality content and to create additional long-term value for our shareholders.

The Boards of Directors of Disney and Lucasfilm have approved the transaction, which is subject to clearance under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, certain non-United States merger control regulations, and other customary closing conditions. The agreement has been approved by the sole shareholder of Lucasfilm.

James Bond 007: Movie Deathmatch

This a very cool little video pitting Bond against Bond.  I completely admire its extremely unbiased approach (SPOILER: Connery doesn't always win).  Bravo to whoever put this together as it plays rather seamless.  Its short, but I could have enjoyed probably 20 minutes of this.  Skyfall opens Friday November 9th in the states and I'm rather excited for it.  Hopefully I'll be able to catch it in IMAX.  Scott's already seen it and you can find his thoughts here.  

If you've got any cool (well-made) Bond videos like this you'd like to share, feel free to throw them my way.  I'd enjoy seeing them.  Thanks to Ty for bringing this to my attention.

Brandon Peters

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 Wolverine gets a stylized teaser poster.

Thanks to Slashfilm for the 'get'.  This is a nice piece of stylized comic book art for what is looking to be a potentially interesting comic book film.  We all know that the film will take place *after* the X-Men series and we know that James Mangold seems to be trying to craft a character study first/action film second picture that just happens to be a comic book spin-off.  Of course, there is a chance that the melodrama-in-Japan narrative will turn out being a bit silly.  I can't speak to the source material, but the episode of the otherwise superb Wolverine and the X-Men that centered around Logan's adventures in Japan is hands-down the worst episode of the 26-episode run (the creators openly make fun of it on the commentary).  Still, whether or not the world needs yet another 'Let's give Logan his own film!' entry, it does seem that the cylinders are firing a bit hotter this time around.  At the very least, it'll give us another fantastic video game spin-off.  As for when we'll see a trailer, assuming Fox actually attaches it to a Fox release, the most likely option is to hold off until the February 14th debut of A Good Day to Die Hard unless Fox can cut a green-band trailer that would be appropriate in front of Life of Pi in three weeks.  The Wolverine, as the poster states, comes out July 26th, 2013.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Wreck It Ralph (2012) doesn't reinvent the wheel but merely reaffirms the Disney template.

Wreck It Ralph

2012
100 minutes
rated PG

by Scott Mendelson

It is perhaps slightly disappointing that Disney's latest animated feature is not so much an example of branching out so much as pouring the same drink into a new glass.  Just as Pixar's Brave (review) seemed like an attempt to fit alongside the standard Disney princess mold, so too does Wreck It Ralph  (trailer) exist as a Disney cartoon that would rather have a Pixar logo at the front.  But in the end Wreck It Ralph is a Disney cartoon through-and-through, which is not necessarily a bad thing.  It is vividly animated and generally entertaining, and it uses its video game settings as the basis for any number of clever jokes.  But truth be told the film is not really about video games, merely using the video game format as a colorful wrapping for a rather conventional story.  In hindsight its story is actually somewhat generic, not going as far off the reservation as Meet the Robinsons (review/essay) or even Bolt.  It's a witty and charming film, but it's slightly dispiriting how often it teases us only to skirt back to genre convention.


The film begins with great promise, diving head first into its video game universe and presenting us with a rather tragic lead character, a seemingly decent man condemned by fate to be loathed and despised by all around him.  Wreck It Ralph (John C. Reilly) has spent the last thirty years as a villain in a Donkey Kong-type video game, but the problem is that he's treated as a villain outside of the game as well.  When the arcade closes and the characters go home for the night, Ralph is still treated as something to be feared and loathed.  Sleeping in a literal garbage dump on a bed of bricks, he yearns for the chance to prove that he is not really a 'bad guy'.  The idea of a man being condemned to be loathed as an automatic byproduct of his occupation, as well as the idea of treating actors as if they were their characters, is an interesting one.  Ralph is programmed to wreck things in a video game, but his curse is that those around him don't realize or don't care that he's basically playing a role.  The narrative itself starts once Ralph takes it upon himself to win himself a medal, which is the arbitrary symbol that he deserves the spoils that comes with being a hero in his game-world.  But those expecting a mad caper where Ralph jumps from game-to-game with satirical commentary on the various video game genres will be frankly disappointed.

After a brief trip into a violent bug-infested first-person shooting game (which is frankly far more intense and scary than it needed to be... my daughter was not amused), Ralph stumbles into a colorful, candy-filled variation on Mario Kart, which is where the bulk of the film takes place.  Ralph meets up with a young girl who is apparently a glitch in the game's programming and thus also condemned to be ostracized.  Vanellope von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman) will likely be the favorite character of most of the younger audience members, and it is to the film's credit that the picture is as much about her as about Ralph.  We also spend ample time with Fix-It Felix (Jack Breyer) who goes off in search of the missing Ralph and Sergeant Calhoun (Jane Lynch), of the aforementioned bug game who realizes that one of the bugs from her game ended up in the racing world, which may spell doom for all.  Most of the plot is taken care of in the first third of the film, leaving it frankly drifting in the wind for much of its middle thirty minutes.  Aside from a training-to-race montage, there is little of narrative or character consequence in this middle portion.  Disney movies have often struggled in their middle sections, as was the case with Bolt and even, to a lesser extent, with The Princess and the Frog.

But the third act brings the film home safely with a number of strong character beats, a couple surprising turns, and a warmhearted finale that works even if you realize how cynical it really is.  I'm certainly not going to reveal what happens, but the film promises a powerful moral dilemma at the start of its third act, one that offers the tantalizing idea of being a 'good guy' not as saving the day but as making the right choice even when it's a horrible one.  But quicker than you can say Matrix Revolutions, the film negates its Kobayashi Maru and sets the course for a more traditional finale.  Even if I was disappointed in how the film teased us with challenging ideas before saying 'never mind', I must concede that the character relationships are established enough to indeed rouse our emotions when the somewhat more conventional ending arrives.  As far as Vanellope's ultimate fate, the film ends on a clear example of having your cake and eating it too.  And, again being vague here, the film skirts with ending in a 'don't change your fate, just be happy with your lot in life' vein similar to Brave and especially A Shark Tale.  But even then I must concede that the primary character arcs are wrapped up in an emotionally satisfying fashion.

I wish Wreck It Ralph was more willing to challenge its own status quo and I wish it used its video game settings for more than just a serious of admittedly clever jokes and cameos.  In the end, the entertaining and often witty motion picture ends up being merely a slight tinkering of the classic Disney formula rather than the charting of a new path.  It's a fine piece of family entertainment, horrifying bug attacks aside, and the film looks superb as is the norm for any major animated film these days.  But Wreck It Ralph is arguably less than the sum of its parts and eventually less than the sum of its initially challenging ideas. It earns points for building strong characters and for earning hearty laughs.  And it ends on the idea of how important it is for young girls to have role models in mass media even while giving a nod to the Disney merchandising machine. I don't demand subversion of the status quo in every would-be genre film.  But Wreck It Ralph promises next-generation gaming and delivers old-school Nintendo in a shinier box.

Grade: B

Weekend Box Office (10-28-12): Skyfall kills overseas as Argo tops four weak new releases.

There were four wide releases opening domestically this weekend and not one of them made any real impact at the box office.  The big news was the overseas debut of Skyfall (review) which opened in the UK two weeks ahead of its US debut.  The 23rd official James Bond film earned a massive $77 million in the 25 markets it debuted in.  The film earned a massive $32 million in the UK alone, for the second-biggest UK debut weekend of all time, behind the 3D-enhanced Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II.  It earned far more initially than Casino Royale ($21 million) and Quantum of Solace ($24 million), setting the stage for a massive US debut and what will surely be the biggest 007 film yet domestic and worldwide.  I don't think it's the best 007 film or that it should be an Oscar contender, but it's a darn good movie and anyone merely wanting a top-flight bit of action will be thrilled with this entry.  I can't imagine it not opening huge and playing for a rather long time, especially as it will be unopposed in the mega-blockbuster department (Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn II will play exclusively to its fanbase, massive as it is) for a month until The Hobbit part 1 of 30 opens on December 14th.  

The top new domestic opener was Cloud Atlas, which earned just $9.4 million.  This is a disaster no matter how slice it.  Even though Warner Bros. was only on the hook for distribution and marketing, they will still probably break even at best.  The sprawling Wachowksi siblings/Tom Tywker film has covered most of its $100 million budget via foreign pre-sales, but it was doomed in America.  A film like Cloud Atlas (review) was always going to be a marketing challenge, even with Tom Hanks at the top of the poster.  But in this current marketplace filled with high-quality adult entertainment that is both less challenging than Cloud Atlas and arguably *better* than Cloud Atlas, it was never going to be the top choice of general moviegoers.  Hopefully it will do better overseas.The other three openers all tanked.  Silent Hill: Revelations 3D opened with just $8 million, compared to the $20 million debut of the first Silent Hill nearly seven years ago.  The film cost just $20 million so it'll probably break even for Open Road Films in the long run.  This was clearly a case of an unasked-for sequel and audiences responded accordingly.  The last two openers didn't register at all.  

Fun Size was an interesting experiment, a Nickelodeon funded kids comedy set on Halloween to serve as an antidote to the likes of Paranormal Activity 4 (down 70% in weekend two for an $8.6 million second weekend and a ten day total of $42 million but a worldwide total of $91 million) and Sinister ($39 million in 17 days).  Alas the film ended up with a PG-13.  Hence it was considered too adult for kids but too kid-friendly for older audiences.  Without any big stars on the poster (sorry Victoria Justice), the film fizzled with just $4 million (the 64th worst wide-release opening of all time). The Curtis Hanson/Michael Apted surfing melodrama Chasing Mavericks earned just $2.2 million (the ninth-worst wide release opening of all-time), proving that Gerald Butler is only a star with a strong opener when paired with the likes of Jennifer Aniston or Jamie Foxx.   

The top film was in fact Ben Affleck's Argo (review) which has become the defacto adult film of choice and the current Oscar front runner.  The film earned $12.3 million in its third weekend, giving it a 17-day total of $60 million.  It's still $4 million behind The Town although it once again had a bigger third weekend ($9 million for The Town).   I expect it to take a hit in two weeks when Skyfall becomes the 'every grownup sees it' film, but it will have around $80 million by that time and it's still on track to top $100 million at its current pace.  In other holdover news, Alex Cross dropped 56% in weekend two, which is about the norm for a Tyler Perry film.  But since we're dealing with an $11 million debut instead of a normal $20-25 million opening, it's pretty ugly.  The truly mediocre picture has earned just $19 million in ten days meaning it will barely gross its $25 million budget domestically.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower has now earned $11 million, or about what it could have opened to with even a halfway decent wide-release push.  Pitch Perfect is an example of doing the platform thing right, and it's now at $53 million.  The Bourne Legacy actually crossed $250 million worldwide, proving that sometimes Americans do have better taste when it comes to half-assed spin-offs.  Looper has crossed $60 million domestic and Hotel Transylvania, with $130 million, is now Sony Animation's biggest hit ever (it still dropped only 27% this weekend).  Here Comes the Boom has had surprisingly okay legs and now has $30 million.  Finally Taken 2 earned another $8 million and now has $117 million.  It may not quite get to the original's $145 million domestic take, but it's already well above the first film's worldwide gross and is heading towards $300 million if it's not there already.

That's it for this weekend.  Join us for the unofficial start of the holiday season next frame as Robert Zemeckis's Flight faces off against Disney's Wreck It Ralph (review tomorrow) and the RZA/Russell Crowe martial arts epic The Man With the Iron Fists.     

Scott Mendelson

A problem from (cinematic) heaven: There are just too many high quality adult movies in the marketplace!

As most of you know, the ambitious and expensive Cloud Atlas will be opening this weekend with around $10 million for the weekend.  Even with Warner Bros. merely on the hook for distribution and marketing and even with the film's $100 million budget covered by foreign pre-sales, this is not a pleasant figure for a rather impressive movie.  There will be finger-pointing and blame to go around over the next few days.  But I would argue that the primary reason for its box office failure is actually a net positive.  In short, Cloud Atlas had the bad luck to open during what can only be called a plethora of adult films.  I've talked quite a bit about the slow and steady comeback of adult cinema in an age of non-stop tentpoles, but there is one downside to the current deluge.  It can be argued that there is actually too much adult product out there in the current marketplace.  And as we all know, a large majority of adult moviegoers aren't quite as frequent as the younger crowd.  The stereotypical adult moviegoer, the one with a family and a job and various responsibilities, maybe only goes to the movies once a month.  And if they went to the movies this weekend, they probably went to see Argo.

I liked Cloud Atlas but I didn't love it.  I admired it more than I enjoyed it.  As such, if a casual moviegoer asks me what they should see this weekend, I'd be hesitant to recommend Cloud Atlas.  It's nearly three-hours long, it has a rather sprawling narrative and exists in a blend of reality and fantasy.  It's R-rated and is occasionally quite violent,.  But most importantly, it's not quite good enough to overcome the various reasons why it might not be the cup-of-tea for the so-called general moviegoer.  If asked to recommend an adult movie in years past outside of the Oscar season, I might have struggled to think of more than a token offering.   But today, Ben Affleck's Argo so perfectly fits the bill that it's almost foolhardy of me to recommend anything else.  But say said moviegoer is a bit more adventurous (or has already seen Argo), my next recommendation would be Seven Psychopaths, which is simply one of the best films of the year.  After that, I'd mention the brainy mainstream sci-fi genre entry Looper.  Only after those options are noted would I inquire as to whether something like Cloud Atlas might be up their proverbial alley.

And that's not even accounting for the handful of adult films I haven't seen (Trouble With the Curve, End of Watch) or the somewhat adult-skewing thrillers that are pretty bad but provide C-level television-procedural type thrills (Taken 2, Alex Cross).  I wouldn't recommend them, but they'd arguably jump out as low-risk options for the casual 'just want to take in a movie' audience member.  As you can see, this is a rather great time to be a grown up who likes movies.  If you're the sort who sees movies on a regular basis, it's an absolute embarrassment of riches (and the upcoming likes of Skyfall, Flight, and Lincoln will only sweeten the pot).  But keeping in mind that most adult film-goers don't have the time or inclination to see everything that comes out, a film like Cloud Atlas didn't have a chance.  When you can recommend such high-quality meat-and-potatoes fare like Argo and Looper, something like Cloud Atlas feels like a genuine gamble.  In short, we finally have too many adult movies in the marketplace at one time.  That's a good thing, but that means that an oddity like Cloud Atlas had to be great to break out of the pack.  Even as ambitious and creative as it is, merely being good wasn't enough when there are at least a few great adult films to choose from.

Scott Mendelson

Second Chance Cinema: Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2

Welcome to Second Chance Cinema.  This ongoing series will feature Scott or myself revisiting an infamously terrible film we only saw once (preferably long ago) or haven’t seen in a long time.  I’m starting this one with a film I have notoriously disliked over the years – Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.  I haven’t seen this one since seeing it in the theater EXACTLY 12 years ago today (convenient timing, eh?).  I was big time soured leaving the theater and haven’t looked back since.  A podcast that frequently haunts my headphones, Attack of the Killer Podcast (http://www.horrorpalace.com/audio-podcasts/attack-of-the-killer-podcast/), inspired me to pick this one.  Their Facebook page asked for opinions of what some of the worst horror sequels of all time was and I named Book of Shadows.  They all pretty much disagreed and felt it was an underrated film.  Okay, without further adieu, lets dig into this.

Where was I at in life when I first saw this film?

Fall 2000.  This is 18 year old Brandon in his freshman year of college.  This guy thinks he’s a film expert, and amongst most of his peers, he is.  But, he’s got a lot of learning to do.  A lot more than he likely thinks he does.  Brandon seemingly thinks Full Metal Jacket is only half a good film, plays a lot of Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater and watches Jackass and MTV’s Fear.  Freaks and Geeks has come and gone and he fits the criteria of people who are to blame for its short lived existence.

I was a fan of the original film, not an obsessed fan like apparently people were in the sequel.  I went in unsure if it really even needed a sequel and questioning if making it a standard film was the right move.  My friend James and I went to see Book of Shadows on opening night.  We were highly disappointed at a film that snoozed its way through to a twist ending that it didn’t earn.  What in the hell as the Book of Shadows?  James and I immediately called a radio station that night promoting the film and told them they really should stop because it sucked.  I claimed for years that the final line of the film described how I felt after watching it-“This is fucking bullshit”

18 years old Brandon’s grade in 2000 - F

So now, 12 years later, here I am viewing a film I vowed never to watch again.

Blair Witch 2 is definitely a dated movie.  It reeks of late 90s/early 2000s.  Instead of found footage, we get the dramatization angle.  So essentially we have a movie based off of a “real” event that happens because of a reaction to a film that claimed to be a “real” event.  The soundtrack, lighting, edits are incredibly MTV inspired and almost feels like they made it.  The film actually felt like a straight to video movie.  Looking at it, its hard to believe as a theatrical release, it looked so cheap.

The cheapness is ever-present throughout.  We only have 2 main sets, the middle of the woods and the always cool in the late 90s abandoned and run down factory/warehouse that Jeff lives in.  How the hell did he get this place?  A lot of the film really has no action, but is intercut with quick snippets of the coffin rock murder later in the movie.  It also cuts back and forth from a police investigation, taking away any sort of surprise with events that happen later.  I don’t know much about the production of this movie, but I’m betting the murder cuts and interrogation stuff were added post production, because what its interrupting is pretty damn boring.  Just a lot of “what’s going on?”  “I don’t know” “I wanna know what happened”. 

Aside from boring, the film gets off to a very rough start.  The first-third of the film kind of feels like a tutorial on Wicca.  Or trying to send the message that Wiccas are people too.  I’m willing to bet they barely knew shit about them, but Wicca was trending back then, so it’d be cool to have that AND a goth character.  Anyway, there’s this campfire scene where everyone gets drunk and shares geeky inside baseball Blair Witch Project jokes and speculation.  The scene feels very phony and disingenuous. Its very forced and the dialogue is borderline obnoxious (especially when they run into the opposing tour group).  I had a very hard time getting through the scene.

The film itself is based around what could be a very good idea, just not seen all the way through.  With a better director and maybe some people with more artistic flair involved, this could have been decent.  Of the cast, Kim Director actually gives a pretty solid performance.  Everyone else, including Jeff Donovan, are pretty subpar and very unlikeable.  Had this film not been rushed trying to cash in, we might have had something.  It does feel like a rushed film and smells a little of postproduction interference.  Its got a twist that might have been cooler had the film earned it.  Maybe the problem was that the makers had this in mind first, but struggled to build something solid around it.

So…was it “fucking bullshit”?  This is better than I gave it credit for initially.  But not that much better.  I don’t’ have any desire to see this thing again and I’m never going to recommend it to anybody.  Its still poor, on its own or as a sequel.  There seems to have been a good idea in place early on, but through its execution, it fell on its face.  And…what IS the Book of Shadows????  I still don’t know!!!

2012 Brandon’s Grade – D+

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

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

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

Review: Skyfall (2012) delivers the 007 goods (if not greats).

Skyfall

2012
143 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Taken on its own, Skyfall is an exciting and relentlessly entertaining action thriller.  It is strongly acted by a game cast, has sharp dialogue, a stunning visual palette, and several engaging action sequences.  But taken as the twenty-third entry in a long-running franchise, one must acknowledge that it is less an original take on the iconic hero than a mix-and-match from several past films.  But what prevents the film from attaining greatness is the unsure tone and what feels like periodic pandering to the fans.  Seemingly stung by the (grossly unfair) reception to Quantum of Solace, Sam Mendes and company feel pressured to include certain franchise elements that periodically clash with the Bond film they clearly want to make.  More troublesome is the film's theme, which takes a offhand few moments in GoldenEye ("Is Bond still relevant in the modern era?") and attempts to fashion an hamfisted entire narrative out of it, complete with enough on-the-nose monologuing to make Chris Nolan blush.  What hampers the unquestionably engaging and ambitious film is the sense that we're drudging along recycled territory.

A token amount of plot, with slight spoilers: Following a thrilling action sequence where Bond pursues a murderous thief in an escalating chase that climaxes with 007 presumed dead, MI6 faces intense scrutiny which leaves M (Judi Dench) on the verge of forced retirement.  But what was alleged to be an act of old-school espionage becomes something much more personal when MI6 and M herself are specifically targeted in a lethal campaign of terror. A sensational act of violence brings Bond out of hiding and he sets out to discover who is targeting his employer.  But is an aging and perhaps past-his-prime 007 truly capable of saving the proverbial day, or has James Bond become a relic of the past?  As you can see, bits and pieces of several prior Bond films are tossed into the salad bowl, specifically a number of Brosnan entries.  We get bits of The World Is Not Enough (an expanded role for M where her chickens again come home to roost, a seriously injured 007 struggling to do his duty), Die Another Day (the idea of Bond being presumed to be damaged goods following a mission failure), and especially GoldenEye (again, the entire thrust of the plot is basically old-school human intelligence versus cyber-spying with countless comments about Bond's age and his and M's antiquated ways).

GoldenEye rears its head again when we finally meet the villain of the piece, yet another disaffected MI6 agent who is out for revenge. Through the evil Raoul Silva, we get the same self-pitying monologues about how the rules are all changed and how things used to be that we got from Sean Bean.  Javier Bardem as Silva is a hoot, easily the closest thing to a campy villain since Jonathan Pryce's gonzo turn in Tomorrow Never Dies.  Through him and the new Q (a very amusing Ben Whishaw who shares a wry chemistry with Craig) we also get the whole 'computers are special!' bits from Brosnan's debut adventure.  I didn't even mind the handful of 'Hey, the James Bond series is 50 years old this year!' references, as most of them are organic and earn honest chuckles (the appearance of the Aston Martin leads to a wonderful dialogue exchange).  But in terms of the story it chooses to tell and the themes it chooses to play with, it comes dangerously close to what irked about The Amazing Spider-Man in that it doesn't seem to realize or care that it's repeating itself.

What Mendes and company aren't taking from previous Bond films they seem to be cribbing from other popular genre films, which is not surprising if you've been reading Brandon Peters's retrospective reviews. There has been much talk about how Mendes was inspired in some vague fashion by Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight, and it's a more explicit comparison than you'd expect.  There is a large second act chunk of the film, the best sustained portion of the film no less, that feels overtly cribbed from the middle portion of that comic book classic.  For better or worse (mostly for better), much of Silva's philosophical ranting and his big scheme feel like an attempt to give this series a Joker-esque villain.  The film feels gloriously *big* in a way that recalls the The Dark Knight (and arguably Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol), and both films have relatively gratuitous nighttime skyscraper-set action sequences set in Asia that exist primarily to show off dazzling imagery.  That's not entirely a criticism, the Shanghai sequence is absolutely beautiful from beginning-to-end.  If Quantum of Solace was Bond-as Jason Bourne/Jason Statham (the shakey-cam fight scenes, the political relevance and/or grey morality), then Skyfall is an attempt to borrow some toys popularized (if not quite invented, natch) by the Chris Nolan blockbusters.  I was not lucky enough to see this film in IMAX, but paying moviegoers should absolutely opt for it if available.

This is arguably the biggest-scale Bond film in recent memory even if its scope is relatively small in comparison to the Brosnan-era action spectaculars (Silva's grand scheme is almost rudimentary to the point of pettiness).  The finale of the film feels like a major action sequence from a somewhat recent spy film stretched out into nearly an entire act.  After the rather short Quantum of Solace, we now have a 143 minute 007 film that could have easily been pruned by maybe 15-20 minutes during its first and third acts (the action climax ends up a bit redundant).  What makes the film work despite its somewhat grave digging nature is well, everything else aside from story and themes.  The film is superbly acted and everyone shares a fine chemistry with each other.  Judi Dench once again provides a strong anchor as she has for the last seven 007 pictures.  She elevates Craig just as she elevated Pierce Brosnan in his four adventures.  I was thankful for the moment, after Silva has lashed out at his former boss, when M simply turns to Bond and bluntly states exactly what happened to Silva without any fuss or drawn-out melodrama.  Naomie Harris is arguably the closest thing to a 'Bond girl' in this picture, and she and Craig have a bantering relationship while the film thankfully never feels the need to call out her field agent expertise.  Bérénice Marlohe basically plays the same role that Talisa Soto played in License to Kill, although she does get to act during her somewhat limited screen time   Ralph Fiennes plays one of the *nicest* characters he's played this side of Maid In Manhatten as a bureaucrat with a heart of, if not gold, then at least a strong metal.

Craig himself is fine, although it must be acknowledged that the somewhat larger-than-life action sequences, especially the prologue, don't quite fit him as well as the brutal fisticuffs and chases that peppered Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.  As mentioned above, the film constantly acts as a proverbial defense of not just the James Bond franchise but of the somewhat cartoonish thrills that are often associated with the Roger Moore era (we get gratuitous sexual interludes, somewhat awkward uses of the 007 theme music, and complaints about the lack of over-the-top gadgets). Without going into details, the film ends up being an affirmation of the franchise's conventional status quo and it will be interesting to see if Daniel Craig can truly feel at home in a theoretical future 007 film closer to The Spy Who Loved Me than The Living Daylights.  But for the moment, Craig gets some interesting shades to play, playing a James Bond who is every bit of Craig's 44 years of age.  The action sequences are indeed pretty impressive, even if they get progressively less over-the-top as the film goes on.  I'm partial to the opening chase, the above-mentioned Shanghai fight scene (even if the sequence shows Bond to be utterly careless about innocent lives being lost on his watch) and the aforementioned 'Dark Knight sequence' (you'll know what I mean when you see the film).  As you'll notice I've spent much of this review discussing the film in the context of the 007 series as a whole, but for those who merely want a kick-ass action film that also happens to play in the James Bond sandbox, you're in for a bloody good time.

Skyfall doesn't quite reach the heights its so-obviously straining for, losing ground by borrowing too much from prior Bond films and by making the subtext of the film into blatant text.  But as a big-scale action-adventure film it delivers in spades.  Superbly acted, stunningly shot by Roger Deakins, and classically edited by old-school pro Stuart Baird (lots of long and fluid takes during the action), Sam Mendes has crafted a fine action-adventure and a rather good James Bond film.  That it doesn't quite qualify as 'the best Bond ever' or what-not is merely a qualification rather than a criticism.  It keeps the franchise going strong and reestablishes it as a vital and prominent action spectacle in the tentpole landscape.  Regardless of my concerns about where the series might go from here, 007 is on a roll (one bad film, Die Another Day over the last 25 years) and Commander Bond has certainly earned the benefit of the doubt going forward.

Grade: B

For comprehensive retrospective reviews of every single previous 007 film, go HERE.

Brandon Peters's 007 series retrospective final analysis part 2.

This is the end.  Hold your breath and count to ten.  After three months of extensive and rather superb retrospective reviews of every single 007 film that's been currently released since 1962, it all comes down to this.  What follows below is Brandon Peter's final analysis, split up into two sections. Part one is HERE.  Part two is a critical ranking of every single film, complete with links to his respective essays, so you can all argue in the comments section.  Following that is my actual review of Skyfall, which I saw on Monday night was holding off on reviewing until Brandon had his say on all that had come before.  Expect said review to drop later this afternoon.  And yes, once Brandon sees Skyfall (hopefully in IMAX, as it really should be seen in said format), he will offer his take on this site as well.  But for now, let's all dive in and see how the chips fall.  As always, share your thoughts in the comments section below (for what it's worth, I rather agree with probably 90% of the rankings, at a glance).  At the very least, you should give him a hearty thanks for crafting this rather fantastic ongoing series.  We look forward to whatever Mr. Peters decides to contribute from this point on and look forward to his adventures in the Great Valley.

007 Series Ranking

So, this is maybe the umpteenth time I've watched all these films.  Some not as many as the others.  Two them I visited for only the 2^nd or 3^rd time.  To end the retrospective, I've shuffled them in order of how much I was entertained when watching said film.  So…how does it all stack up?  Let’s take a look.

22.  OCTOPUSSY

I really had close to no enjoyment watching this one.  It was extremely hokey and came across as incredibly dumb and offensive.  At times almost painful.  The things that were memorable from this film are stuff you’d soon like to forget.

21.  DIE ANOTHER DAY

This film starts out with so much promise and takes a steep decline at about the 25 minute mark and just keeps plummeting.  It’s a damn shame Pierce Brosnan had to go out on this note.  The film is a pretty big embarrassment and the producers were right to move away from this direction.

20.  DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER

Sean Connery doesn't want to be here, I don’t want to be here either.  There’s moments, but their really few and really far between.  The film takes a dump right at the beginning on the previous and far superior film.  Blofeld absolutely stinks in this one.  Kidd and Wint are entertaining, but don’t fit in this film.  Confession: while a pretty dumb character, I did find Jill St. John very charming.

19.  THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

Not entirely stupid or offensive (aside from the slide whistle), but incredibly boring.  As I mentioned, I did fall asleep during this one.  But, congrats Man with the Golden Gun, I really thought you were going to finish last before I started this.

18.  DR. NO

WHAT?  Bottom 5?  Yes.  Aside from Connery’s performance (and I like Jack Lord here, too), the film is kind of drags.  It’s interesting because it’s the first, and that’s why you watch it, but many a Bond film did so much better.  The sets are very nice and Connery chews them up nicely, but there’s not a whole lot interesting going on.  The Bond girl is incredibly overrated (ask a female what’s so amazing about Honey Rider) and useless and our villain is a pretty big yawner.

17.  A VIEW TO A KILL

More craziness from this guy!  I was far more entertained by Christopher Walken, Grace Jones and Patrick MacNee than I was any supporting characters in Dr. No.  While the film isn't all great, it does a decent job at being entertaining.  Having Dalton start in this film may have made it exponentially better.  The stunts and effects would have benefited and that’s one of the big weak links in the execution of this one. (side note: I do quite enjoy the trailer for this one or maybe anything looks cool set to Duran Duran and Optimus Prime’s narration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qBORhEUKeM)

16.  FOR YOUR EYES ONLY

This isn't really a bad film, but in the series cannon it comes across as rather stale and not a lot of fun.  I highly enjoy the main Bond girl in this one.  However, the score is atrociously bad and all the action beats feel incredibly recycled from the previous films.  On its own, it’s fine, but as a piece of the series, I find it rather weak.

15.  TOMORROW NEVER DIES

Up and down a solid entry.  The end is a bit of “seen this before”.  The film features two strong females, but a rather weak villain and plot.  The film’s finale doesn't bring about anything special or memorable making it slightly disappointing.  You could do far worse, but there is a lot better.

14.  GOLDFINGER

This was an eye opener.  I went in expecting this to be top five.  It has a rather engaging first hour.  Bond and Goldfinger’s mind games with each other is completely entertaining.  However, Bond gets captured and does pretty much next to nothing the remainder of the film.  It’s paced solidly, making it better than it could have been.  Sean Connery’s performance seems a half step off in this one too.  Oh yeah, and Bond rapes Pussy Galore, which somehow leads to her defection from Auric Goldfinger.  If the film would have stayed true to character (Pussy Galore), Goldfinger would have been able to execute his plan.  I didn't have the extreme enjoyment I remembered once having or thought I would have with this one.

13. LIVE AND LET DIE

Roger Moore’s debut is a rather enjoyable entry.  However the end gets a bit bloated with long action sequences that could have been spread throughout or axed completely.  The demise of the villain travels into a world of camp that feels awkwardly out of place in this adventure.

12. MOONRAKER

Too high for your liking?  Go and actually watch the film.  The first hour and a half of Moonrakeris an incredibly fun and dark adventure.  Michael Lonsdale proves to be one of the series greatest villains.  Every line he utters is great.  There’s a few goofy inserts here and there, but nothing overtly distracting.  The last half hour in space isn't as good as the first ¾, but it’s not bad either and the effects, while a little dated, do a decent job of holding up.  Go back and give this one a shot, you’ll be very surprised.  If you enjoy The Spy Who Loved Me, there’s no reason not to like this one.

11.  QUANTUM OF SOLACE

Better than a lot of people claim it to be.  I've done research to see what exactly it is people don’t like.  A lot of nitpicks and seemingly stuff that went over people’s heads. I agree that the style isn't my first choice, but it helps along some sequences and doesn't destroy the film.  It fits Bond’s overall attitude in this film.  Probably will be discovered and appreciated over time.  I may rank this higher in the future, you never know.

10.  THUNDERBALL

A nicely done stealthy spy thriller with some incredible underwater work.  The film runs a tad long, but is much worth the trip.  And there’s nothing boring about looking at Claudine Auger.  The film provides one of the most overlooked villains in series history.  I’m talking about Fiona Volpe.  She paves the way for female femme fatales to appear later in the series.  I’m fully engaged every time she lights up the screen.  Bond’s involvement in the plot starts by a stretch of coincidence, but maybe they wanted to show that he never truly takes time off and no matter the vacation, is always in spy mode.

9.  THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH

Yes, I've heard about Denise Richards.  Could you tell me about the rest of the movie?  Because it’s pretty good.  Brosnan turns in one of his best performances in a story that strikes personally for him and M.  This one provides not only a pretty cool story, but some great shootouts.

8.  YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE

This one was the biggest shock for me.  There’s a lot of silly, campy and dated racey/sexist things in this film, but I found it to be so much fun.  The film turns what could be a horrid gadget (gyro-copter) into something bad ass.  The first hour of this is actually a top notch spy thriller.  The second hour turns into an insanely crazy over the top romp.  While uneven, I had a lot of fun with this one, and I hope others see it as well.

7.  ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE

Had the middle 45 minutes of this film been much shorter or better, this would be in contention for a top 3 Bond movie easily.  However, its not and the section missing Diana Rigg suffers without her.  It’s a very good film, but it does drag in the middle.  But on both sides of that middle its very good.  It’s worth waiting around for the finish, because it’s pretty great.

6.  LICENSE TO KILL

This one was one of the most unique films in the series until Quantum of Solace.  Time has become very kind to the Timothy Dalton era.  People are starting to come around and see what they wanted from 007 was there all along.  Robert Davi makes an incredible turn as a dark and vile villain.  It’s got some great real physical stunt work to boot.  This isn't your typical Bond picture, but that’s what helps and makes it stand out.

5.  THE SPY WHO LOVED ME

When you think of a quintessential “what is a Bond movie?” film…this is it.  It’s got all the over the top action, the notable henchman, the maniacal villain, the gorgeous Bond girl, the stunts, the opening wow sequence, a great song.  It’s all there.  This is some of the most fun you’ll ever have watching a movie (well, maybe those of my era and older), let alone it just being a Bond film.

4.  THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS

Like I said in my article, this film is the series firing on all cylinders.  An espionage and escape film akin to a From Russia With Lovestyle, but its own beast.  Everything just rocks about this one.  Joe Don Baker is kind of weak, and his character’s demise is a bit of whimper, but its fine. At that point in the film we’re just trying to take it down and bring it to a satisfying conclusion anyway. Daltonturns in a great debut.  Like the follow-up, this one also features a lot of great and real looking stunt work.  The Dalton era is one of the most overlooked aspects of the franchise as it contains two of its strongest and best films.  In some alternate universe, there’s a 3^rd Timothy Dalton James Bond adventure…I want to go there.

3.  GOLDENEYE

One of the best action films of the 90's period.  This film manages to hit the marks on top notch action, drama and performances.  Some slight dating when it comes to technology (but then again…every Bond has that).  This film goes by in a flash and has the best Bond Vs Main Baddie fight and finish of the entire series.  I’d like to know of those who leave GoldenEye unsatisfied.  There can’t be many of you.

2.  CASINO ROYALE

This film is damn near perfect.  It’s the longest of the series, but never once feels that way.  Craig’s performance is of the best of the entire 22 film oeuvre.  Even if this film was subpar, he, Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen would carry it and it’d be enjoyable.  Never a dull moment.  Martin Campbell scores two of the top three Bond films of all time.  Please come back, sir.  We’ll forgive you for Green Lantern.

1.  FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE

If the last film is “damn near perfect” how is it not #1?  This one just strike with me.  It moves, it’s suspenseful, its got action, and its got a very nice 60's aesthetic that I fancy.  Connery gives a wonderful turn and we get awesome villains and Bond’s best informant.  This film is just an absolute joy to watch.  As a big fan of Hitchcock, this feels a bit like a love letter to him and I appreciate that.  With its length, I also will always have the time to pop this one in and give it a view.  There’s a very engaging romanticism with viewing this one that is really unmatched in any of the Bond films.  While the series spent most of its time trying to create the next Goldfinger, this is the film it should have been taking its cues from.

And that’s it for me until Skyfall, folks.  Still fishing for ideas as to where to go next (please save me from The Land Before Time!).  Did you enjoy the Bond series?  What’s your top/bottom ten 007 films?  Tell me where I’m wrong.  Thanks for reading, it’s been a rewarding experience hearing your thoughts, praise and opinions!

BRANDON PETERS WILL RETURN

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

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

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

A chance to shatter a glass ceiling: Fox should hire Jane Goldman to direct X-Men: Days of Future Past.

I'm going to make this as brief as I can.  As most of you know, the industry was somewhat stunned this afternoon when it was announced that Matthew Vaughn was stepping down from directing X-Men: Days of Future Past (IE - X-Men: First Class 2).  The film is set to roll in early 2013 which means Fox will be scrambling for a replacement director.  The rumor mill suggests that none other than Bryan Singer is being lured back to the director's chair for the franchise that he started twelve years ago.  Jack and the Giant Slayer feels like a dud and Superman Returns nearly killed an iconic franchise.  You know my thoughts on directors returning to franchises they walked away from long ago after a string of disappointments and you can know admit that I was right about Ridley Scott and Prometheus.  I have another idea for who should helm the sequel.  She is the co-writer of the last X-Men First Class and this upcoming sequel and she is a frequent collaborator with Mr. Vaughn having co-written nearly all of his projects since Stardust back in 2007 while also writing The Woman In Black just this year.  If you want someone who is comfortable in the world established by Bryan Singer while also arguably offering a fresh perspective to a now-12 year old series, she's an obvious bet.  That Jane Goldman is a "she" is a bonus.

 I've written countless times about how white male filmmakers get handed the keys to major tentpole pictures with almost no experience and they keep getting more bites at the apple even when their product turns out to be sub-par and/or said films lose large amounts of money.   With almost no experience on his resume aside from some commercials, Universal gave Rupert Sanders $175 million to make a stunningly mediocre Snow White and the Huntsman.  Never mind that he delivered a lousy product, never mind that he got caught snogging the leading lady thus endangering the entire would-be franchise with which he was entrusted.  He's still getting projects tossed his way.  And never mind that complete neophyte Joseph Krosinski spent $175-$200 million on the dull-as-dishwater Tron: Legacy, a film so underwhelming that it killed the franchise despite making $400 million worldwide.  He still gets to make Oblivion with Tom Cruise, which I certainly hope is better (frankly the fact that it's getting an advance IMAX-only release gives me hope).  Marcus Nispel makes a mediocre Conan the Barbarian rip-off with Pathfinder and then somehow makes a Friday the 13th remake that is inferior to most of the 1980s sequels yet he still ends up with $90 million to make a Conan the Barbarian remake that few see and even fewer like.

By this standard, Jane Goldman damn-well deserves a shot at helming a franchise for which she seems to have a genuine understanding.  Yes, part of this is about Fox taking the chance to shatter a glass ceiling that Marvel chickened out on. A 20th Century Fox X-Men picture will probably be a tightly controlled affair anyway, so why not let hire the next best thing to Matthew Vaughn?  He'll stick around to produce it as will Bryan Singer, while the time travel sequel can lens under the command of the third member of the unofficial X-Men brain trust.  And if it works, if Goldman delivers a solid picture, it will go a long way toward refuting the notion that female directors can't direct big-budget tent pole affairs.  Marvel had a chance to make history with Patty Jenkins last year but tossed her off of Thor: The Dark World during pre-production for reasons never made clear.  Lionsgate had a chance to do the same when Gary Marshall decided not to stay with the Hunger Games franchise but instead went with (the admittedly qualified) Francis Lawrence.  20th Century Fox now has a chance to be somewhat groundbreaking.  For these reason, her obvious qualifications, her membership in the current unofficial X-Men brain trust, and the token social progress it will represent, I nominate Jane Goldman to helm X-Men: Days of Future Past.

Scott Mendelson

Cloud Atlas versus Fun Size and more as John Gosling previews the week's new films (10-26-12).

Cloud Atlas is an adaptation of David Mitchell's sprawling, multi-layered book of the same name. It spans six different time periods, beginning in 1850 and ending in a distant post-apocalyptic future, and covers many aspects of the human condition and the idea of eternal recurrence. Thought to be impossible to translate into a screenplay (something Mitchell himself admitted) due to its complex nature and themes, it came as some surprise when director Tom Tykwer revealed in 2009 that he had begun work on a script for Cloud Atlas with The Wachowski's, who had optioned the rights to the book. This came about when The Matrix duo were shooting second unit on the 2005 flick V for Vendetta, and noticed star Natalie Portman engrossed in the book. After listening to Portman rave over it, both Lana and Andy read it and were equally as impressed. On the look out for a project on which they could collaborate with Tom Tykwer , they urged the German-born director to read it. He too was blown away and quickly joined the project. But commitments on both sides held back work until 2009 (Tykwer was finishing up The International, the Wachowski's were experimenting with Iraq war drama Cobalt Neural 9, a project on which they would not secure funding). By February 2009, the trio assembled in Costa Rica to begin work. 

They ran into problems of how to convey the different story-lines  yet keep the links between them in tact. There were also issues with how the book was set out and its use and partial invention of language. Furthermore, the story only follows a chronological path until half way through, when it reverses (meaning it starts and finishes in 1850). The directors attempted to break it down into hundreds of small scenes and arranged them into a time line which would (they hoped) resemble the order in which a traditional film would play out. Still they could make no headway, but with their time together almost up, they were hit by a revelation - they could have the same actors playing different roles in each story to show that the human soul is reincarnated and goes on - tapping into the aforementioned eternal recurrence (a major theme in the book). With this in mind, the Wachowski's started work on assembling a screenplay and thus began a back and forth between themselves and Tykwer. Having been burned badly by Alan Moore's comments regarding their V for Vendetta adaptation, they, along with Tykwer agreed that if author David Mitchell disliked their screenplay, they would scrap the work they had done and go their separate ways. Fortunately, Mitchell loved it and joked that the trio now knew his book and characters better than he himself did. With his blessing, they began to seek funding. Despite their combined clout (the Wachowski's Matrix trilogy had earned within excess of $1B in theatrical, home and ancillary sales for WB) they hit walls at every turn. Warner Bros. did eventually offer to distribute the picture domestically, but that fee would only partially cover the proposed $140M production budget. Worse was to come. While casting the film the studio put the deal on hold, claiming that the figures didn't add up (Lana Wachowski told The New Yorker that Warner Bros. had used the Darran Aronofsky film, The Fountain, as their financial projection model for Cloud Atlas).

Thanks to securing Tom Hanks for the project, they were able to return to WB and get the funding, though not as much as originally offered. Further money was also secured from the German Federal Film Fund. The project continued to stall a number of times, with the traditional method of raising funds out of the window. Instead, the production signed up a number of investors, but this still wasn't enough and left the picture in the risky position of falling apart if even one financier dropped out. Even a passionate presentation by Tykwer, The Wachowski's and Focus Features' James Schamus at the Cannes film festival in 2011 failed to generate enough funds. In fact the opposite took place - seeing a lack of investment in the project prompted others to withhold or withdraw their funding. Eventually the costs were scaled back to $100M, giving the picture an $86M shooting budget. The Wachowski's not only gave up their directing fees but also invested some of their own money into the film. With funding coming from so many sources, Cloud Atlas has been deemed one of the most expensive independent movies ever produced.  Casting could finally begin in earnest. Along with Hanks, the trio signed up Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Ben Wishaw, Susan Sarandon, Doona Bae and Halle Berry (taking the role originally earmarked for Natalie Portman), along with Hugh Grant, who was cast at the last minute. All would have multiple roles - Hanks would play four different characters, Berry had five while Weaving would play a different part in every single story. It was decided The Wachowski's would handle the 19th century chapter, along with the two future ones, while Tykwer took on the 30s, the 70s and the present day installments  Two separate crews would operate on the film, but work closely together. Shooting commenced in September 2011, primarily in Berlin but also counting Majorca and Scotland among its location shoots.

By December, filming was complete and the directors screened a 170-minute cut to Warner Bros. brass, who much to the trio's surprise, loved it. The only issue now was how they could possibly market the film to the public - attempting to convey its complexities in two minutes and thirty seconds. In a move as bizarre as their funding process, Tykwer and The Wachowski's issued an epic five minute long, online trailer, which sought to explain what the film was about, while displaying some incredible visuals. Furthermore, they created an introduction to the trailer in which the three talked about the film and its themes. Having had their lives shrouded in secrecy for many a year, after an earlier encounter with the Hollywood machine left them fearful, The Wachowski's (now classing themselves as Wachowski Starship) appearing on screen generated almost as much hype as the trailer itself. Knowing their livelihoods depend on the film's success, they have continued to use themselves to promote the picture, granting interviews and such like. Cloud Atlas premiered at the Toronto Film Festival to great acclaim and received a ten minute standing ovation. Subsequent screenings have gone equally well, but more than one critic has mentioned that while the movie is audacious in both theme and scale, it is almost as far from potential commercial success as is possible. At 164 minutes in length, with six interweaving and time spanning stories, along with the same actors playing multiple characters, Cloud Atlas may find success at the box office hard to come by this weekend. It opens on the fewest theatres (estimated at 1,950) of all this week's major new releases. Ultimately, will Tom Tykwer and Wachowski Starship end up losing their houses because of Cloud Atlas?

Our next new release this weekend is the Nickelodeon produced comedy, Fun Size, featuring Victorious star Victoria Justice. When Wren is invited to a Halloween party by a guy she has a major crush on, she couldn't be happy. But the plans fall apart when Wren's mother asks her to babysit/go trick or treating with her little brother Albert. Trying to kill two birds with one stone, she takes her brother along to the party, but inadvertently loses him among the crowds of people. With the help of two geek guys (who just happen to have a access to a car) and her best friend by her side, Wren faces a race against time - find Albert before her mother realizes he's missing. She soon discovers her Halloween adventure is about to get a whole lot crazier. Josh Schwartz makes his directorial debut on the picture, but is no stranger to the game, having created TV series The O.C, and been co-creator on Chuck and Gossip Girls, among a number of other TV productions. He was announced as director back in January 2011, and had cast Victoria Justice by March, to be joined a month later by Jane Levy, who was set to play Wren's best friend, April. With everything set to go on the production, bad weather delayed filming, causing newcomer Schwartz to have to shoot much faster than he'd anticipated when things finally got back on track. Switching locations from Minnesota, to Michigan and then finally Cleveland didn't help matters either. The first (and only) trailer for Fun Size was issued in June 2012, with a late October release set. Interestingly, despite being a Nickelodeon production, the film received a PG-13 rating, only the second time this has happened on a 'Nick' picture (the first being Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging). That could leave Fun Size in a tricky position - too old for the family market but not edgy enough for the teen crowd. How much Halloween itself affects the film's prospects is also open to debate given that many will celebrate this weekend. The good news is that Fun Size faces no direct competition this frame and could tap some of the market that made a flick like the first Diary of a Wimpy Kid a hit.

Next up this weekend is the true life drama Chasing Mavericks, which stars Gerard Butler and Jonny Weston. The film chronicles the life of surfer Jay Moriarty and his tutelage under local surf legend, Frosty Hesson. Moriarty dreams of surfing the most dangerous waves in North America but finds he still has a lot to learn about surfing and life in general. Hooking up with Hesson, who is initially resistant to the idea of teaching him, the two form a friendship as Moriarty prepares to realize his dream. Joining Butler and Weston is Elisabeth Shue, taking on her third role in the space of a few months (she featured in Hope Springs and House at the End of The Street). At the helm of Chasing Mavericks (Which was originally titled Of Men and Mavericks) are veteran directors Curtis Hanson and Michael Apted, known for, among other things, his work on the 'Up' documentary series. While Hanson has been directing since 1973 (his debut was the Roger Corman produced Sweet Kill), it was his 1990s output that shot him to mainstream success, beginning with Bad Influence, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle and The River Wild, before going on to direct arguably his best work, the multi-award winning L.A Confidential in 1997 (editor's note: Wonder Boys, from 2000, is also superb and one of that decade's best films). Chasing Mavericks shot around this time last year, with Walden Media and Fox opting for a busy Halloween release date. Real life dramas can go either way at the box office, but often have the power to surprise - 2011's A Dolphin's Tale opened to an impressive $19M, before going on to gross over $70M in North America. Furthermore the thinking here could be that people who would be out trick or treating wouldn't be likely to see such a picture as this anyway, so the film loses little box office potential due to its date clashing with Halloween festivities. At the time of writing, Chasing Mavericks is set to open at 2,000 locations.

Silent Hill: Revelations is the sequel to the 2006 minor hit Silent Hill, which was itself based on the best-selling Konami video game series (the adaptation borrowed elements from the first four games). Set largely in the titular town, the original starred Sean Bean, Radha Mitchell and Deborah Kara Unger and had been in development for a number of years before moving forward. Scripting on the original film went to Oscar winner Roger Avary, known for his work with Quentin Tarantino and for directing 1994's Killing Zoe and The Rules of Attraction in 2002. At the helm was Christophe Gans, who described the film as a labor of love. It would go on to make $46M domestically, with a further $50M coming overseas, and North America DVD sales in excess of 1.3M. Gans claimed in December 2006 he had a follow-up officially ready to go, but he would leave the project shortly after citing that he had other ideas he wished to work on instead. This caused a delay in proceedings which was exasperated when Roger Avary, already on board to write the sequel, was jailed in 2008 for vehicular manslaughter. There was little movement for almost two years, apart from Silent Hill video game artist Masahiro Ito declining the offer to work on creature design/general world aesthetics for the sequel. It would be November 2010 before Michael J. Bassett signed on to write and direct Silent Hill: Revelations. Bassett was an English born director whose previous work included the World War I horror Deathwatch and the 2009 action adventure Solomon Kane (which received a very limited release in North America just a few weeks ago).

Along with her father Christopher (a returning Sean Bean), Heath Mason has spent years evading malevolent forces. Just as she is about to turn 18, her father disappears and Heather discovers her identity and origins may actually be false. This discovery leads her to an alternate Silent Hill, which is controlled by Claudia (played by Carrie-Anne Moss) and Leonard Wolf (Malcolm McDowell). While there she also encounters Radha Mitchell's Rose Da Silva and soon discovers she may be trapped in the demonic world of Silent Hill forever. Filming on the sequel took place in Toronto in March and April of 2011, with the picture shooting in 3D as opposed to being converted in post-production. At the San Diego Comic-Con of 2012, two short clips were unveiled, followed by a trailer appearing online late July. Silent Hill: Revelations has its work cut out this weekend, as it faces not only the second frame of Paranormal Activity 4 but the still popular Sinister. Like the Resident Evil franchise, this could be another videogame adaptation that plays much better overseas than domestically, even with an estimated 3,000 location North American roll out.

John Gosling