Posted by Scott Mendelson in Writer's Corner at 11:11 PM
PDT
Once again I am amazed at the sheer scope, size, and scale of this one. What I’m sincerely hoping for is thatTransformers 2 plays like a dark, brutal, hard-as-PG-13 can be giant monster movie where the monsters happen to be giant transforming robots. And since we’re dealing with the Godzilla/Gamera genre, some silly humor is allowed. What makes me love the trailers (as someone who loathed the original) is that the robot destruction looks genuinely intense and scary. Buildings are blowing up, helicopters are being knocked out the sky, and people, innocent bystanders including, are seemingly dying by the scores. And is it just me, or are the trailers implying that a major character is going to die at the halfway mark?* This may be the epic, globe-spanning horror show (what would happen if giant robots came to Earth and began slaughtering people?) that the first one lacked the nerve to be. If Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen can take itself seriously and make me scared of the evil robots, than it will work splendidly. I’m cautiously optimistic.Scott Mendelson
.
.
.
.
.
.
*Spoilers if correct - A friend of mine thinks the (hypothetical) shocking mid-film death is Kevin Dunn (Sam’s father). I’m wondering if they won’t follow the 1986 animated movie and, if they dare, kill off Optomus Prime himself.
Posted by Scott Mendelson in Writer's Corner at 10:22 AM
PDT
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read.”
There is a movie coming out this Friday that I have written quite a bit about over the last month. While some have taken my constant commentary on said movie and the circumstances which surrounded the month prior to its release, as some kind of rooting interest in its artistic and financial failure. This is not the case. Although I will confess that I perhaps became, for a moment, the sort of media person that I often criticize. In that, I became aware that if X-Men Origins: Wolverine opened well this weekend, despite the leaked work print and despite the current flu scare, then there would be no story and there would be nothing to discuss. However, if the film underperformed over the weekend, it would be news. “But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.“
It it opens at anything under $55 million, it will be seen as a true disappointment. It may be blamed on the availability of the rough cut, the bad word of mouth, the slowly forming bad buzz in the form of negative reviews, or, yes, the theoretical panic of swine flu (quick, what’s the most memorable scene in Wolfgang Peterson’s Outbreak?). But if it bombs it’s news. If it does the ‘normal’ $70 million+ opening weekend, there will be nothing for us to talk about. So if I am guilty of subconsciously wanting the film to under perform, it is because such a thing would be news, and it will give me material to discuss on Monday night. So, yes, I’m guilty of being a film pundit who hoped for a situation in which there would be news. In those moments, I was no better than the political pundits who constantly try to turn every election into a horse race, because that would be more exciting to write about than a blow out. Regardless of how Wolverine opens this weekend, I will still write about it. But I will not take joy or sadness in whatever comes of it.
“But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends.“
The main reason I’m writing this is to give some context to a review of the film, which is coming down the pike. It will be published sometime soon at Mendelson’s Memos, depending on my work schedule. It is everything I feared, but not what I had hoped. And, frankly, at this point, it feels like any full on negative review feels like kicking a sick puppy. The failure of this beleaguered project, after all that has transpired, brings nothing so much as pity for those involved. Contrary to popular belief, a film critic should take no joy in the failure of the art form which he covers. When a film fails, it is a cause for mourning, not celebration. Nothing would have made me happier than to be proven wrong. But, alas, I am not wrong. Not this time.
“Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source.”
My review of Wolverine will be up soon enough. In the meantime, let me do my job as a film critic and point my readers along the path to some truly great somewhat recent movies that have slipped through the cracks. Some are simply great movies that failed to find their audience, some are unfairly maligned gems that deserve a second look. All of them are better than X-Men Origins: Wolverine. All of them are films that signify why I do this silly task week after week. Meet The Robinsons, Akeelah and the Bee, Frailty, Black Book, Nothing But The Truth, Shanghai Knights, Sixteen Blocks, Dark Water (the remake), Open Range, In America, Spirited Away, Joyride, Wet Hot American Summer, Sunshine, and the just released State of Play.
Here is an interesting and relatively spoiler-free look at Jame Cameron’s Avatar. I’ve avoided most articles on this one, although it was awfully nice of Michelle Rodriguez to drop a massive spoiler during her otherwise unrelated press junket for Fast & Furious. Other than that, I know next to nothing and the cryptic little bits and pieces are fascinating.
I sincerely doubt that the movie will be as revolutionary as the article implies or hopes. The piece by Michael Cieply makes the picture seem like a new kind of mind-altering drug. I sincerely doubt that it will completely change the landscape of movie going for all time. I recall pundits saying similar things about The Matrix Reloaded. In the end, that anticipated sequel was only a movie, a thoughtful, vastly underrated and misunderstood science fiction film, but just a movie none the less. Whether or not this revolutionizes movies and becomes the next-generation equivalent of The Jazz Singer, or whether it’s just a terrific science fiction adventure picture, Cameron doesn’t do anything half-assed, and he has yet to make an even remotely mediocre film since breaking out with The Terminator in 1984.
Anyway, don’t believe anyone who tells you that this film is any real threat to the $1.8 billion worldwide total that Cameron set over eleven years ago. Titanic, which opened on the same date - December 18th - that Avatar will open, was an anomaly. The factors that were at play are unlikely to be repeated again. Much like how television viewing habits have changed to the point that nothing will ever top the ratings for the MASH series finale, the movie going experience no longer has a place for major films that run nonstop for months on end.
And don’t believe any of the hand-wringing that goes on while discussing the film’s sure to be monstrous budget. James Cameron has broken the record for the most expensive movie of all time each of the last four times he’s made a film. The Abyss cost about $80 million, Terminator 2: Judgment Day cost $100 million, True Lies cost $125 million, and Titanic ended up costing $200 million. And, with the exception of The Abyss, each film has been a major short term profit machine, and I’m guessing The Abyss has long made its money back over the last twenty years. Come what may, Cameron has earned the benefit of the doubt to spend what he wants, as he always delivers the goods.
Avatar - the next evolutionary step of movies, merely a top-notch adventure film, or the science fiction equivalent of Eyes Wide Shut? We’ll see.
Whenever any genre film comes out that doesn’t revolve around white geeks or white action heroes, everyone gets up in arms about how the film is somehow racist/sexist/bad for the specific demographic that it’s targeting. White men and overgrown boys can have their trashy exploitation jollies as much as they want. But as soon as women or a minority group is given their own somewhat trashy entertainment, it’s suddenly a problem for culture at large.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been told that the issue of race is never actually discussed in the film, so it very well may be an example of colorblind storytelling. Of course, regardless of what’s discussed in the film, I think we can presume that any film that has the working title of ‘Oh No She Didn’t’ probably has a specific racial audience in mind (unless that catchphrase has itself transcended race, but I digress).
But let’s presume that the film has racial politics on its mind. Is Obsessed a thriller that specifically exploits genuine resentment that some African American women feel when some of the more suitable black bachelors end up with white women? Quite possibly. That’s why they are called ‘exploitation films’. Would it be better if the film didn’t have any particular social issue at its core? Maybe it would be less ‘offensive’, but it would also be an empty, hollow film that had nothing going on underneath the thriller mechanics. Regardless of whether it’s a good film, shouldn’t we be pleased that this mainstream thriller is actually about something?
I wrote about this at length when Sex and the City came out and pundits and critics were declaring that the film was somehow a ‘Taliban recruitment film’. or ‘the equivalent of the OJ Simpson verdict for women’. So it’s OK for men in indulge in power fantasies like Iron Man, but Sex and the City is bad for women and Obsessed is bad for black women? Obsessed may be a piece of garbage. But it shouldn’t be deemed smellier than the norm purely because it’s aimed at at African Americans. Real racial/sexual progress will come in Hollywood once other demographics are allowed to enjoy their own trash and exploitation genre pictures in peace without being scolded by moralists both within and outside said culture.
Posted by Scott Mendelson in Writer's Corner at 11:43 PM
PDT
I more or less loathed the first Rob Zombie Halloween picture, and while this one doesn’t seem much better, the trailer certainly feels different. I am intrigued by Zombie’s comments a month ago about how the sequel would deal with how a young woman would realistically react to a mad slasher killing her parents and all of her friends in a single night, so we’ll see. Either way, trailers get lots of hits so enjoy.
As some of you know (especially people who follow me on Twitter and Facebook), a bit I had written on Tuesday inspired a bit of controversy when Movieline (the revamped online version of a magazine I used to read) asked a ‘Fox Source’ for comment on said story. In the article (published at Mendelson’s Memos, Film Threat and Huffington Post), I noted with amusement that, despite Tom Rothman’s claim that the workprint version of X-Men Origins: Wolverine was ten minutes shorter, the final running time of the theatrical cut was the same 107 minutes as the workprint. This alleged ‘exchange’ basically had the Fox source claiming that I was not aware that the bootleg in fact lacked finished production elements (music, fx, matte work, etc).
On the plus side, my article got mainstream attention at Yahoo and The Internet Movie Database, as well as several other mainstream movie sites. Well, apparently my hunch was right on the nose. According to this (hopefully accurate) Ain’t It Cool News article, written by the alias Merrick, well… see for yourself:
“Well, having seen the finished film, the mystery is solved: the workprint version IS in fact identical to the release print, sans effect and some audio work. It’s obvious that FOX is trying their darndest to keep this news from getting out, because it will eliminate most of the motivation for people who have seen the workprint to pay for a ticket.”
Once again, if this is true, I don’t blame Tom Rothman for doing everything in his power to mitigate the effects of the leak, up to and including lying to the public about the content of the final product (to paraphrase a popular political chant, no one died when Tom Rothman lied). I do however think it is very suspicious that no one has been arrested for the leak. A lack of a clear conclusion will further fan the flames of ‘inside job conspiracy’ and/or ‘a kid of a powerful executive at Fox or an outside company’ (think Hasbro). I’m purely speculating here, but I’m thinking that if this were some web-hacker or a disgruntled/glory seeking Fox employee, the villain would have been caught by now.
Oh, and Fox, since I’m defending the boss, would you mind releasing a few more official screen grabs, so I and other writers don’t have to keep using the same three or four images? Thanks.
Rod Lurie announced last night, along with The Hollywood Reporter, that the lead actor in his upcoming Straw Dogs remake would be none other than James Marsden. Great news for an actor who is still waiting for leading man breakout after several scene stealing performances in the last few years. He survived an X-Men series that, all positives aside, couldn’t be bothered with Cyclops. He more or less stole Superman Returns from Brandon Routh by being more heroic and likable than the Man of Steel himself (good for Marsden, but very bad for the film). He was terrific in Hairspray, and he was the only character who didn’t royally piss me off in Enchanted. He was dangerously close to Mark Ruffalo territory in 27 Dresses, as the kind of actor who could make a bad romantic comedy into a watchable one. Late last year, he pulled the same trick with a bawdy supporting role in the slightly better than expected Sex Drive. I’m pretty sure that Straw Dogs represents his first out and out lead role, which is saying something as the guy has been acting since 1993 (his first small role was in the NBC telefilm In The Line Of Duty: Showdown In Waco).
Come what may, this casting choice seems to imply that Rod Lurie is attempting to be more faithful to the original literary source (The Siege of Trencher’s Farm) than Sam Peckinpah was with his 1971 film. In the original book and this new film, the main character was a big-city writer. Dustin Hoffman famously played the role as a somewhat nerdy mathematician. I’m guessing that this casting is a sign that Lurie wants this new version to be compared to the original book, rather than the first film adaptation (the first film took place in rural England, this one will take place in the American deep south). So noted and fair enough, although I’d suggest changing the film title back to that of the original book for starters. Oh, and Rod Lurie’s Nothing But The Truth comes out on DVD on April 28th. The original company, Yari Pictures, went bankrupt right in the middle of the awards rush. Sony was nice enough to pick the film up for home video distribution. You no longer have any excuse for passing up this tight, well-acted thriller.
Kudos to Warner Bros. for their new HD-DVD to Blu Ray trade in program. I kinda wish they had done this a year ago when I actually had a handful of Warner HD DVDs, but better late than never I suppose (my local public library now has several HD DVDs and I have a tax deduction). Basically, send in the cover art, plus $4.95 and shipping and handling, and they’ll send you the corresponding Blu Ray of the same title. Considering that it was Paramount that prolonged this format war by going HD DVD only back in October 2007, it might behoove them to offer a similar trade program (especially for pricey stuff like the Star Trek Original Series HD DVD sets). Between this and that wonderful archive program they started several weeks ago (they released countless old films from the vaults and allowed consumers to custom order DVDs for purchase), Warner Bros. is all but shaming their competition in the home video realm.
First of all, the trades (Variety and The Hollywood Reporter) are raving about Star Trek. I’ll hopefully get to see it within the next week, but it looks like I may just have to (happily) eat crow regarding Paramount’s financial gamble. Oh, and thank you Paramount for scheduling advance night screenings at a reasonable hour (starting at 7pm). When you become a parent, one of the things you give up is the ability to do those beloved 12:01am advance showings of the big summer movies. Should I not be able to make the press screenings, I’ll happily just waltz on in on Thursday night without worrying about losing sleep. Still… some great memories of those midnight movies. When Allison is old enough, I’ll gladly tag along to whatever midnight screenings she wants, be it X-Men Origins: Random Mutant Who Can Shoot Wooden Stakes Out of His Arms or The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn.
Well, it looks like Zac Efron may just be a movie star. On nearly the same weekend where, five years ago, Jennifer Garner broke out with an ironically opposite premise, the High School Musical/Hairspray teen idol has claimed his first ‘all by myself’ hit film. Aided by a simple premise, surprisingly good reviews, and a buzz-building appearance on Saturday Night Live the weekend before, 17 Again opened to $23.7 million. That’s certainly comparable to the $21 million opening for Garner’s 13 Going On 30, which also opened two weekends before the summer season back in 2004 (it had to settle for number two, losing a close race to Denzel Washington’s Man On Fire). That underrated romantic comedy cashed out relatively quickly, ending its run with $57 million. On the other hand, the ‘all by myself’ breakout for Efron’s relative contemporary, Shia LaBeouf’s Disturbia, opened to $22 million on the exact same weekend two years ago and parlayed it into a shockingly leggy run, ending with $88 million (we’ll see if Efron follows suit and takes the lead role in Michael Bay’s Thundercats). We’ll of course know which path 17 Again will venture come Saturday morning.
Apparently Efron’s decision to drop out of the Footloose remake was a wise one, as he can now claim a solid opening weekend that doesn’t explicitly involve singing and dancing. Of course, he doesn’t have Steven Spielberg personally steering him into surefire hit projects. Where the kid goes from here is a terrific question. Doing a bunch of romantic comedies turns him into Freddie Prinze Jr. Enemy Of The State/Eagle Eye type thrillers are a good bet, since they allow him to dip his toe into the action genre without having to convince anyone that he is a bad ass. But mainstream big budget thrillers are a dying breed (more on that below). The Johnny Quest update with Dwayne Johnson sounds smart. The (probably false) rumor about him wanting to remake Back to the Future is a way to get burned in effigy.
Second place goes this weekend to the terrific grown-up thriller State of Play. Pundits will whine that the $14 million opening weekend, along with the similar opening to Duplicity, signals the death knell for the grown up movie. While adult, star-driven suspense pictures are an inexplicably dying breed, movies of this nature have rarely opened particularly large. The only issue with movies like this is that studios continue to budget these films so that they absolutely have to open to $20 million+ in order to turn a profit. State of Play should have cost $40 million, instead of $60 million. Same goes for Duplicity. How they trim said budgets in the future is up to them, but something needs to give if this genre is to survive. Of course, Universal could be using shifty accounting to take money from an over budget tent pole (think Public Enemies or The Wolfman) and shift it to these mid range pictures to make the former look cheaper.
Not every thriller can be expected to open like The Fugitive, especially if they lack a mega star like Harrison Ford or Denzel Washington. And, sorry folks, but Russell Crowe is not a mega star. He’s had a few big openers - Gladiator (would have opened huge with any number of actors), Master and Commander: The Far Side Of The World, and American Gangster (aided by Denzel), but his vehicles have otherwise opened around the $15 million mark. The good ones (3:10 To Yuma) hang around for awhile and make it to $55 million. The bad ones (Body Of Lies) crash quickly and fail to reach $40 million.
The other major opening, Crank 2: High Voltage, effectively ended Lionsgates’s 2009 hot streak. Failing to even match the $10.4 million opening weekend of the original, this second entry opened to a meager $6.9 million. Obviously the real money for this was always going to be DVD-related, but I’m a little surprised by the under performance. Factor this with the barely acceptable performance of the stunningly boring Transporter 3, and Jason Statham has to take a serious look in the mirror and see where he wants to go from here. It’s terrific that someone is filling the low-budget, down-and dirty action star label, but I sincerely wish his films were just a little better. I know hoping for something as good as The Bank Job every time out is silly, but at least as good as Transporter 2 shouldn’t be too much to ask.
All three openers from last weekend absolutely collapsed. The Hannah Montana Movie plunged 58% to end day ten with $57 million. It’s trailing High School Musical 3: Senior Year by about $5 million at this point, although the second weekend drop was 4% lower and the Cyrus picture’s opening was about ten million lower. So Hannah Montana’s latest vehicle may just end up with an identical $90 million final gross. Observe and Report plunged 62%, thus ending its chances at getting to $30 million. The controversy over an alleged date-rape scene and countless moronic movie goers not being able to understand a sledge-hammer subtle trailer (”what, this is a dark comedy… who knew?”) led to a quick demise for this sure to be cult classic. Dragonball: Evolution dropped 64% to end its second weekend with $8 million. I’ve heard rumblings that this one somehow cost Fox $150 million. I’m sure they’ll deny it till the end of time, but if it’s true, this will be one of the biggest money losers in Hollywood history. So if all of Fox’s tent poles seem a little bit more expensive than you’d think, then you can be sure there was some shifty accounting going on to cover for Dragonball: Evolution.
And that’s all the important news that’s fit to print. Next weekend is relatively light, as the much delayed The Soloist squares off against the Fatal Attraction-wannabe Obsessed, Disney’s nature documentary Earth, and the imaginatively titled Fighting. Yup, it’s a pre-summer dump week.
