Review: Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty (2012) is a powerful tale of the costs of 'justifiable' violence.

Zero Dark Thirty

2012
150 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty (trailer) is a refreshing 'just the facts' procedural drama that maintains an almost allergic aversion to melodrama.  The film is ice-cold throughout, maintaining an even-keeled approach to the decade-long manhunt for Osama Bin Laden, pausing only occasionally to acknowledge the aftermath of violence.  At a glance, the film is basically the Jessica Chastain show, as she quickly becomes the center of the film and dominates the proceedings even when the focus shifts in the final thirty minutes.  Hers is a dynamite movie star performance, one that is not only Oscar-worthy but will likely win her the statute in a few months time.  The film surrounding her is an intense and often fascinating 'inside' look at both the 'dark side' and the mundane side of the would-be War on Terror.  It's a nasty bit of business, and its matter-of-fact presentation of unsavory details could be read as an implicit endorsement, just as its climactic brutality denies you the catharsis you might be expecting.  It merely exists to tell its story, not tell you how to feel about it.

The picture spans from 2003 until May 1st, 2011 as it follows Maya (Chastain) as she feverishly pursues a singular lead involving a possibly important Al-Qaeda messenger who she believes is close enough to Bin Laden to warrant absolute attention.  Through her we get a look at how the CIA went to work in the aftermath of 9/11 (the picture opens with an audio reminder of the attacks, arguably more for future generations than for us) and through her we see the years of weariness, false leads, dashed hopes, and seeming futility of it all.  We see plenty of 'enhanced interrogations', many of them conducted by Dan (Jason Clarke) who initiates Maya into the field right from the start. The film seems to view torture as a necessary evil, although eagle-eyed viewers will note that it doesn't elicit all that much of use.  Of note, the only time we see any major politician onscreen is when Barack Obama is shown on 60 Minutes stating that American does not torture to which Maya and Don and the others watching do all they can not to roll their eyes.

But again, it's clear that Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal are merely showing what these people felt, not proclaiming their own personal opinions on the subject.  The politics of the last ten years go unmentioned, with nary a reference to Iraq or the Bush Administration.  We do see several jolting acts of terrorist violence over the 8-year long story, and the film's only narrative fault is how often Maya seems to find herself in the thick of it (that may be true, but it feels like a narrative cheat).  There are sequences on genuine suspense and tension, even during the climactic raid where most of us know the outcome and general details.  The rest of the CIA crew are represented by the likes of Mark Strong, Kyle Chandler, Jennifer Ehle, and James Gandolfini.  All of these people are presented merely as dedicated professionals and none of them are lionized nor villainized.  This is a story of professionals doing their jobs, plain and simple.

That level-headed professionalism extends to the climactic raid.  The assault on Bin Laden's compound takes up the last portion of the film, and it's not quite what you may be expecting.  The raid unfolds in what seems like real time and it's a combination of high tension and grotesque reality.  The armed assault presented here is stark, detail-rich, and unflinchingly brutal.  We see gruesome violence, we see apparent innocents being shot, and we see horrified and surely traumatized children huddled in a dark room while US soldiers hold them at bay.  If you want to feel warm-and-fuzzy about the death of Osama Bin Laden, go watch the "5/1" episode of The Newsroom.  Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal detail all manner of violence, be it the various moments of torture, the periodic terrorist attacks, and the climactic bloodshed in a bluntly matter-of-fact fashion.

The film is unapologetically adult, refusing to coddle viewers with historical context or moral certainty (free hint: KSM = Khalid Sheikh Mohammed). I imagine the debates about which side of the political divide the picture sits on will be furious in the coming weeks and months, as it's story reveals how ideologically skewed reality often turns out to be (essay).  The overwhelming grimness extends to the finale and it reminds us that the picture was in the planning stages even before the unexpected 'happy ending'.  But unlike the Jimmy Fallon/Drew Barrymore romantic comedy Fever Pitch, another film altered by an unexpected real-life "feel good conclusion", the filmmakers don't allow unplanned reality to get in the way of the story they are trying to tell.  The mood from the outset is one of fatigue and weariness and even the finale dares to suggest how little was gained considering what was spent and what was lost for those who spent the last decade hunting down Bin Laden.

This actually falls right in line with Bigelow's Point Break.  That seemingly campy Keanu Reeves/Patrick Swayze action picture treated all violence as a moral tragedy and acknowledged that the world isn't made right again once the bad guy dies.  In Bigelow's world, be it the corrupt big city politics of Strange Days, Ron Silver's deranged killing spree in Blue Steel, the averted disaster of K19: The Widowmaker, or the guns-blazing sixth-season finale of Homicide: Life on the Street, the only truly good violence is the violence that was avoided and/or prevented.  Once blood is shed, Bigelow has long said, the happy ending is toast and we can only cope as best we can with the aftermath and the repercussions (which perhaps justifies a 'whatever it takes' strategy).  As such it is with Zero Dark Thirty.  The execution of Bin Laden is dirty business that was perhaps necessary, but the film takes no pleasure in it thus implicitly condemning those who rejoiced (and politicians who campaigned on it, natch).

Zero Dark Thirty is a fantastic achievement.  It's powered by Jessica Chastain's terrific performance and absolutely becomes the definitive take on its subject.  It's a cracking thriller, a mournful drama, and a thoughtful meditation on the costs of violence even in the most seemingly justifiable circumstances.  It is a grand and epic tragedy with nary a hint of melodrama or arbitrary 'human interest' subplots that nonetheless feels painfully human.  Of the many movies that have plowed past the 135 minute mark this season, this one felt the shortest.  It is a terrific piece of adult entertainment and one of the best films of 2012.

Grade: A

Brandon Peters says: Watch the Dirty Harry franchise during G4's all-day marathon this Saturday!

Hey Mendelnites (can we use that, Scott?), in the even you've never seen the Dirty Harry series or would like to in order to keep with my dissection, but are unable to find the films or don't want to shell out $$ - you're in luck.

This Saturday (December 1st), the G4 Network (the one that pretty much airs Cops like its 1992) is marathoning the Dirty Harry series all day and probably 2 or 3 times through. So, either plop down and marathon it yourself or set your DVR!

Brandon Peters

Brandon Peters returns! Brandon Peters dissects the Dirty Harry franchise part I: Dirty Harry (1971)

Previously in Mendelson's Memos...

"Did Brandon write about 24 (007) movies or 25? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is Mendelson’s Memos, the most powerful punditry in the world, and would blow your Blog clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question about the next retrospective: "Do I feel lucky?" Well do ya, punk?"

20 days later...

For those who enjoyed Brandon Peters's insanely exhaustive James Bond retrospective reviews, rejoice at his return to the world of franchise retrospectives.  This time around, it's a mere five picture, which span from 1971 to 1988.  Yup, it's the Dirty Harry franchise.  As always, I'll do my best to stay out of it (I wrote about the franchise in a film school paper back in 2001), but I implore you to not do the same.  Anyway, without further ado, into the world of Harry Callaghan we go!

Dirty Harry

1971

Director: Don Siegel

Starring:  Clint Eastwood, Andy Robinson, John Vernon, Reni Santoni

Rated R

And now, after 25 Bond films, I’m doing the “one for me” retrospective.  Hopefully it can turn into a “one for you” too.  The Dirty Harry series is one of my favorite film franchises.  I’ve noticed there’s not a whole lot of retrospective analysis on the internet about a five film franchise spanning 17 years.  It’s likely because the series hasn’t had an entry since 1988.  There were some brief talks of a reboot in the last decade, but nothing came to fruition.  And quite frankly, Dirty Harry’s mark is so firmly implanted on the action hero that a reboot or return isn’t at all going to prove or do anything.  And if you really want that extra entry, you can pretend Clint Eastwood’s character in Gran Torino is named Harry Callahan. 

Dirty Harry was the product of a script called Dead Right.  Dead Right went through many studios, mediums, directors and actors before finally becoming the product we would come to know.   One of the rewrites came from now acclaimed director Terrence Malick.  Malick’s ideals for his story would later be used for the sequel, Magnum Force.  At one point it was slated to become a television movie, but the script was too violent in its nature.

The character was written with John Wayne for inspiration but the first casting call went to Frank Sinatra.  With Frank on board, Irvin Kershner was attached to direct.  Frank dropped out of the film because of a lingering wrist injury from shooting The Manchurian Candidate eight years prior along with a desire to shoot a lighter films following the death of his father.  When Sinatra left, so did Kershner.  John Wayne was offered the part he inspired, but turned it down because he didn’t want Frank Sinatra’s sloppy seconds.  Burt Lancaster was then offered the role and refused.  Steve McQueen was the next to turn it down.  Paul Newman turned it down but strongly suggested Warner Bros consider Clint Eastwood for the role.  Eastwood loved the script and brought on Don Siegel to direct.

The film’s title character is a widowed cop married to upholding the law any way necessary.  If extreme measures are needed to save a life or stop a crime, Harry Callahan will take them.  Eastwood’s portrayal is extremely that of a cold, bigoted man who refuses to let anyone or thing stand in his way.  But, he’s also good to those who don’t cross him or choose to follow him.  The morals and tactics with which Harry goes to bring justice was the source of much controversy upon the release of the film.  However, the film’s authority figures do not condone his actions and treat them as by the book.  I don’t think the film is trying to speak for every case, but trying to show in particular that in this case Harry’s tactics become necessary.  A lot of the discussion was about Harry not respecting a person’s rights, however none of it was about how much a complete nut job could take advantage of said rights.  I personally choose not to get into that at all, and see the film as a piece of entertainment, of good vs evil.  And this is also was Eastwood and Siegel saw it when making it.  There’s a lot of fun to have with this character and apparently the majority saw him as a positive as his legacy has carried on through films still to this day.

The villain, whose rights are in question, is Scorpio (in a surprisingly not star-making role for Andy Robinson).  The basis for Scorpio’s actions was the Zodiac Killer, who at the time was a current event still ongoing.  He’s just a crazed loon who goes out sniping innocent and random victims, asking for $100,000 from the police.  After 3 murders and a kidnapped girl buried alive with precious time left, Harry breaks into his residence to hurry up and get the location of the girl before time runs out.  As it turns out, the girl is already dead, and without a warrant and Harry’s torture, Scorpio is set free.  Harry stalks him, but in only a crazy kinda smart way, Scorpio pays to have himself viciously beaten to blame on Callahan.  He later does something Zodiac only threatened to do, and hijacks a bus full of children.  Harry once again takes it into his own hands to track him down and finish him off.

Scorpio and Harry kind of parallel each other, making the head to head match up only more engaging.  Scorpio is a little, scrawny, sloppily dressed man who is always flailing as he moves and carries a big gun that he uses at long range so nobody can see him.  Harry is tall, carries himself well, walks smoothly and carries a personal weapon, the magnum.  His attack methods are also always up close, in your face and out in the open.  The two couldn’t be perfect opposites.  Scorpio takes advantage of the law to get away with his crimes while Harry breaks it to uphold justice.  And in the end, Scorpio holds a child hostage hesitant to pull the trigger, while Harry isn’t afraid to take the shot at Scorpio with the kid in the way.

This is a well directed and photographed film.  There are bunch of beautiful aerial shots. The night scenes in the movie are very dark at times, to where you can’t really see what’s going on, but it somehow works and doesn’t remove you from the film.  And at times, it looks and feels like a horror film where you’re following the slasher as the hero.  The film features original and unique action sequence with pretty much every one being a highlight worthy piece.  The known action set piece is the bank robbery where Harry first spouts his famous speech (“Do you feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?”).  It also features Fred Williamson who we’ll later see in other entries (in different roles).  The scene clearly and successfully establish what not only a great sleuth, but what a great bad ass Harry is.  Another favorite is the money drop-off scene (later redone in Die Hard With A Vengeance), where Harry must go payphone to payphone within a certain amount of time to get the next destination to drop off the money.  Along the way he comes across many obstacles almost preventing him from getting to the phone in time.  By today’s standards these aren’t huge, blow up your speakers, action pieces.  However, they still work in spades with their violence and suspense.

The score of the film is from Lalo Schifrin (the man who brought you the Mission: Impossible theme).  And at times it sounds like the inspiration for Super Fly and time the inspiration for Friday the 13^th.  It’s a pretty good, above average score.  The score is at times very complimentary and at times just there.

Dirty Harry is one of my absolute favorite films of all time.  If you’re a younger film geek and you’ve not yet explored this series (or maybe never heard of it), check this one out.  And, hey, go through this series with me.  We can discuss stuff in the comments section.  The film is compelling crime drama, with an engaging central character, great villain and suspenseful plot.  The film can raise important debate topics if you want or be sheer entertainment.  When I first saw the film I was highly amused at the overly bad ass Harry, but in subsequent viewings over the years I’ve seen this film as so much more (especially since I grew up with it on VHS and the advent of DVD/Blu-ray allowing us to see the beautiful photography in all its intended glory).

Up Next:  MAGNUM FORCE

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

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

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

Press Release and Commentary: Disney names Jennifer Lee as co-director of Frozen and it will be a musical.

There are two things of note in the press release, which I've include in full after the jump.  One, obviously, Disney is making another go at having an animated feature directed by a woman and actually featuring female protagonists (plural!) at its center.  Obviously one can only hope this story has a happier ending than Brenda Chapman's experiences on Pixar's Brave and one can only hope we'll soon reach the point when hiring a female filmmaker to direct a major animated feature isn't considered major news.  Anyway, Ms. Lee recently co-wrote Wreck It Ralph.  The other bit, arguably almost burying the lead, comes right at the end.

"With original songs by Tony®-award winner Robert Lopez (“The Book of Mormon,” “Avenue Q”) and Kristen Anderson-Lopez (“In Transit”), “Frozen” journeys into theaters Nov. 27, 2013, in Disney Digital 3D™ in select theaters."

That's right, folks.  Disney is apparently crafting another old-school 90s-style musical and just like the Waking Sleeping Beauty era, they are stealing from Broadway to do it.  Interesting... Anyway, the press release is below and feel free to share your thoughts on this nugget of news.

Scott Mendelson

WALT DISNEY ANIMATION STUDIOS NAMES

JENNIFER LEE DIRECTOR OF “FROZEN”

Screenwriter/Director Lee Joins Director Chris Buck at the Helm

of WDAS’ 53^rd Full-Length Animated Feature

BURBANK, Calif. (November 29, 2012) -- Walt Disney Animation Studios (WDAS) taps Jennifer Lee to join Chris Buck at the helm of its 53^rd full-length animated feature “Frozen,” which is slated for the big screen on Nov. 27, 2013. Lee, who has contributed to the film’s screenplay, is one of the screenplay writers of this year’s hit arcade-hopping adventure “Wreck-It Ralph.”

Featuring the voices of Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel, “Frozen” is the coolest comedy-adventure ever to hit the big screen. When a prophecy traps a kingdom in eternal winter, Anna, a fearless optimist, teams up with extreme mountain man Kristoff and his sidekick reindeer Sven on an epic journey to find Anna’s sister Elsa, the Snow Queen, and put an end to her icy spell. Encountering mystical trolls, a funny snowman named Olaf, Everest-like extremes and magic at every turn, Anna and Kristoff battle the elements in a race to save the kingdom from destruction. 

“Frozen” producer Peter Del Vecho says the match-up is perfect. “Jenn has a real connection to the film and creates dynamic and relatable characters. Her sense of comedy, adventure and story structure paired with Chris Buck’s vast experience and incredible instincts create an ideal situation for this film.”

Lee's screen adaptation of John Steinbeck’s “The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights” is being produced by Troika Pictures. She has an original screenplay in development with Leonardo DiCaprio's Appian Way, and her original script “Lucid Dreams” was optioned by Wolfgang Peterson's Radiant Productions. Lee holds an MFA in Film from Columbia University and a BA in English from the University of New Hampshire.

Buck directed (with Kevin Lima) Disney’s 1999 high-swinging feature “Tarzan,” which won an Oscar® and a Golden Globe® for Best Music/Original Song (Phil Collins’ “You’ll Be in My Heart”). He directed (with Ash Brannon) 2007’s Oscar-nominated “Surf’s Up” for Sony Pictures Animation. His credits within animation also include 1989’s “The Little Mermaid,” “The Rescuers Down Under” (1990) and “Pocahontas” (1995).

With original songs by Tony®-award winner Robert Lopez (“The Book of Mormon,” “Avenue Q”) and Kristen Anderson-Lopez (“In Transit”), “Frozen” journeys into theaters Nov. 27, 2013, in Disney Digital 3D™ in select theaters. For more information, like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DisneyFrozen.

Learn all about Killing Them Softly and The Collection in John Gosling's weekend movie preview (11-30-12).

A couple of quiet weeks ahead before The Hobbit arrives on December 14th. This week brings us the dark thriller, Killing Them Softly, which stars Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, Ray Liotta and Richard Jenkins. The plot sees a couple of low-rung criminals deciding to rob a mob-controlled card game, figuring no one will suspect them given that the guy in charge of the game (Liotta) had already robbed one previously. But the mob aren't going to take it lying down and hire ruthless enforcer Jackie Cogan (Pitt) to get to the bottom of the situation and bring about swift retribution. Set against a background of economic turmoil in America, Cogan soon discovers not even he (or the mob) is immune to the cost cutting affecting the country, but that a job still has to be done regardless. The film is based on the 1974 novel, Cogan's Trade by George V. Higgins and was adapted for the screen by writer/director Andrew Dominik. Dominik shot to fame thanks to his violent black comedy debut, Chopper (which starred Eric Bana) before teaming up with Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck for the acclaimed Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.   Work began on what was originally called Cogan's Trade back in 2010, and by November of that year, the film was announced as a go-project, with early rumors suggesting Pitt would re-team with Dominik to take on the lead role. 

Those stories were confirmed a month later when the actor officially joined the picture (the director stated that Pitt agreed to star during a text message exchange which took just 30 minutes). Further casting was announced in early 2011 with the movie set to commence shooting in March, primarily in  Louisiana. Having had running time issues with the studio over Jesse James, it looked as though history was set to repeat when the original cut of the new picture clocked in at over two and half hours. However Dominik continued to work on the project, eventually resulting in a very tight 97 minute cut. Cogan's Trade became Killing Them Softly just prior to receiving its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in 2012. Early reviews were very positive and it has continued to collect strong notices as its release date loomed closer. The Weinstein Company originally had a September release date in place but pushed the flick back to avoid Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master (Killing Them Softly has already seen release in Australia, Russia and a number of other territories, including the UK, where it made $4M). Curiously, despite being set to debut at an estimated 2,000 locations, pre-release hype and advertising have been incredibly low key, meaning that the film may well end up being lost among the bigger existing releases this weekend.

The only other major release this Friday is horror sequel, The Collection, a follow up to the July 2009 cult hit The Collector. In the original film, a thief breaks into a house only to discover The Collector, a vicious serial killer, is already there and has set up a number of horrific traps, some of which have already been sprung on the unfortunate residents of the house. The thief faced a race against time to get the family's young daughter to safety without falling foul of the deadly devices and The Collector himself. The picture actually began life as The Midnight Man, and at one point was proposed as a prequel to the Saw series, but that idea was quickly abandoned. Opening in 2009 at 1,325 theaters  the $4M budgeted horror went on to make just under $8M domestically with another million or so dollars coming from its DVD release. 

With only minor success, writer Patrick Melton (who co-scripted the final four Saw movies) was taken aback when producers approached him to write a follow up. Deals were hammered out and a sequel, The Collection, began shooting in October 2010. Melton and co-writer Marcus Dunstan would return, with the later once again acting as director. The story this time around would see the daughter of a wealthy businessman kidnapped by the Collector and kept in his maze-like hotel full of brutal traps and devices. The father decides to hire a group of mercenaries to retrieve her, and blackmails the only man to escape The Collector's deadly grasp to lead them. With recent theatrical horror releases favoring frights over gore, The Collection might find itself out in the cold this weekend, but as we've seen numerous times in the past, particularly with the Saw and Hostel series, there is a market for this kind of visceral flick. At the time of writing, The Collection is set to debut nationwide.

John Gosling

Rumor commentary: Joseph Gordon-Levitt may be playing Batman in the Justice League movie.

HitFix broke the story late last night and while I generally try to avoid commenting on rumors, McWeeny is a pretty trustworthy source for this kind of thing.  Anyway, long story short, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is allegedly in talks to reprise his role as John Blake (cough-Tim Drake-cough) in Warner Bros.' upcoming Justice League film.  Said superhero team-up is set to open in summer 2015 (July 17th, I'd presume), where it will square off against The Avengers 2 and Star Wars Episode VII.  So if the rumor comes to pass, it looks like John Blake will be the man in the cowl, as opposed to a new actor playing a new Bruce Wayne.  Also of note, John Blake (as Batman?) will allegedly make a post-production cameo in Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, which comes off of Snyder's comments stating that Man of Steel won't be as closed-world as he had previously indicated.  So presuming this is all true and not just a rumor or a gambit to drum up interest in next week's DVD/Blu Ray release of The Dark Knight Rises, what do I think?  Well, it's both not terribly surprising and incredibly shocking.  

John Blake's 'discovery' of the Bat Cave is of course the closing shot of The Dark Knight Rises, which was a way for Chris Nolan to have his cake and eat it too.  He arguably closed the book on the Bruce Wayne-as-Batman saga while still leaving room for further exploration.  I suppose the big question this raises is a pretty simple one: How much do you want to see a Justice League movie with Robin as Batman?  The John Blake character was a pretty clear mash-up of Jason Todd and Tim Drake, second and third of the now five (!) people to don the Robin outfit in the Batman comic continuity.  What's interesting about this is that Warner Bros. is basically telling Chris Nolan and his 'closed universe' to jump off a cliff.  Not only does having a John Blake as Batman in the Justice League movie bring the Chris Nolan Batman saga into the 'DC film franchise' continuity, but it basically threatens to invalidate the closed-ended nature of the three pictures.    Since Bruce Wayne is left alive and well at the conclusion of The Dark Knight Rises, how many sequels will Warner Bros. allow to go by without finding a way to get Bruce Wayne, played by Christian Bale or a replacement actor, back into the bat-suit, negating the entire 'Dark Knight Saga'?

Moreover, if the guy under the Bat-cowl isn't Bruce Wayne, what's really the point of including Batman in the team in the first place?  Part of the fun of The Avengers and the animated Justice League series was watching rather specific characters bump up against each other.  John Blake isn't Bruce Wayne, period.  He doesn't have the psychological issues nor does he have the vast fortune (something that was left hanging in The Dark Knight Rises) of Bruce Wayne.  Watching Bruce Wayne, be it Bale's Wayne or a different actor under the cowl, match wits with Clark Kent and Diana Prince is a vastly different experience than watching the relatively vanilla John Blake and Clark Kent team up and fight crime.  Imagine for a moment if The Avengers basically replaced Tony Stark with the far more pragmatic and less obnoxious James Rhodes as the would-be Iron Man.  All due respect to Don Cheadle, but it wouldn't have been the same character cocktail and it would have been a vastly different picture.

In the end, this almost feels like a film version of the budgetary surplus that Bill Clinton left us with at the end of his term.  He has long regretted just leaving the surplus in the budget as opposed to spending it, as his 'gift to the nation' was squandered on tax cuts for the very wealthy by his successor.  Chris Nolan gave us an arguably close-ended story but didn't go the cheap-shock route of killing Bruce Wayne and/or blowing up Gotham City.  For his relative restraint, he is apparently being rewarded by Warner Bros. basically undoing the entire close-ended and solitary nature of his three-part story.  What this does, and I think this is what's motivating Warner Bros. toward this direction, is turn Justice League into a de-facto sequel to The Dark Knight Rises.  But putting aside that, the question is whether a Justice League movie with someone other than Bruce Wayne as Batman will really play like a true Justice League movie?  And at what point will Warner Bros. realize that they have to find a way to make DC Comics films without leaning on the Chris Nolan trilogy as a crutch?  Anyway, I don't want to ramble any more about something that may or may not come to pass, but there you have it.

What are your thoughts on this rumor?  Does having John Blake and not Bruce Wayne dilute the Justice League brand?  Are you concerned that basically bringing the Nolan films into 'DC movie continuity' will negate their close-ended nature and/or send fans demanding that Christian Bale return in a later Justice League picture?  Do share below...

Scott Mendelson               

Review: Killing Them Softly (2012) is a strong crime drama slightly bogged down by overly explicit subtext.

Killing Them Softly

2012
95 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Andrew Dominik's Killing Them Softly has, from a conversational standpoint, one of the finest screenplays of the last few years.  It is a relatively low-key crime drama, filled with crusty character actors doing chewy character turns.  But more importantly, certainly more importantly than its sledgehammer subtext (more on that later), it is an absolute revelation in terms of the art of cinematic conversation.  The film is rich with authentic dialogue and thoughtful discussion, both of the film's issues and of matters related merely to character.  Frankly most of the film involves two or three characters conversing with each other, so it's a good thing the dialogue is so darn good.  When the film stays within its own world, it is a top-notch entry in its sub-genre.  Its only real fault is in trying too hard to achieve topicality and relevance, to the point where the subtext becomes explicit text.


The inciting factor that kicks off the film is a daring robbery of a gangland card game.  This is not the first time such a robbery has occurred, and immediate action must be taken to restore a sense of order in the organized crime community.  Enter Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt), brought in by a local mediator of sorts played with deadpan nerve by the always wonderful Richard Jenkins.  He is a hit man plain and simple, although his assignment is slightly more complicated than merely finding and disposing of the perpetrators.  The illusion of order is as important, if not more so than actual order itself, so whether or not the right people get killed becomes less of a concern than merely showing 'something' being done in response.  That's all the plot you need so that's pretty much all you get.

What follows is a series of superbly acted and impeccably written verbal showdowns, which both entertain and illuminate Dominek's core idea (which I presume also comes from George V. Higgins's original novel Coogan's Trade): that the organized crime business, with no illusions about morality or fairness, is basically the purest possible form of capitalism.  Yes there is violence, some of it quite jarring, although a major incident is shot and edited in such a surreal fashion that it renders it loses some of its impact.  But the film thrives on the discussion of and anticipation of violence rather than the quick and brutal business at hand.  James Gandolfini has a heartbreaking extended cameo as a past-his-prime assassin brought in by Pitt as a quasi-favor.  His extended monologue discussing the fortunes of his wife is almost worth the price of admission by itself.

It should be noted that the film benefits greatly by basically having no female characters of note.  While one could argue that the Richard Jenkins character or any of the other low-level criminals could have been rewritten for an actress of note (say Melissa Leo), the film is also not burdened by superfluous romantic subplots that often mar what otherwise would be complete sausage-fests.  Scoot McNairy is superb as one of the initial armed robbers, realizing almost immediately how in-over-his head he is with seemingly no plausible exit strategy.  Ray Liotta also shines as an upper-level criminal whose prior machinations have left him utterly exposed for actions not of his doing.  The picture feels uncommonly authentic, and Brad Pitt again proves what a fine actor he is beyond the stardom and tabloids.

But the picture slightly harms itself by hitting you over the head with the same basic idea. Dominik's adaptation of the 1974 novel takes place during the weeks of the 2008 financial collapse.  And throughout the film, we are treated to countless scenes of characters watching news footage of various political figures (among others, George W. Bush, Ben Bernanke, and eventually Barack Obama) discussing the financial meltdown.  Even putting aside the idea that these blue collar mobsters would be running the news in their various meeting establishments as opposed to sports channels, the yellow highlighter gets old after the second such occasion, yet it continues throughout the picture.  Yes, we get it, the real crooks are those on Wall Street and/or the politicians that enable them.  Yes, capitalism is by definition an economic system that thrives on selfishness and rewards borderline psychopathic behavior.  The continious tie-ins to the social and political upheaval of 2008 basically amounts to Dominik jabbing you in the ribs with a ruler and whispering "Get it?  Get it?!".

It's not a fatal flaw, but it is enough of an annoyance to make what would otherwise be a great drama into a merely very good one.  Still, warts and all, Killing Them Softly is a very good film.  It has terrific acting by a superb cast of character players and has one of my favorite screenplays of the year.  Putting aside its politics, it is a fine portrait of the various levels of organized crime right down to what can only be called the working poor.  I wish Dominek trusted his audience a little more, but the ideas that he shares are still worthwhile and compelling even if he shoves them down our throats.

The picture remains a thoughtful, openly mournful, and always entertaining bit of old-school pulp fiction.  In a sea of quality adult movies, Killing Them Softly deserves your attention and your time.

Grade: B+

Review: Hitchcock (2012) thinks you can't handle the truth.

Hitchcock

2012

95 minutes

rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

It is telling that the opening frames of Sacha Gervasi's Hitchcock don't even give us the usual 'based on a true story' text as its allegedly non-fiction story begins.  It's the only honest moment of the entire picture, which is so gloriously full of shit that it can't bear to even pretend that the story it's presenting is remotely truthful.  Technically based on Stephen Rebello's 1990 book, Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho, the film alters history, dilutes the contributions of talented individuals, commits outright libel against others, while basically ignoring its central subject (the, um, making of Psycho) in favor of a contrived would-be romantic conflict between Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) and Alma Reville (Helen Mirren).  Worse yet, the story is told in broad, on-the-nose strokes that resembles the kind of writing found in bad childrens' cartoons and the picture revolves around hindsight-superiority that renders it potently obnoxious.  It plays less as an adult drama and more like a Hitchcock biography blandly written for first-graders.

According to the film, Psycho basically made itself while Hitchcock fretted about whether or not Reville was cheating on him with Whitfield Cook (Danny Houston), who in real life was a friend and trusted collaborator (he helped adapt Strangers On A Train).  Without going into details, Cook's arc qualifies as arguably the worst example of cinematic libel since Cinderella Man turned Max Baer into Clubber Lang.  The film posits the making of a piece of low-budget pulp fiction by the world's most famous director as a 'triumph of the underdog' story while giving us so little detail about the film itself that we are given not a single bit of wisdom as to *why* Psycho connected with audiences on such a massive scale.  The film reduces talented artists like screenwriter Joseph Stefano (Ralph Macchio) and Anthony Perkins himself (James D'Arcy) into punchlines and fodder for cheap jokes all for the sake of making Psycho seem like the singular work of Hitchcock himself at the expense of all the other people who made it possible.  Not that we get much of a look at the genius of Hitchcock himself, since we all-but never see him actually making artistic decisions or actually *directing* (we see no footage of Psycho nor do we even see the Bates motel). We are constantly told what a creative genius Hitchcock is yet we see almost no evidence of this onscreen.

Instead the film posits that Psycho was basically a way for Hitch to explore his own would-be dark side.  This includes a bizarre framing device where Hitchcock has imaginary conversations with serial murderer Ed Gein (played by Michael Wincott).  Gein loosely inspired Robert Bloch's original book, and the film presumes that Hitchcock was fascinated and/or obsessed with Gein on a psychological level.  In truth, Hitchcock knew little of Gein and enjoyed the book purely for its pulpy qualities and the infamous shower murder.  I'm a fan of Wincott and was thrilled to see him snagging a major role again, but the Gein material is both flatly absurd and a waste of time that could have been better spent, I dunno, dealing with the making of Psycho.  The creative arc of the picture is basically how an allegedly terrifying and grotesque book was read by Hitchcock and Hitchcock alone, how a film based on that book was created mostly offscreen, and that said film touched people on a cultural level for reasons left completely unexplained in the film itself.  Hitchcock credits basically the entire success of Psycho to the infamous shower scene (shown here as a way for Hitch to let off personal frustration), which would arguably negate Hitchcock's entire creative genius since said sequence came straight from the original book.    

More disconcerting than the absence of any artistic examination is the way it twists its story in order to craft a rather generic and frankly condescending look at the marriage between Hitchcock and Reville.  The potential infidelity between Reville and Cook feels absolutely fabricated even if it may have roots in history.  Worse yet, since we know that no infidelity will occur and we see all too well that Reville deserves an opportunity to stretch her creative wings, the film concludes Cook's arc by making him out to be a villain.  It's a glorious bit of black-and-white condescension, seemingly unwilling to speak at an adult level about unfulfilled artistic ambitions and the need for those standing behind famous people to step out into their own spotlight.  The film surely considers Reville as someone worthy of success, even if we never see her making any artistic choices of note (again, much alleged artistic genius occurs completely off screen .  Yet Reville only achieves a token amount of respect when it is granted to her by her husband and even then only when she has been privately humiliated by someone she trusted which then sends her back onto the proverbial 'right side'.  And for a film rooted in the allegedly inspiring love story between Hitch and Reville, the film's finale teases what amounts to the next great struggle in their relationship, one that negates the film's pandering conclusion that Hitchcock's obsessions with his blond bombshells was annoying but ultimately harmless.

While there is fun in watching a number of famous people play dress up, John J. McLaughlin's screenplay is basically pitched to young children.  Oh sure it's about grown ups and technically deals in grown-up subject matter (adultery, sexual frustration, murder, etc.), but the dialogue is written on a level of a bad 1980s Saturday morning cartoon.  Names of famous actors of the day and Hitchcock's prior films are dropped at random so as to make the film feel more inside baseball than it actually is.  Anthony Perkins's homosexuality is basically played for laughs.  The entire romantic plot unfolds in a G-rated fashion that doesn't dare offend the audience or offer any remotely challenging ideas (like perhaps Reville was entitled to her professional flirtation at least as much as Hitchcock was 'entitled' to flirt with his actresses).  Since so little is *shown*, all of the film's themes and arcs are expressed in hilariously on-the-nose dialogue that spells out even what is obvious to the viewer (At the climax, Mirren literally utters "This could be the greatest success of your career!").  The whole film feels pandering, telling a story of arguably very smart people and making it palatable for very stupid people.    

The film's dumbing down extends to its treatment of pretty much every other character in the narrative, who all fail to see the inherent brilliance of Psycho and fail to see its financial and artistic potential.  Toni Collette plays Peggy Robertson, in reality the woman who brought the book to Hitchcock's attention, as doubtful of the project and comically disturbed by the subject matter (because of course girls can't handle icky stuff, right?).  The various bosses at Paramount (represented by Richard Portnow) and the censorship board (represented by Kurtwood Smith) are viewed as foolishly doubting toms, and the film invites us to laugh at their wrongheadedness and take pleasure in our hindsight brilliance.  The entire enterprise feels like that early moment in Titanic when we are supposed to mock Billy Zane because he didn't have the foresight to presume Picasso's eventual status as a famous artist. Yet since we see no more of the Master of Suspense's creative process than Portnow and Smith, we frankly have no reason to question their reservations save for the fact that we know the broad outline of how Psycho was eventually received.  Unfortunately, 'broad outline' is all we get here.  Only Michael Stuhlbarg, as Hitch's agent, comes off as somewhat human (he knows the project is a risk, but he knows a happy Hitchcock is better in the long run than a bored and miserable one).

In the end, Hitchcock is two things that I rather despise: It pointlessly rewrites history to give us conformist, pandering character arcs for the sake of 'playing to the masses' even as the truth is far more entertaining than this bland fiction.  It also takes what should be an adult film and plays it to the level of young children, with on-the-nose dialogue, black-and-white morality, simplistic themes and concepts, and a refusal to treat its audience like thinking grown ups.  It does a disservice to Alfred Hitchcock himself and especially to those whose contributions made Psycho into the cultural touchstone than it is.  By basically telling a blandly fictionalized version of non-fiction characters, one that holds up Hitchcock's genius to the point of libeling all others, while showing almost no evidence of that genius, it insults the Master of Suspense and all those around him.  By refusing to simply pitch its story to at least audiences old enough to drive a car or vote, it insults discerning moviegoers everywhere.

Grade: D           

Weekend Box Office: Rise of the Guardians stumbles as most everything else (Life of Pi, Red Dawn, etc.) flies.

As I wrote yesterday, this weekend was a perfect example of the issue with reporting cumulative box office as if it means anything.  Yes it was the biggest Thanksgiving weekend on record ($295 million total over the five days), but such a thing tends to happen when you have three strong holdovers and three relatively strong new releases in one frame.  As always, it's the movies.  More importantly, total weekend box office success is only important if your film is among the ones doing well.  

Dreamworks' Rise of the Guardians basically flopped.  There's really no nice way to say it.  In five days, the $145 million animated film earned $32.6 million while earning just $24 million over Fri-Sun.  As I mentioned yesterday, this is the lowest opening weekend, by a very large margin, for Dreamworks Animation since Flushed Away back in Fall 2006 ($18 million).  Even the film's five-day total ($32.6 million) puts it as the lowest comparative three-day opening weekend since 2006 and their 17th lowest total out of 25 films.  The reasoning for this actually pretty simple.  The film didn't look very visually appealing, the marketing didn't promise anything beyond a painfully generic story (both sadly true about the film itself), and the campaign was based upon the idea that having three holiday icons that everyone knew (Santa, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny) and two that were far less well-known in pop culture (Jack Frost and the Sand Man) engaging in a riff on the first X-Men picture was automatically appealing. It wasn't, and with Lincoln and Skyfall winning out as consensus choices for large families, and with Life of Pi  coming out far stronger than expected as a family film choice, plus the still-strong Wreck It Ralph ($149 million thus far, making a go at Tarzan's $171 million finish), Rise of the Guardians just couldn't muscle out of the pack.

The film played 35% 3D, 57% female, and 53% under 25. Translation: most of its business was from mothers who took their young kids to 2D showings.  It's not the end of the world at Dreamworks, and heck, it could still do $300-$400 million overseas regardless of whether it makes it to $100 million domestic (it opened in a few overseas markets and pulled in $13.5 million).  It's not a good ending for what has been a strong relationship at Paramount (they distribute through 20th Century Fox from here on out), but life goes on.  Coming on shockingly well was 20th Century Fox's $120 million gamble Life Of Pi.  The 3D Ang Lee drama pulled in a frankly stunning $30 million over its first five days $22 million of that in the Fri-Sun portion, basically doubling the $14.5 million debut of Hugo this time last year.  It's Ang Lee's biggest opening weekend behind the $62 million debut of Hulk.  Befitting its would-be family film status, the film played 38% under the age of 25 and is now basically a surefire lock for a Best Picture nomination.  Where it goes from here is frankly a guess, but Fox now has a shot in hell of matching its production budget without waiting on sure-to-be-huge overseas numbers.

Equally shocking, to me at least, was the strong $22 million five-day take of the long-delayed Red Dawn remake.  Shot back in 2009 but delayed due to MGM's legal problems, the Film District pick-up overcame predictably terrible reviews and a holiday that isn't always kind of new genre films (see Assassin, Ninja) to post Film District's biggest Fri-Sun opening ever with $14.5 million.  I hate to say it, but the PG-13 probably helped a lot here, allowing the film to be the choice for a number of action-hungry families who already saw Skyfall.  It played 62% male and 52% over-25 with an unsurprisingly strong showing in southern states, especially Texas and its bordering states.  The film cost $65 million, but I doubt Film District is on the hook for most of that, so this is a solid win for a film that I frankly wrote off months ago.  Long term business is probably grim, but it has the 'I already saw Skyfall!' action field to itself until Jack Reacher on December 21.  This also means, quite frankly that Chris Hemsworth may be an actual 'open a movie' movie star.  Fox Searchlight debuted Hitchcock on 17 screens and earned $300,799 for their troubles.  That's a fine $17,694 per-screen average, but it tells us nothing in regards to how well the star-studded (Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johanson, Jessica Beil, etc.) but heavily-fictionalized 'making of Psycho' film will perform when/if it expands further.  To its favor it's filled with major movie stars.  To its disadvantage it's one of the worst films of the year.

For the third Thanksgiving in four years, a Twilight sequel dominated the frame in its second weekend.   The Twilight Saga is so bloody consistent that I could arguably just copy and paste what I wrote last year and in 2009 and merely change the respective title.  Breaking Dawn 2 earned $43 million (-68%) over the Fri-Sun period ($64 million over five days), or just a bit higher than what Breaking Dawn 1 ($41.6 million -69%) and New Moon ($42.6 million -70%) scored in their respective second weekends.  With $226.9 million in the bag, it's right smack dab in between the ten-day totals of Breaking Dawn 1 ($220 million) and New Moon ($230 million). The series finale seems to be heading for a final domestic cume between $281 million (Breaking Dawn 1) and $296 million (New Moon).  Despite the lack of any kind of finale bump, I'm still impressed by the sheer consistency for this entire series. The only way Summit/Lionsgate was going to boost their box office for this final installment was to convert it to 3D, and I think we should all acknowledge that they chose not, putting art over commerce.  Overseas is a different story as the film already has $577 million worldwide.

Skyfall was the runner up, as the 007 series often plays in these Thanksgiving frames (1995, 1999, 2002, 2006, 2008 in fourth place, natch).  Aside from 2008, when the sharp drops for Quantum of Solace put the film in fourth place in its third weekend, the 007 franchise of the modern (post-Dalton) era has generally placed second at the Thanksgiving day box office, be it behind a Toy Story film (1995, 1999), a Harry Potter film (2002), or something involving dancing penguins (Happy Feet in 2006). Skyfall held strong in its third weekend with a $36 million Fri-Sun number ($51 million in five days), which is a larger third weekend than any prior 007 film's second weekend other than Skyfall.  With $221 million in the domestic cume, it's far-and-away the biggest 007 film in history and it's racing towards $1 billion worldwide.  Without adjusting for inflation, it sits on the verge of passing The Bourne Ultimatum's $227 million domestic cume and becoming the top spy film ever.  In terms of inflation, it needs to surpass $262 million to unseat The Bourne Ultimatum and $277 million to unseat True Lies on the top spy-films list (both highly likely).  It's tougher going after that, with Mission: Impossible ($325 million) at the top spot.  But its strong domestic performance means it may actually surpass the last Twilight film, and that it may have a shot at becoming the third-biggest 007 film ever even adjusted for inflation (You Only Live Twice with $285 million) after Goldfinger ($526 million) and Thunderball ($593 million).  The fourth film on that list, Moonraker ($222 million) will be toast on Monday.

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln continued to pack houses in its second weekend of wide release, actually earning 19% more over this Fri-Sun portion ($25 million) than it did in its proverbial 'opening weekend' last frame ($21 million).  With $34 million over five days and a stunning $62 million cume, it's not just making a play at $100 million but attempting to become this year's The Blind Side.  Next weekend will tell the tale on that one, as a strong hold could allow it to also 'finally' top the box office in its third weekend (Killing Them Softly and The Collection aren't going to set the box office on fire) although the sleeper mega-smash's $255 million cume is arguably a pipe dream.  But regardless of whether it stalls at $120 million or soars ever higher thanks to legs and Oscar love, this is a massive win for Spielberg.  Not adjusted for inflation, it's going to become his second-biggest 'serious' picture outside of Saving Private Ryan ($230 million, which *seems* to be insurmountable).  In terms of Oscars, it's already shaping up to be a three-way battle with Lincoln vs. Argo vs. Les Miserables (which screened this weekend to rapturous reaction... I've been told I'll be invited to the next round of screenings).  Anna Karenina, which widened to 66 screens and pulled in another $832,000.  The Keira Knightly period pic will live or die by its awards glory, frankly.

Expanding to 367 screens was the Weinsteins' would-be Oscar contender The Silver Linings Playbook.  Over its Fri-Sun weekend, the film earned $4.62 million for a robust $12,597+ per-screen average and a $6.1 million cume.  The release pattern of this one is beyond strange, as the film was set to open wide this weekend before ending up platforming last weekend on 16 screens and then merely expanding this weekend rather than going full-tilt boogie.  It's a strong number for what's allegedly a genuine crowd-pleaser.  I hope that the Weinsteins can hold off going wide until December 7th (where it will only face Playing For Keeps) as their rather terrific Brad Pitt crime drama Killing Them Softly is opening wide next weekend (review Monday I hope).  Still the Bradley Cooper/Jennifer Lawrence dramedy needs a little space between it and the December 21 debut of Judd Apatow's This Is Forty. In other 'good news for adult films', Flight sits with $74.8 million.  It if can hold screens (possible with three weeks of 1-2 new releases each), $100 million is actually possible.  Speaking of which, Argo just missed this weekend, ending the holiday with $98 million.  Oh well, give it a couple days and then pop the confetti.  Also of note is the would-be Oscar bait The Sessions.  It's been chugging along in limited release for the last month, earning $3.5 million after expanding from four screens to 20 to 69 to 128 and now 516.  That is arguably how platform play is supposed to work.

That's it for this weekend.  Join us next time for the first of three rather small frames, as the very good Brad Pitt drama Killing Them Softly squares off against The Collection, a sequel to a cult horror film (The Collector) from 2009.

Scott Mendelson

Reason 4,325 why cumulative box office is a stupid statistic...

If you've read this site for any length of time, you've heard me claim about the constant reporting of what's basically called cumulative box office.  Cumulative box office is basically the total weekend box office of all films currently in theaters.  It's the kind of statistic that presumes that box office is a team sport, rather than a solo enterprise.  It's the stat that led to the whole 'great movie-going slump' of 2005, wherein various box office pundits screamed that movie going was doomed because the cumulative weekends were down from the same respective weekends in 2004, never mind that different movies were being released in summer 2005 compared to summer 2004.  Since then we've had any number of 'slumps!', usually during periods when we had more smaller, lower-budget films instead of non-stop tent poles every weekend.  This weekend  we're going to hear a lot of talk about how this Thanksgiving is the biggest Thanksgiving ever by around $20 million.  That's terrific news for the industry I suppose, especially if you're the part of the industry releasing The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn 2 or Skyfall.  But if you're the part of the industry that's releasing Rise of the Guardians, you're probably not having a very good Thanksgiving.

The numbers are still rolling in, but it looks like Rise of the Guardians will be Dreamworks Animation's lowest-grossing opening in many years.  With about $22 million for the Fri-Sun and $33 million for the five-day, it's five-day gross, let alone its three-day figure, would be the lowest Fri-Sun opening for DWA since Flushed Away ($18 million) back in 2006.  Among all DWA debuts since 1998, its five-day and three-day figures would both rank 17th out of 25.  I bring this up not to embarrass Dreamworks (there will be time to analyze the weekend tomorrow) but to point out the obvious silliness with treating the film industry as a collective whole unit when discussing box office.  If your film is performing well, you're thrilled.  If your film is tanking, you're not so thrilled, even if the pundits are celebrating a record cumulative weekend.  During the great slump, I'm sure Warner Bros. was devastated by the news considering how well their summer films (Batman Begins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Dukes of Hazzard) were performing.  On the other hand, during that 'great' summer of 2004, I'm sure Paramount wasn't too thrilled with the relative under-performances of The Manchurian Candidate and The Stepford Wives, both of which couldn't pass $60 million despite star-filled casts.  As I've said any number of times, box office isn't poker, it's blackjack.  Every film is competing only with itself and every studio cares only about whether their film is doing well in the marketplace.

20th Century Fox is thrilled this weekend because Life of Pi may crack $30 million over the holiday weekend when $20 million was arguably a pipe dream. Film District has to be a little surprised that Red Dawn isn't just not tanking but opening just under $20 million.  But Dreamworks Animation is devastated because Rise of the Guardians will be one of the lowest-grossing debuts in their 25-film history. That the industry will have a 'record Thanksgiving box office' makes for nice headlines, but it's a meaningless statistic when your film is the one that tanks.

Scott Mendelson

Comic books for boys, Young-adult literature for girls: On the coming blockbuster-tentpole gender divide...

If you've been paying attention to the various trailers being unleashed in the wake of Breaking Dawn part 2's opening last week, you'll notice a fevered pitch by the studios to plant their flag in the sand in the newest 'hot' sub-genre.  By that I mean the young-lit franchise adaption. In just the last week we've seen trailers for The Host and The Mortal Instruments as they joined the previously advertised Beautiful Creatures in the chase to become 'the next Twilight'. What we're seeing is the creation of what amounts to the next blockbuster sub-genre: the young-adult literary adaptation.  The three above films won't be the only ones coming down the pike and we may even see one or two more over the 2013 calendar year on top of the November release of Hunger Games: Catching Fire.  In basic concept they aren't all that different from traditional comic book superhero sagas: An unlikely person realizes that they are unique and have powers (or must take powers) that will allow them to protect humanity from the evil in our midst.  Both sub-genres have room for character actors and/or major movie stars in smaller roles and both have the potential to break-out and become true tent poles. But the core difference between these sub-genres is pretty obvious.  Many, if not most, of them feature female leads.

In a time when Joss Whedon had to cajole Marvel into including Black Widow in The Avengers and we still don't have a Wonder Woman movie, the young adult literary fantasy film is perhaps primed to become an equalizer of sorts in the world of film tent poles.  We may be entering an era where the blockbuster landscape is divided on gender lines.  For boys, you've got the various Marvel and DC superhero spectaculars, along with the likes of Transformers and Star Trek.  For girls, we're seeing a wave of young-adult literary adaptations with dreams of becoming the next mega-franchise.  Yes, if it needs to be said, obviously any number of female moviegoers enjoys the likes of Iron Man while any number of male moviegoers flocked to The Hunger Games.  But the demographic targeting at work is pretty clear.  The conventional wisdom for the last 15-20 years has been that the would-be tentpole was by definition a boy-friendly fantasy film centered around a male protagonist.  Yes, it's no accident that the would-be blockbusters that really broke out of the pack (Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, Avatar) were mostly the ones that actually bothered to have fully fleshed-out female characters and made sure that they played a key role in the narrative (the initial Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy is arguably Elizabeth Swann's journey).  But in Hollywood for generations, the cliche has generally been that the widest-appealing films were action-heavy boy pictures that happened to have a token amount of female appeal (which according to studio executives was defined as 'romance' and/or 'hunky male leads who take their shirt off').  Overtly macho action pictures like The Last Boy Scout had a proverbial box office ceiling, while something like Speed (appealing non-asshole hero, well-written female lead) could cross gender lines and become a smash.  But explicitly targeting females was tantamount to box office poison outside of the romantic comedy genre.

The Twilight Saga was a genuine game changer in this regard, becoming the first mega-blockbuster franchise that explicitly appealed to girls and basically played to a 'no boys allowed' mentality.  What has followed in its wake in a sea of young-adult literary adaptations that are obstinately "heroines' journeys".  They are perhaps smaller scale than the likes of Transformers: Dark of the Moon (and thus cheaper to make), but they are indeed fantasy genre entries with designs on being the next big tent pole franchise.  Any one of the many such films opening over the next few years could be the next Hunger Games, or none of them could.  But if even one or two of them reach blockbuster status (which means say around the $176 million of Captain America, not necessarily the $318 million of Iron Man) we'll start seeing a blockbuster gender divide.  Boys will get their big budget superhero films that may or may not appeal to female audiences as well while girls will get their moderate-to-big budget young adult-literary adaptations that may or may not appeal to male audiences as well.  What was important about The Hunger Games is that is production (and that of the upcoming sequel) was watched and feverishly covered with the same respectful intensity that greets the newest Marvel sequel.  The key difference is respect.  Films like The Host or Beautiful Creatures are being afforded the same relative respect on film blogs and entertainment journalism sites as the likes of Captain America: The Winter Soldier or Star Trek Into Darkness.  We can argue that the anticipation isn't as feverish among male-centric movie news sites (I won't pretend I'm more excited for City of Bones than Man of Steel), but neither is it as automatically dismissive as comes with reporting Twilight news or the latest star-driven romantic comedy.  What we may see in the coming years is something vaguely resembling an even playing field.

If Beautiful Creatures, The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, and/or The Host are big hits, what we may be looking at is a gender dividing line in the realm of would-be blockbusters. We may very well see a franchise landscape where boys are 'served' with Thor: The Dark World while girls are 'served' by Mockingjay (with cross-gender movie going on both sides of the aisle).  It'll be capes and robots for boys, magical powers and romance for girls.  The male-driven comic book films, with exceptions like Spider-Man, will be advertised as action-packed with just a touch of romance.  The female-driven literary franchises, with exceptions like The Hunger Games, will be advertised with an emphasis on romance with just a touch of hard action.  Is it a net-good that female audiences have their own tent-pole franchises, featuring heroines instead of heroes as a matter of course, or is this a 'separate but equal' situation?  If this all does come to pass and the female audience finally gets their own proverbial tent-poles, then (irony of ironies) The Twilight Saga may end up being the most female-empowering franchise in modern history.

Scott Mendelson

Despite CGI overload, the first trailer for Bryan Singer's Jack the Giant Slayer shows character.

Against all odds, I was actually somewhat amused this this trailer.  Yes the film looks CGI-heavy, even to the point where realistic effects don't quite look real.  And yes the story is a somewhat formualic 'save the princess' narrative.  But as with Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (which was also sold as a 'save the hot girl' adventure), character counts.  So I am amused by Ewan McGregor and his ridiculous hair.  I am pleased that Eleanor Tomlinson A) doesn't seem to spend all that much of the film in a cage and B) isn't forced to go hard-core 'feisty'.  And I am tickled pink by the idea of Stanley Tucci as a bemused villain, with just enough camp to be entertaining but not seemingly inclined to go full-tilt ham.  Nicholas Hoult doesn't make much of an impression, but the straight man is often forced to be earnest while everyone else has fun in his presence.  Bill Nighy, Ian McShane, Eddie Marsan, and Warwick Davis round out the gang, so it certainly seems like director Bryan Singer got quite a few respectable names to go all Dead Man's Chest for the occasion.  The shifting release dates and title changes should point to doom ahead.  And the fact that Bryan Singer decided to return to the X-Men franchise is perhaps the grimmest signal of all.  But despite myself I am somewhat pleased at what I saw.  Am I the only one?  Jack the Giant Slayer opens from Warner Bros. in 2D and 3D on March 1, 2013.  It certainly looks more fun than Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and/or Oz: The Great and Powerful.  But as always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson         

Fox takes its shot at the animation crown with an Epic trailer.

Putting aside the unfortunate "comic relief" of Aziz Ansari's wisecracking slug, this looks quite promising.  The film looks gorgeous and there does seem to be an attempt to tell a mostly serious adventure story.  I missed the earlier, nearly wordless teaser from awhile back, but both previews use Snow Patrol's "What If the Storm Ends?" to rather powerful effect, similar to how well 20th Century Fox used Creed's "Higher" for their Titan A.E. campaign thirteen years ago.  I could do with a little less celebrity casting (Christoph Waltz is distracting as the heavy), but a female protagonist in a film like this is always a plus. Also a plus: Danny Elfman is doing the score.  What's curious is how much this feels like a Dreamworks film, in a good way of course.  For years every wise-cracking animal cartoon was accused of ripping off Dreamworks even as DWA made but a single such movie, Over the Hedge (arguably the best such film in that sub-genre), which came out right at the same time as the likes of Open Season, Barnyard: The Original Party Animals, and The Ant Bully.  This feels more like an attempt to capture the, well, epic adventure found in the Rise of the Guardians, How to Train Your Dragon, the Kung Fu Panda series, and Puss In Boots.  Still, say what you will about the diminishing creative returns for the Ice Age series, Rio was a genuinely entertaining and arguably original animated feature.  As I said a few weeks ago, the holes in Pixar's armor has allowed its competitors to come out in full force.  This seems to be Fox taking its best shot.  Epic opens May 24th, 2013.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson        

Red Dawn, Rise of the Guardians or Life of Pi? John Gosling previews the Thanksgiving weekend's new releases.

Red Dawn is a remake of the controversial 1984 film of the same name, which was written and directed by John Millius. Made as the threat of nuclear war was prevalent, it saw Russia and its allies invading America, with the picture focusing on a small town and a group of high school kids turned resistance fighters. Apart from its notoriety in 1984, it also became the first picture to receive a PG-13 rating and was deemed the most violent film ever made by the Guinness Book of Records, with a total of 134 acts of violence committed in its run time. Thought to be unsettling (and all too possible) at the time, it has since become something of a cult classic. At the 2008 Cannes Film Festival, MGM announced plans to remake the movie and set stunt co-ordinator and second unit director Dan Bradley to helm. The idea was to shoot the film in 2009 with a view to release in November 2010. For the lead role of Jed Eckert, Bradley cast the relatively unknown (at that point) Chris Hemsworth, based on footage he had seen of his work in Cabin in the Woods (another MGM flick). Josh Peck, signed on to play Jed's brother Matt, and was joined by Josh Hutcherson, (who has since gone on to star in The Hunger Games) and Friday Night Lights alumni Adrianne Palicki. Kurt Russell was said to be up for playing the role of downed-pilot Lt. Col Tanner, but Jeffrey Dean Morgan would ultimately take on the job. The plot would follow that of the original quite closely, but substitute an invading Russian army for a Chinese one - something that  would become the cause of much criticism during the film's production. Shooting took place as planned in late 2009 and photos of Chinese propaganda posters from the set soon showed up online. Apart from the 'enemy' controversy, filming went smoothly and everything started to come together for the 2010 release date.

However, MGM's financial problems (which would also affect Cabin in the Woods and production on the 23rd James Bond film) resulted in Red Dawn's release being shelved for the foreseeable future. When the studio emerged from Chapter 11 restructuring in January 2011, it released the first official cast still and stated that the picture would make its debut within the year. In March 2011, the studio announced that they would be altering the film's antagonists to North Korean, a move seen by some as a way to avoid losing out on access to the now huge Chinese cinema-going market. Changes, which are said to have cost just under a million dollars, included a new opening sequence detailing the current state of the world, along with the digital altering of Chinese words and motifs to those of North Korea. MGM wouldn't set a release date for Red Dawn until September 2011, when they announced a deal with Film District which would see the picture out in November 2012 (in a similar deal, Lionsgate agreed to release Cabin in the Woods in April 2012). The first and only trailer debuted in August of this year, and has since been supported by clips and featurettes. Red Dawn received its premiere at the Alamo Draft House, as part of Fantastic Fest, to mainly mixed reviews. Given the time since the release of the original, the remake is unlikely to benefit from much built-in audience recognition and also faces competition from Skyfall, Breaking Dawn and Life of Pi this weekend. However, since its production, Chris Hemsworth has become a major star thanks to his turn in Thor and The Avengers (along with a role in Snow White & The Huntsman), something which will help raise the picture's profile. Red Dawn opens on Wednesday at 2,600 theatres.

Life of Pi is based on the award winning book by Yann Martel, first published in 2001. The plot follows the fourteen year old Pi, who winds up stranded on a life boat with a Bengal tiger when the ship on which he was travelling, sinks. The book was rejected a number of times before Martel secured a publishing deal. It went on to become a best seller and won, among many other awards, the Man Booker Prize in 2002. Life of Pi has had a long and bumpy journey to the screen. In 2003, Fox 2000's Elizabeth Gabler secured the rights to produce a film based on the book and set Dean Georgaris to write the screenplay. By October 2004, a deal had been brokered with director M.Night Shyamalan, who would also rewrite Georgaris' screenplay once work on The Village was complete. However, despite working on the project for some time, he opted to write and direct Lady in the Water instead. Fox then entered into talks with Alfonso Cuarón, but the Mexican director decided instead to take on Children of Men. Gabler kept the project alive and by October 2005 had hired Amélie helmer Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Like Shyamalan, Jeunet would write his own version of the screenplay with Guillaume Laurant. Things seemed to be moving forward and a summer 2006 start date was penciled in, but concerns over the budget (something which would return to haunt the project later) caused Jeunet to exit the project.

In early 2009, word emerged that Brokeback Mountain director Ang Lee was in talks with Fox 2000 to direct an adaptation of Life of Pi. Just as things seemed to be moving forward again, the studio balked at Lee's proposed $70M production budget, and the project stalled for a time while a compromise could be found. Things eventually did get back on track and while Lee searched for an actor to play Pi, David Magee, who wrote Finding Neverland, began work on what would be yet another version of the screenplay. Out of the 3,000 potential actors he auditioned, Lee chose newcomer Suraj Sharma, who would make his debut on the film. Shooting on Life of Pi finally commenced in January 2011, counting India, Taiwan and Canada among its locations. The director also opted to shoot in 3D for the first time in his career. The first footage was unveiled as part of a presentation given by Fox in April 2012, and wowed everyone who saw it with its staggering visuals and sensational creature FX work, not to mention its impressive use of 3D. The general public got to see what all the fuss was about in July with the release of the first trailer - which lived up to the hype. The studio had originally set Life of Pi as a December release but when The Hobbit moved into the same slot, they chose to bring the film forward to Thanksgiving. The picture isn't an easy sell, and can't rely on the success of the book to the same degree as something like Twilight or Lord of the Rings. On its side are those sumptuous 3D visuals (which Avatar director James Cameron has praised in the last couple of days) and the fact that initial notices are incredibly strong, with award recognition already being hinted at. With the budget now rumored to be closer to $100M, Director Lee and Fox 2000 will be hoping the public take an adventure with a boy and a tiger this Thanksgiving.

The family-aimed release this week is the Dreamworks Animation picture, Rise of the Guardians. The film is based on the William Joyce series of books, The Guardians of Childhood, and features such characters as the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Joyce has a background in children's books, having written over fifty. Not only that, but he has also had a hand in film and TV work too, including as a conceptual artist on Toy Story and A Bug's Life, as well as writing Meet The Robinsons and the 2013 release Epic. If that wasn't enough, he won an Oscar this year for his animated short "The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore". Work on a Guardians film began in 2005 when Joyce announced a joint project with Reel FX to produce a series of animated features, one of which would be based around the Guardians of Childhood books. Sadly this didn't come to fruition, but the deal did bring about the animated short, The Man in the Moon, which introduced the Guardians concept and would serve as a starting point for the eventual film. In 2008, Dreamworks secured the rights to produce a picture based on the books, and to ensure they kept the integrity and vision of the characters, they hired Joyce to co-direct with Peter Ramsey. Pulitzer prize winning writer David Lindsay-Abaire was hired to script what was at that point entitled The Guardians. Work progressed steadily for a couple of years but Joyce left his co-directing role after the death of his daughter (who was directly responsible for the creation of the stories in the first place when she asked her father if he thought "Santa had ever met the Easter bunny"). He would stay on board as executive producer, alongside  Guillermo del Toro, whom Dreamworks had hired at the project's inception to help shape the story and its structure, along with character designs.

Despite being adapted in part from the book series, the film itself is set 200 years after they take place. Joyce stated this decision was made so that people would not compare the movie to the books, and to also give a sense of surprise to those who were familiar with the source material. By early 2011, the title had been changed to Rise of the Guardians, and the studio took this opportunity to announce the voice cast involved, which included Alec Baldwin, Chris Pine, Hugh Jackman and Isla Fisher. The plot would see Jack Frost (Pine) enlisted to help the Guardians (Baldwin's Santa Claus, Jackman's Easter Bunny, Fisher's Tooth Fairy and a voiceless Sandman) when Pitch the Nightmare King(voiced by Jude Law) threatens to engulf the world in darkness. The first trailer for Rise of the Guardians debuted in March 2012 and has been followed up by further trailers and individual shorts for each of the characters. Dreamworks had originally set the film for release early November, but moved the film to Thanksgiving to avoid Monsters University (which itself had moved to avoid Twilight: Breaking Dawn). In the end, the Pixar's sequel was pushed to June 2013 and Wreck-It Ralph slotted into the November 2nd spot. The picture's main competition this week will be the aforementioned videogame themed Wreck-It Ralph, but there's no reason why the market won't support them both, more so given that Ralph is now looking towards its fourth weekend on release. Rise of the Guardians is the widest opening of all the new movies this Thanksgiving.

Out in limited release this weekend is the biopic Hitchcock, which is directed by Sacha Gervasi and based on the book  Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello. Development on the project began in 2005, when TV network A&E secured the rights to Rebello's book with the idea of producing a mini-series based around it. In 2007, the book was optioned as the basis for a movie by Ivan Reitman and Tom Pollock, with a view to produce through their Montecito Picture Company. The duo set up the project at Paramount, but after four years in development, it was moved to Fox Searchlight (The Montecito Picture Company remained on board as producer). John J. McLaughlin began work on the screenplay, with further passes done by the book's author Stephen Rebello, with a view to concentrate the story further on Hitchcock's relationship, both personal and professional, with his wife, Alma, during the making of Psycho. In November 2011, Sacha Gervasi, who made his directorial debut with the documentary Anvil: The Story of Anvil, was announced as director and casting quickly got underway. 

By December, Gervasi had secured Anthony Hopkins for the role of the legendary director, with Helen Mirren set to play his wife, Alma Reville. Further casting was announced in March, with Scarlett Johansson and James D'arcy taking on the guise of Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins respectively. In addition, Jennifer Biel would play Vera Miles, who worked with Hitchcock on a number of occasions, and Toni Collette as Peggy Robertson, the director's trusted assistant. Shooting got underway in April of this year and was completed by the end of May. With no release date set, it came as something of a surprise when Fox Searchlight announced on September 20th that the film would make its debut in just two months time (meaning it was eligible for Oscar contention). A trailer was issued three weeks later and the picture received its world premiere on November 1st. Early reviews were very strong, and there's already award talk for Hopkins, Mirren and Gervasi. Hitchcock opens at 16 locations on Friday, and with success, should expand further in the coming weeks.

The Silver Linings Playbook, which debuted to an impressive $458K at sixteen locations last weekend, expands into an estimated 420 theaters on Wednesday.

John Gosling