Fox, Warner Bros, Sony, and Universal have announced today that they will begin offering 'first-run' theatrical features on Video On Demand through DirectTV just sixty days after their theatrical release. Other outlets, such as Comcast and Vudo, will eventually join the fray in a limited capacity, but for now the first shot has been fired. Ironically, the two studios which will likely have the heartiest summer, Disney and Paramount, have for the moment abstained. Disney has Cars 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides just at the start of the summer. Paramount has an uber-strong slate the entire season, with Thor, Kung Fu Panda 2, Super 8, Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon, and Captain America. Point being, they'll be counting money from May to August, so there really was no incentive to piss off the exhibitors. And the theater chains are indeed mighty pissed.
Rubber
The following is a re-edited form of a couple mini-essays that I wrote elsewhere over the weekend. I figured my readers might care to read them here as well. The actual review is here.
Sucker Punch
There's a choice quote in this Emily Browning interview over at Nylon Magazine, which was reported by Cinemablend that merits a mention. Its implications are kinda shocking,. The crux is the discussion of changes that Zach Snyder had to make in order to ensure Sucker Punch (review) would win a PG-13 from the MPAA, which apparently took seven tries. I'll let Browning lay it out:
Thanks to The Playlist who spotted this iO9 article, but it appears that I may have to put my intended random thoughts/review of the original 1990 Captain America on hold. Yes, I still have a copy of it, taped off of Cinemax or HBO in the early 1990s. Point being, yes Albert Pryun's legendary cheapo Steve Rogers epic (starring Matt Salinger, son of JD) is all kinds of bad, but I've always had a soft spot for it. Maybe it's because it's often obscenely violent for a seemingly kid-friendly PG-13 adventure film (it opens with a machine gun massacre of civilians and kills off several major characters during its 90 minute running time), maybe because Scott Paulin makes an oddly affecting Red Skull, maybe because it gets the finale just right (good guy and bad guy, both in their proper super-costumes, fighting to the death atop a castle), or maybe it's just because I was ten years old when I first saw it and I haven't been dumb enough to watch it in at least fifteen years. Anyway, according to director Albert Pyun (who was the Ewe Boll of his direct-to-VHS day) claims that there is a 124 minute director's cut, and that said version will be released on Blu Ray in May. So yes, count me as among the few (the not-so-proud) actually looking forward to getting a decent copy, in a director's cut no less, of this childhood treasure. Don't worry, I won't make Allison watch it with me. Well, not unless she REALLY misbehaves.
I often complain about the lack of big-studio adult genre pictures while pointing out that the few such entries generally do well due to the paucity of such things in the marketplace. Alas, this weekend was a comparative embarrassment of riches, with three genre pictures, all starring adults, two rated R, and none costing more than $40 million. Ironically, all three films did moderately well, but at least two of them would likely have done even better without direct demo competition. The number one film of the weekend was Limitless. The Bradley Cooper/Robert De Niro thriller grossed $19 million, and proving a major win for the struggling Relatively. This was a real test of Bradley Cooper's star power and he delivered. The film benefited from an easily-explained high-concept (a pill that makes you the smartest man on Earth). The film played 52% female and 60% over-25. Since the relatively-well reviewed picture cost just $27 million, this is an easy win for everyone involved.
The Lincoln Lawyer
Much of the babbling over this weekends The Lincoln Lawyer has been about the idea that the well-reviewed legal thriller represents some kind of artistic reawakening for Mr. Matthew McConaughey. As is the case with many old-school movie stars, the critics and the pundits have a habit of ignoring McConaughey's more interesting films while highlighting his lesser mainstream fare and then reaching the conclusion that he is not but a paycheck hack. While McConaughey is certainly guilty of some questionable artistic choices, there does seem to be a whiff of genre-bias around this newest entry. It's seems that much of the praise is not so much that The Lincoln Lawyer is allegedly a pretty good movie (I'm waiting until Friday night so the wife can come along) but it is the fact that McConaughey is once again playing in a 'respectable' genre (the legal thriller) as opposed to those 'lesser' romantic comedies that he has starred in from time to time. But, without further ado, let us recount a handful of genuinely good, if not great, films that happen to star Matthew McConaughey. Oh, and this list will only cover from 1996-2009. This is for two reasons: McConaughey became a genuine movie star after A Time To Kill in 1996 and... um... I've never gotten around to see Dazed and Confused from 1993 (I know, I know...). Anyway, onward and upward...
Looks like Disney is selling the only trump card it has. And, personal annoyances aside, I can't really blame them. They sold Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland as "The Mad Hatter Movie" and made $1 billion worldwide. Still, it is a little depressing considering how the prior series posters remembered to highlight the actual main characters (Elizabeth Swann and Will Turner) alongside the scene-stealing supporting character that is Mr. Jack Sparrow. I'll gladly walk the plank if Rob Marshall actually makes his first-ever good film, but this feels more like a cash-grab with every additional piece of marketing. We'll see soon enough, on May 20th. Thanks to IGN for the 'get'.
As expected, the heavily-hyped Battle: Los Angeles (teaser/review) topped the box office this weekend, grossing an estimated $35.7 million. If that number holds, it will be the twelfth-biggest March opening in history, and a rock-solid start for a would-be tentpole that cost (depending on who you asked) $70 or $100 million. There was talk that the picture would break out and perhaps reach $50-60 million, but that was frankly silly. We've been spoiled the last few years, with massive March openings like 300 ($70 million), Watchmen ($55 million), and the astonishingly-huge Alice in Wonderland ($116 million). But generally speaking, March releases that aren't animated don't reach $35 million. We didn't have a single live-action $35 million opener in March until 2005 (The Ring Two), and there have been only five others since then prior to this weekend (the three above examples, plus Wild Hogs at $39 million, 10,000 BC at $35 million), so getting anywhere close to $40 million in the third month of the year has to be considered a win, especially without any kind of 3D or IMAX advantage.
Red Riding Hood
Battle: Los Angeles
Let's be honest for a second. Under normal circumstances, Inception likely would not have been greenlit in its current form at Warner Bros. While Warner Bros. until recently had a reputation for giving lots of money to notable filmmakers and more-or-less staying out of their way, even they had their limits. Had Christopher Nolan not just delivered a $1 billion-grossing and critically-acclaimed superhero sequel, and had not Warner Bros. desperately wanted to guarantee that Nolan would return for what would become The Dark Knight Rises, Inception would have been a very different movie, if it even would have existed at all. On paper, would you green-light a $200 million science-fiction film based on an original screenplay that was full of complex ideas, difficult-to-explain story elements and a distinct lack of bright colors and conventional sex appeal? There are but a handful of filmmakers who could have made Inception as it was. Chris Nolan, coming off The Dark Knight, was one of them. Other than perhaps James Cameron and Steven Spielberg (George Lucas would have just funded the thing out of his own back-pocket), I cannot think of anyone else who could have gotten the greenlight without severely slashing the budget. Guillermo del Toro isn't one of those directors either.
Rango
Batman: the Brave and the Bold Season One Volume Two
Nothing much to report, just what looks to be the final one-sheet for Marvel Comics' Thor. Yes, advertising a movie as 'from the studio that brought you a different movie' is the biggest stretch in marketing, but Marvel didn't have much else to go on. It's not like the kids are going to be thrilled with 'from the director of Dead Again and Mary Shelly's Frankenstein'. The poster itself seems like some weird hybrid of The Social Network and A Knight's Tale. Anyway, Elisabeth Rappe's interview with the screenwriter Don Payne put some of my fears to rest (the film is only 50% Earthbound), so we'll see. By the way, this is the first I've seen regarding Thor opening in IMAX as well as Digital 3D. It seemed like a no-brainer after Spider-Man 4 broke down and vacated the release date, but I presumed that Fast Five grabbing IMAX screens a week before would have prevented Marvel from doing the same. Interesting... Thanks IGN for getting the poster and the banner.
Black Death
Rejoice or protest nerds! The Star Wars series is indeed returning to theaters post-converted to 3D starting on February 10th, 2012 with The Phantom Menace. After that, it's one movie a year, which will finish off in 2017 with Return of the Jedi, just in time for the 40th anniversary of the release of the original Star Wars: A New Hope. If you don't like it, don't buy a ticket. I'm looking forward to this if only to watch George Lucas show everyone how a real 3D-conversion is done. Back in 2002, he was the only one, with the arguable exception of Robert Rodriguez, who could shoot on HD-Video without it looking like a home movie. 3D is at that point now. Even the good 3D work (Drive Angry for example) still looks dark, muddy, and cheap befitting the non-film it was shot on. Point being, we're at that growth-spurt stage with 3D where everyone wants to do it, and some of them are even skilled at it, but you can still 'see the strings'.
Contrary to common sense, the critically-savaged (by me among others) and not-terribly successful Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief is indeed getting a sequel. According to The LA Times, director Chris Columbus will merely produce this second installment, entitled The Sea Monsters. The principle cast members, including Logan Lerman, will apparently be returning. There are five books in the series, so if Fox can bring it a movie that costs less than the $95 million that the first film cost, and can gross equal-to or slightly more than the $226 million that the first film grossed worldwide (only $88 million of that was from domestic grosses), than Fox may have a franchise on its hands after all. I don't think I need to say what a sad commentary it is when even films that were barely financially successful and were loved by few are still getting sequels. At least Clash of the Titans made $496 million off a $125 million budget, while Tron: Legacy apparently sold a bunch of toys. We're getting perilously close to the tent-pole equivalent of Mannequin 2: On the Move. So many candidates for the Tomb Raider Trap...
As happens from time to time, a reader and collegue was able to attend an early screening of an upcoming release and was willing to send his thoughts along. This time, Brandon Peters offers a spoiler-free look at The Adjustment Bureau, which opens this Friday.
