tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69378482484691215862024-03-06T00:17:43.364-08:00Mendelson's MemosEssays, Reviews, Commentary, and Original Scholarship. A Film Blog that strives to be Art.Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.comBlogger2673125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-56180968257431936492013-06-11T06:00:00.000-07:002013-06-11T06:00:05.436-07:00The box office legacy of Jurassic Park, 20 years later... <div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/jurassic-park-large-picture.jpg"><img alt="" class="aligncenter wp-image-24" height="407" src="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/jurassic-park-large-picture-1024x678.jpg" width="614" /></a></div>
It would be all too easy to detail the ways in which <a href="http://www.forbes.com/profile/steven-spielberg/" target="_blank">Steven Spielberg's</a> <em><a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Jurassic-Park-Widescreen-Collectors-Neill/dp/B00003CXAT%3FSubscriptionId%3D0G81C5DAZ03ZR9WH9X82%26tag%3Dzemanta-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3DB00003CXAT" rel="amazon" title="Jurassic Park (Widescreen Collector's Edition)">Jurassic Park</a></em> was a game changer in the realm of summer blockbusters and major-studio releases in general. Its June 1993 release shattered a number of box office records and kicked off the glorious second act of Steven Spielberg's illustrious career. But the story is more complicated than that. <em>Jurassic Park </em>was a movie precisely of its time. In some ways it did lead the charge in terms of how films were made and released. In other ways, quite frankly, it was one of the last of its kind. <em>Jurassic Park </em>is perhaps a defining example of the perfect combination of newfangled and old-school blockbuster film-making. It represented both a preview of what was to come and the last gasp of traditional mainstream movie-making in one glorious concoction.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>First if not foremost, it was a pioneering film in terms of the quickly emerging realm of computer generated effects. Although, like <em><a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_2%3A_Judgment_Day" rel="wikipedia" title="Terminator 2: Judgment Day">Terminator 2: Judgment Day</a> </em>two summers before and <em>Independence Day </em>three summers after, the vast majority of its special effects were practical in nature, the film was considered a shining example of just what "CGI" could do. Now, thanks to advances in computer generated imagery, there was the strong potential for the idea that filmmakers could literately create anything onscreen and create it in such a way that audiences could believe their eyes if but for a moment. Obviously not every use of CGI resulted in such dynamic effects work, and arguably computer-generated effects work became a crutch almost as quickly as it became a revelation. But for those who saw the film in its initial theatrical run in summer 1993, it did feel like the industry was on the cusp of making the impossible very very real. Also of note was Universal's secretive marketing campaign, refusing to reveal its best scenes or its biggest effects shots in the previews or television spots. Last year Disney's <em>The Avengers </em>released a clip of one of its biggest action scenes online with director's commentary days before the film's theatrical release. The idea that audiences walked into <em>Jurassic Park </em>mostly unaware of its quality is one that resonates in the current age of long-lead review embargoes and spoilers included as marketing tools.<br />
<br />
The film was also a triumph of concept over star power, as it represented the appeal of the idea versus the movie star. Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum were not 'open a movie' with their face on the poster' movie stars, not before <em>Jurassic Park </em>and not after. Pretty much every other smash hit in summer 1993 (along with one expected smash that ended up flopping) was a pure star vehicle. <em>Cliffhanger, Sleepless In Seattle, The Firm, In the Line of Fire, </em>and <em>The Fugitive</em> were old-school star-driven genre films (we can debate how much it mattered that <em>The Fugitive </em>was based on a popular 1960's television series, but that's for another day). Even the unexpected flop, <em>Last Action Hero</em>, was sold purely on the alleged strength of Arnold Schwarzenegger post-<em>T2</em>. Even after the success of <em>Star Wars </em>in 1977, the vast majority of blockbusters were at least partially about star power, be it Eddie Murphy in <em><a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/beverly_hills_cop" rel="rottentomatoes" title="Beverly Hills Cop">Beverly Hills Cop</a></em>, Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd in <em>Ghostbusters</em>, Tom Cruise in <em>Top Gun, </em>or Harrison Ford in <em><a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/raiders_of_the_lost_ark" rel="rottentomatoes" title="Raiders of the Lost Ark (Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark)">Raiders of the Lost Ark</a> </em>(token exception - <em>Home Alone</em>)<em>. </em>The mega blockbusters that followed in <em>Jurassic Park</em>'s wake alternated between high concepts that had genuine star power at the helm (Tom Hank's <em>Forrest Gump</em>) and concept-driven ideas (<em>Independence Day</em>). Movie stars still had their place in the new blockbuster era, at least for a period of time, but <em>Jurassic Park </em>cemented the idea that you could have a massively successful movie without any actual movie stars.<br />
<br />
In terms of the film's box office, <em>Jurassic Park </em>was truly a hybrid of the old and the new. It broke the opening weekend record with $50 million over its first Fri-Sun period (including Thursday sneak previews, natch), but dropped just 10% in its second weekend with another $38 million. It was truly a mega blockbuster in the age of the massive saturation-level opening weekend, a phenomena kicked off by <em>Batman </em>four years earlier. But while <em>Batman </em>opened with $42 million and stalled out in a matter of months with "just" $251 million in America (good for the fifth-highest grosser of all time at that moment), <em>Jurassic Park </em>had legs akin to the original <em>Star Wars </em>films and the likes of <em>Beverly Hills Cop,</em> <em>Ghostbusters</em>, <em>Back to the Future</em>, and <em>Home Alone </em>($17 million opening, $285 million finish). The dinosaur smash played in theaters for over a full year. It was still on 100 screens in October of 1994 when the film finally was released on VHS home video. It was arguably the last blockbuster to take advantage of the dying second-run theatrical market. It was the last vestige, along with (to a much lesser extent), <em>Titanic </em>and <em>The Sixth Sense</em>, of the idea that a hit film could play in theaters for months and months on end. Today, the biggest blockbusters make a third of their money on opening weekend and are considered leggy if they are still in theaters after two months.<br />
<br />
Spielberg's dinosaur thriller remains a hybrid of another sort, the uneasy balancing act of an expected hit and an unexpected mega-smash. If <em>Batman </em>was the first preordained blockbuster that wasn't a sequel to a previous hit film, <em>Jurassic Park </em>was a preordained hit that become an all-time box office champion. Steven Spielberg was coming off of the critical and (relative) commercial disappointment of <em>Hook</em>, and he hadn't had a non-sequel smash hit since <em><a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/et_the_extraterrestrial" rel="rottentomatoes" title="E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial">E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial</a></em>. Everybody 'in the know' was expecting <em>Jurassic Park </em>to be one of the, if not *the* biggest film of summer 1993 if not the whole calendar year, but no one was expecting it to become the monster that it became. In the end, the film earned $357 million in America, good for the second-<a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films" rel="wikipedia" title="List of highest-grossing films">highest grossing film of all-time</a> behind <em>E.T.</em> ($399 million at the time, including re-releases) and $914 million worldwide, stealing <em>E.T.</em>'s global crown (the director of <em>E.T.</em> must have been furious). Today we have what can only be called the preordained blockbuster, with every summer bringing a series of big-budget spectacles that we are basically told ahead of time that we will flock to in massive numbers, creating ever-larger opening weekends and ever-larger global earnings (even as the budgets grow so high as to make those massive global grosses absolutely necessary). Sometimes a movie outperforms its expectations, such as <em>The Dark Knight</em>, <em>Avatar</em>, or <em>The Avengers</em>. But there is little surprise when it comes to what films will be monster smashes in today's film marketplace.<br />
<br />
Speaking of that $914 million global gross, <em>Jurassic Park</em> was the first non-sequel mega-blockbuster to vastly out-gross its domestic box office overseas. <em>Star Wars</em>, <em>E.T., Batman</em>, and pretty much any other blockbuster you can think of all earned more money in America than in foreign markets. <em>Jurassic Park</em> earned 61% of its money overseas. This was a true trendsetter, a major crowd-pleaser than didn't necessarily require keen understanding of the English language and primed to take advantage of the emerging overseas film market. This trend would grow for the next eight years, with action films like <em>Die Hard With a Vengeance </em>and <em>GoldenEye </em>earning around 70% of their roughly $350 million global grosses overseas. And obviously <em>Titanic </em>earned $1.2 billion of its $1.8 billion overseas (that's 66% by the way). The scale finally tipped in 2001, with massive global blockbusters <em>Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring </em>and <em>Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone </em>setting the trend that has now led to foreign grosses arguably becoming of greater importance to Hollywood than domestic grosses. We now live in a Hollywood where cornering the Chinese market is more important than cornering the American one and where films like <em>Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters </em>gets a sequel even though it barely made its budget back in America ($55 million here, $216 million global).<br />
<br />
In the end, <em>Jurassic Park </em>and its box office successes 20 years ago represented things to be admired about the modern movie-going experience as well as premonitions of the doom to come. It was an insanely leggy blockbuster right on the cusp of an era of massive front-loading. A year earlier <em>Batman Returns </em>stunned the industry by dropping 48% in its second weekend, while in 1996 no one batted an eye when <em>Mission: Impossible </em>grossed 41% of is $181 million total in its first six days. <em>Jurassic Park </em>was a practical-effects thriller flavored with CGI right at the moment when CGI took over the industry. It helped foster the notion that a film could vastly outperform its American box office haul via foreign markets as well as the idea that you didn't need movie stars to do that. <em>Jurassic Park </em>opened twenty years ago this June and left its rivals in the proverbial dust. 20 years later, it's remarkable to look back and realize how much of what it represented is history as ancient as its prehistoric title characters.<br /><br />Scott MendelsonScott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-83460864182664119992013-04-19T06:18:00.000-07:002013-05-31T06:20:07.030-07:00How much Star Wars is too much Star Wars?<br />
<div style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
<img alt="English: Opening logo to the Star Wars films" src="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/300px-Star_Wars_Logo.svg_1.png" /></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">Disney announced two days ago that their new plans, having previously purchased Lucasfilm for $4 billion, aren't just to make a new trilogy of</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> Star Wars </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">episodes, nor even to make a few spin-off films set in the same universe. No, they are planning to make one </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">movie every single year, with off-shoot films alternating with official new 'episodes'. How much </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">is too much </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">? The idea of a new trilogy of </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">films, set to debut ten years after the finale of the prequel trilogy, is perhaps also exciting, even as J.J. Abrams replaci</span></span>ng George Lucas<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"> as the proverbial leader of this specific universe calls for cautious optimism (Is </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">without any real input fro</span></span>m George Lucas<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"> really </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">? Discuss...). But how long will the casual fans remain excited about the prospect of new </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">films when they appear as frequently as Thanksgiving dinner for years and years on end?</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>Disney clearly wants to milk the cow for which they just paid $4 billion. From a viewer standpoint, this development really doesn't matter. If you don't want to see a new <em>Star Wars </em>film every single year, then don't go see them. If the new Disney-produced <em>Star Wars </em>films end up being hopelessly diluted by virtue of spreading the franchise (and available man-hours/legal tender) too thin, then just pretend they don't exist and enjoy the first six films accordingly. Frankly, the idea of doing a few <em>Star Wars </em>standalone films in between the major 'Episodes' makes a certain amount of sense, setting up a film franchise similar to how comic books are written. You have various standalone titles, and then a big crossover event where everybody gets together. Obviously Marvel, which is now also of course owned by Disney, has been building towards this for the last five years, with the big question being whether the stand-alone films like <em>Iron Man 3</em> will still appeal to audiences now treated with a massive crossover event.<br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Of all the existing franchises, save whatever becomes of the DC Comics universe, <em>Star Wars </em>is arguably the only one that can sustain a Marvel Studios type model, as technically any random character with a blaster or a light saber can be a <em>Star Wars </em>character (one could argue the same for <em>Star Trek </em>except the success or failure would depend on the quality of the characters more than the technical aspects). I would argue from an artistic point of view that over-saturating the market with <em>Star Wars </em>films is a mistake, especially if every other entry will be an official Episode, as that's obviously not the comic book model discussed above. And double that 'especially' if the offshoots are mostly going to be of the 'Young Yoda' or 'Baby Boba Fett' variety as previously announced rather than the Zack Snyder-helmed <em>Seven Samurai</em>-ish adventure that was rumored and then debunked in record time a few months ago. I won't pretend that I'm terribly optimistic for what's coming, both from a standpoint of this apparent shoveling of nonstop new films and the apparent lack of imagination on display in terms of how to expand the universe. And this is from someone who likes the prequel trilogy more than most.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">But the other shoe that may drop will be a financial one. Sure the first new Episode of </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">will likely be a massive global blockbuster, but how will </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars Episode 16 </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">perform? Unless Disney is somehow going to get away with doing </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">movies on the cheap, each official Episode will likely cost whatever the upper-realms blockbusters happen to cost at the given time. As such, in order to make profits, each </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">film will theoretically have to gross towards the upper-ends of what constitutes a global blockbuster each time out. Will the off-year films be cheaper offerings where a mere $500 million in global box office is required to break into the black? I don't know, but at least when it comes to the official chapters (think of them as the mythology episodes of </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The X-Files</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">), fans won't tolerate a full-blown </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">film done on the cheap ala 20th Century</span></span> Fox'<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">s </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">A Good Day to Die Hard</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">. If the mystique of continuing </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">films wears off after several years of non-stop output, if stands to reason that the fifth consecutive chapter might not generate the kind of excitement and/or box office that the first new chapter will come 2015. What will happen if the returns no longer justify top-tier budgets?</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
But, to end on a somewhat positive note, Disney is trying something a little different. They are taking one of the most vibrant and resilient franchises of all time and attempting to create a variation on the genuinely groundbreaking Marvel Universe film franchise. Maybe it will work for long enough to justify the expense, making the <em>Star Wars </em>series into a newfangled James Bond-type series where we just get another fantastic adventure every time out. Or maybe the thrill will dissipate all too quickly due to over-saturation and Disney will turn <em>Star Wars </em>into the fantasy franchise equivalent of <em>Who Wants to Be A Millionaire?</em>. I don't know how this will all work out, but I think we'll learn very soon if there is such a thing as too much <em>Star Wars</em>.</div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-84922995260509382172013-04-18T06:16:00.000-07:002013-05-31T06:17:20.465-07:00Real Tragedy vs. Reel Tragedy: A History of Films Released in the Shadow of Non-Fiction Horror<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">For much of the last six months, many hardcore </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Trek </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">fans have been somewhat annoyed that the upcoming </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Trek Into Darkness </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">has been marketed as a somewhat generic grim-n-gritty 'dark sequel' focused not on space exploration but on Kirk and his crew pursuing a seemingly unstoppable super villain (Benedict Cumberbatch). I've jokingly referred to the marketing as </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Skyfall Into The Dark Knight</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, but the irony is that Paramount may now be regretting their 'sell this to generic action fans' approach. If, and this is a big "if", the perpetrator behind Monday's </span></span>Boston Ma<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">rathon attack turns out to be a domestic terrorist with a grudge against allegedly tyrannical government forces, how will Paramount handle their prime summer tent pole, which has been centered around a domestic terrorist with an apparent grudge against Starfleet blowing up populated areas? This is sadly not the first time we've had this kind of discussion. But it's worth noting that it's having to happen with increasing frequency.</span></span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">Almost 18 years to the day, Timothy McVeigh blew up the </span></span>Oklahoma City Federal Building, which was at the time the largest terrorist attack on US soil. 20th Century Fox <span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">was in an odd position of marketing their prime summer tent pole, the bomb-filled </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Die Hard: With a Vengeance</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">. Bruce Willis famously said that he didn't want to trivialize the tragedy by discussing it in terms of a fictional action picture, which is probably what Paramount needs to say. Press on, perhaps show a few less explosions and a few more outer-space flying shots to the TV campaign, let the press ask everyone about it during the junket, and move on accordingly. </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Trek Into Darkness</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">'s box office probably won't be harmed by the real-life similarities any more than </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Dark Knight Rises </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">was negatively affected by the Aurora </span></span>Colorado <span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">shooting that took place during a midnight screening of said movie. Columnists and pundits hemmed and hawed about the movie that really had no connection to the kind of random violence committed during that midnight showing, but the Chris Nolan Batman finale still pulled in $448 million domestic and over $1 billion worldwide.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">Films like </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Iron Man 3 </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">(which pits Tony Stark against an apparently international terrorist in the Bin Laden mold played by Ben Kingsley) and </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Trek Into Darkness </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">are probably too big to be all-that-affected by negative current events surrounding their release. In terms of real-life events negatively effecting the reception of upcoming films, it's usually the smaller films that get hit hardest. Those who wanted to see </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Dark Knight Rises </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">surely went even as they may have had a token amount of fear in the back of their minds about a copycat shooter. After all, in layman's terms, it was </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Dark Knight Rises</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">! But you were genuinely concerned about a copycat assailant over the next week or two, was it really that urgent for you to see </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Watch</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, which came out the next weekend? </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Watch </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">of course got hit twice by current events, having to change its title from </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Neighborhood Watch </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">and its marketing emphasis to sci-fi</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">after the Treyvon Martin shooting several months prior by someone claiming to be a member of the local neighborhood watch. We'll see what if any effect Monday's news has on </span></span>Tom Cruise's<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"> </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Oblivion</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, which has the luxury of having absolutely nothing to do with current events.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
Tom Cruise's<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"> last film, </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Jack Reacher</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, had the misfortune of being the first guns-and-ammo action picture to be released after the Newtown school shooting. The irony is that the film arguably suffered at the box office because it actually took its violence seriously. The film, which opened with a brutal and disturbing sniper attack on random bystanders and made a point to focus on the aftermath of said random violence, was viewed in a wholly different light my many critics than it would have been had it been released on December 7th instead of December 21st. The slightly disappointing film (in terms of box office-wise, with $80 million domestic), which contained light commentary on America's gun culture, arguably paid a price for being prescient and taking its bloodshed more seriously than most pure action thrillers. And who is to say if the flurry of flop R-rated action films from Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jason Statham had anything to do with America's alleged post-Newtown opinions on arbitrary cinematic slaughter? I'm inclined to say no, as the insanely violent </span></span><i>Olympus Ha</i><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">s Fallen </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">just crossed $80 million over the weekend with $100 million domestic in its grasp, but it certainly didn't help.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">Post-9/11, the big-budget </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Sum of All Fears</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, which starred Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan and featured </span></span>Baltimore be<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">ing nuked by a group of renegade neo-Nazi terrorists, did just fine in summer 2002 (about $120 million domestic). </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Spider-Man arguably </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">benefited from the terrorist attack that occurred several months prior to release. It became a quintessential American entertainment, featuring a definitively American underdog superhero rescuing</span></span> New York <span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">(with help from brave New Yorkers in the film's corniest moment) from random violence and super villain threats. I've long theorized that had </span></span>Michael Bay's <span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">(deservedly panned) </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Pearl Harbor </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">debuted in November 2001 instead of May 2001, it would have gotten more of a pass from critics and challenged </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Titanic </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">for the domestic box office crown. </span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
But a flurry of smaller films that had a loose connection to the tragedy (<em>Big Trouble</em>, <em>A View From the Top, Bad Company</em>, <em>Collateral Damage</em>, etc.) were delayed and all bombed pretty hard. Small films often can't stand the heat of being associated with negative current events. <em>Idle Hands </em>(a horror comedy about a stoner who gets possessed and slaughters his fellow high-schoolers) would likely have been DOA regardless, but its release soon after the Columbine shootings didn't help. Meanwhile, the already successful <em>The Matrix </em>didn't suffer one iota from being (wrongly) tagged as a kind of theoretical inspiration for the kind of shooting spree that Klebold and Harris committed. But I'd argue bigger films are not only mostly unaffected by an 'life imitates art' situation. They can actually benefit from it.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
I've already discussed <em>Spider-Man</em>, but did the 9/11 attacks help audiences and critics view <em>Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone </em>and especially <em>The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring </em>in a slightly different light? Did their epic respective journeys of young heroes grieving loved ones struck down by evil and forced into horrible circumstances purely due to the times they happened to be living in resonate more with audiences due to the events that preceded them? I can only speculate, and much of their respective successes came from the fact that they were exceptional fantasy adventures. But surely they were the kind of mournful, thoughtful, yet ultimately hopeful and optimistic heroes' journeys that resonated just a bit more in light of current events. </div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Relative quality and successful marketing aside, they were arguably the films we needed at the time we needed them. Will <em>Star Trek Into Darkness</em>'s tale of a young Captain Kirk chasing a lone wolf terrorist operate as a prescient parable for current events? Will Tony Stark's face-off with The Mandarin resonate as more than just a superhero smack down? Will <em>Man of Steel </em>be precisely the film we need during this somewhat dark hour, an inspirational and ultimately optimistic ode to the classic ideals of Americana and the best potential in humanity? Will these films, like <em>Spider-Man </em>eleven years ago, connect on a larger scale than predicted due to their theoretical cathartic potential?</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">We can only speculate until we know for sure, and there is certainly no tasteful way for studios to intentionally inspire this kind of sentiment. Attempts post-9/11 at selling films like </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Majestic </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">or television shows like </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Agency </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">as 'what America needed' failed spectacularly and earned demerits for poor taste. What's worth noting is how frequently we seem to be having the 'How will the most recent real-life tragedy affect this upcoming movie?' conversation. What used to be a periodic conversation after seemingly monumental tragedies (the </span></span>Oklahoma City b<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">ombing in 1995, the Columbine shootings in 1999, the 9/11 attacks in 2001) has now become almost routine as these acts of mass violence become almost routine. In less than a year, we've had three such shocking incidents of mass murder, in July and December of last year and now this week. </span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
I have little else to offer, aside from the hope that this is the last time we'll have to talk about this for a long time.</div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-65579979403270411842013-04-17T06:23:00.000-07:002013-05-02T06:24:10.857-07:00Why Guillermo del Toro's 'Pacific Rim' Will Be a Bigger Hit if Summer 2013 is an Artistic Failure...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/pacificrim15.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" class=" wp-image-140 " height="216" src="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/pacificrim15.jpg" width="406" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">As I </span></span><a data-mce-href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/06/on-the-once-rare-1-billion-blockbuster-and-why-it-should-remain-rare/" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/06/on-the-once-rare-1-billion-blockbuster-and-why-it-should-remain-rare/" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;" target="_blank" title="On the dangers of the normalization of the $1 billion blockbuster">mentioned last week</a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, the success of Guillermo del Toro's large-scale monsters vs. robots action tale </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Pacific Rim </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">is at least partially predicated on how well-received the previous two months of summer films happen to be. This summer will mark the ten year anniversary of </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">. As most of you know, the Disney pirate adventure was a surprise of sorts, both in terms of its unexpected quality and its huge financial success. The film was a proverbial dark horse of summer 2003, a film based on pirates (box office poison!) starring</span></span> Johnny Depp <span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">(usually box office poison way back when) and based on a theme park ride. On paper, the $130 million film was seemingly a recipe for disaster. But two things happened that summer. </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">was very good and a large portion of the May/June summer releases were not. As such, by early July, summer movie audiences were primed for a would-be tent-pole that actually delivered the goods. Gore Verbinski's pirate adventure was the one we were waiting for, and audiences responded accordingly with a $73 million five-day opening and a $303 million final domestic total.</span></span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">It's a somewhat unique phenomena. You have one film that basically capitalized on the somewhat underwhelming slate of movies that preceded it, allowing it to be presented as the proverbial 'one you've been waiting for.' In terms of mainstream opinion, it delivered crowd-pleasing thrills and unexpected quality in a summer where </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Matrix Reloaded </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">(a film I believe is massively underrated, but that's for another day)</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">, Hollywood Homicide, Daddy Daycare, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">and Ang Lee's </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Hulk </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">did not. This is not dissimilar to what happened in summer 2007. Even factoring it massive financial success due to audience goodwill and old-school front-loading, audience disappointment with </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Spider-Man 3 </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">($151 million opening/$336 million total), </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Shrek the Third </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">($121 million opening/$322 million total), and (ironically) </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">($156 million Fri-Mon opening, $309 million total), along with a relatively unmemorable June, gave way to the unexpectedly crowd-pleasing </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Transformers</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">. Minority opinion aside (I was among the only ones who didn't like that film back in summer 2007, to the point where I saw it twice just to see what I was missing), </span></span>Michael Bay'<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">s robot-smashing epic delivered the blockbuster goods in a way that had thus-far mostly been missing in the various big movies of summer 2007. Cue the $155 million six-day debut and $319 million domestic total.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">Chris Nolan's </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Inception</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, also a mid-July release, capitalized on the same trend, truly becoming the lone diamond in the rough during one of the absolute worst summers in modern history. Seriously, summer 2010 was such a wasteland of mediocrity and disappointment (</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Iron Man 2</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Prince of Persia, Sex and the City 2, The Last Airbender, The A-</em><i>Team</i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, etc.) that the Jackie Chan/Jaden Smith </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Karate Kid </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">remake felt like an honest-to-goodness Oscar bait picture merely because it was very good. Enter mid-July, and, aside from the then-standard Pixar triumph, audiences were literally starved for a genuinely good "big" summer movie. Chris Nolan's twisty mind-bending heist picture delivered and audiences responded, with a $62 million debut starting a rather leggy run that ended with $292 million domestic. But this idea actually backfired in summer 2011, when Paramount basically sold J.J. Abrams's </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Super 8 </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">as the diamond in the rough, an original genre picture rooted in character in a sea of sequels and franchise properties. But, while the film did solid business ($35 million opening/$127 million finish), it failed to capitalize on the trend discussed here because well, it opened in mid June, the films that kicked off summer 2011 were surprisingly solid (</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Fast Five</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Thor</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Bridesmaids</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Kung Fu Panda 2</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, and </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">X-Men: First Class </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">were all arguably better than anticipated), and </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Super 8 </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">just wasn't very good. If you want to be the breath of fresh air, you have to hope that the rest of the air is suitably toxic and that you really do smell better.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
So yes, I'd argue that the domestic success of Warner Bros' <em>Pacific Rim </em>is arguably rooted somewhat in how the summer season shapes up prior to its July 12th release date. But the ingredients are similar: A non-sequel from a visionary filmmaker that promises to absolutely deliver the goods. But the seemingly huge monsters vs. robots fable will partially depend on how well received the first half of summer is. If <em>Iron Man 3</em>, <em>Star Trek Into Darkness, Fast & Furious 6, Man of Steel, </em>and <em>The Lone Ranger </em>mostly deliver on an audience-pleasing level, then <em>Pacific Rim </em>is just another large-scale would-be blockbuster. But if <em>Iron Man 3 </em>isn't an improvement on <em>Iron Man 2</em>, if <em>Star Trek Into Darkness </em>is a slave to the now-cliche dark sequel template, if <em>Fast & Furious </em>peaked at <em>Fast Five</em>, if <em>Man of Steel </em>plays closer to <em>Green Lantern </em>than <em>Batman Begins</em>, and if <em>The Lone Ranger </em>is more <em>Prince of Persia </em>than <em>Pirates of the Caribbean</em>, *and* if <em>Pacific Rim </em>is as good as we've been hearing... well you know how this story ends. </div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Obviously that's a lot of "if"s. And I'd imagine most film fans don't necessarily want to sacrifice the artistic quality of <em>Iron Man 3 </em>and <em>Star Trek 2</em> so that <em>Pacific Rim </em>can be the biggest possible hit. But I'd argue that <em>Pacific Rim</em>'s best chance of success comes if it becomes the de-facto <em>Inception </em>of summer 2013, which requires a certain amount of failure on the part of its summer movie predecessors We'll know soon enough.</div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-43272693251397105762013-04-16T06:13:00.000-07:002013-06-19T06:28:58.957-07:00Review: Tom Cruise's 'Oblivion' (2013) Presents a Beautiful Vision of the End of the World<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
<img height="320" src="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/hr_Oblivion_10.jpg" width="218" /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; text-align: start;">
I could easily spoil the vast majority of <em>Oblivion </em>merely by listing the various science fiction films from which it cribs. From visual cues to plot beats and character arcs, it feels like a mash-up of the various high-profile science fiction thrillers from the last few decades. But almost despite itself, the film works anyway as its own beast. Yes the characters are thin and the screenplay doesn't have too much going on underneath the hood, but the film is an absolute visual delight. Universal originally planned to release this film in America last Friday for an exclusive IMAX-only week-long engagement and it's easy to see why. The film features absolutely fantastic special effects, yet offers the pleasure of being able to believe your eyes more often than not. Director Joseph Kosinski's <em>Oblivion </em>may be a triumph of style over substance, but the picture *is* a triumph of style, with strong acting that helps overcome the lack of substance. Sometimes visual imagination coupled with strong acting is enough. The end of the world never looked so beautiful.</div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;">The picture is of course a vehicle fo</span>r Tom Cruise<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, and he's quite good here per-usual. There are only a handful of prominent speaking roles and the film refreshingly takes its time establishing its world before getting to the plot. And yes, the opening reel or so truly does feel like a live-action version of </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Wall-E</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, with Cruise flying around the deserted planet fixing stuff and pining for our lost home (long story short, Earth got invaded and we nuked the Earth in order to repel the invasion). The futuristic ships and gadgets are themselves a visual delight, with glorious shots of Cruise piloting his ship literally over the clouds. Despite the film's $120 million budget (it looks like it cost far more, and I say that as a compliment) and various futuristic special effects, it's most special effect is its use of practical locations. It is frankly a different kind of post-apocalyptic film in that it almost revels in the idea of an Earth uncontaminated by humans (and mostly void of animals to boot). Its soaring vistas and epic natural terrains bring to mind something akin to Alan Weisman's </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The World Without Us</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">. If it needs to be said, if you're going to see </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Oblivion</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, see </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Oblivion </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">in IMAX at all costs.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
On a narrative level, the picture is refreshingly patient, slowly peeling back the curtain to reveal its grand designs, with neither the need to rush into action or spoil all of its major story beats at one time. This is the kind of screenplay I always appreciate, one where story is still being told right up to the end. Detailing the picture's thematic text would count as a spoiler, so I'll merely say that the film plays around with classic science fiction concepts without over-stuffing itself with implied deeper meaning. Truth be told, I appreciated the comparative lack of ambition. <em>Oblivion </em>isn't trying to set up a franchise that will spawn sequels and spin-offs in various mediums. In fact, it's refreshingly close-ended, telling a full story that actually ends at the end. <em>Oblivion </em>isn't trying to be the biggest would-be blockbuster of the year (it is sparse with its action), it merely wants to tell a simple character journey set in the most gorgeous post-apocalyptic wasteland you've ever seen. Kosinski, with the help of cinematographer Claudio Miranda, seems desperate to prove that <em>Tron: Legacy </em>wasn't entirely his fault, showing restraint and moderation where the prior film emphasized lights and smoke to hide its inherent hollowness. <em>Tron: Legacy </em>was frankly one of the worst would-be blockbusters I've seen in the last several years. <em>Oblivion </em>is certainly an improvement.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Oblivion </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">is a solid and engaging science-fiction drama. It is less concerned with over-the-top thrills than in establishing time and place while telling a somewhat simple story of self-discovery. It has just enough ideas to justify its narrative journey, and only enough action beats to construct a solid trailer (the film has one very strong second-act chase scene). As a</span></span> Tom Cruise <span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">vehicle, it again shows off why he has remained one of the biggest stars in Hollywood through thick-and-thin, as it shows his unwillingness to deliver a product anything below rock-solid (I'll assume </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Rock of Ages </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">was a statistical anomaly). If </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Tron: Legacy </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">represented basically everything wrong with the modern blockbuster, </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Oblivion </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">presents a more optimistic spectacle: Thoughtful, patient, rooted in performance, intended for glorious IMAX 2D, and using its special effects to support the narrative rather than suffocate it. </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Oblivion </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">is not a great film but it is completely solid big screen entertainment that does its job with visual enchantment to spare.</span></span>Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-20024555941803713522013-04-15T08:13:00.000-07:002013-06-10T14:58:37.162-07:00Why it may be a good thing if no films pass $1 billion in 2013...<a href="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/hr_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_21.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-67 " height="281" src="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/hr_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_21.jpg" width="400" /></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Just a few years ago, had I written a piece entitled "There are no films guaranteed to gross $1 billion this year", you likely would have laughed and said "Of course not!". As recently as 2010, the idea that any movie could or would gross $1 billion in worldwide ticket sales was somewhat of a pipe dream. From 1997 to 2006, there were just two films to reach that milestone, they being</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Titanic</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> (the biggest movie of all-time with a seemingly insurmountable $1.8 billion) and</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">, the Oscar-winning chapter to what can be argued is the finest screen trilogy of our time (that's a debate for another day). In 2006, we saw the powerhouse success of</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">which parlayed the unexpected popularity of the first film into an even larger haul for its sequel, breaking the domestic opening weekend record at the time ($135 million) and earning a massive $423 million in America and $642 million overseas. In 2008,</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Dark Knight </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">pulled another "massively popular sequel to unexpectedly well-liked original" trick to the tune of $533 million in America (good for the second biggest grosser of all time in America, if only for a year) and just over $1 billion worldwide despite not playing in</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span>China due to that pesky "Chinese gangster hides Gotham mob money" subplot. 2009 saw James Cameron do that trick that James Cameron<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">does yet again, with</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Avatar </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">earning $1 billion worldwide in about seventeen days and going on to earn an eye-popping $2.7 billion.</span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>From 1997 to 2009 there were five $1 billion grossers. Between 2010 and 2012, we added an additional ten such films. Brought on partially by the 3D craze established by <em>Avatar</em> and partially by the sheer expansion of the overseas marketplace, the once fabled $1 billion grossing blockbuster became almost normal. In 2010, we had a fantasy film that few loved and quite a few disliked (<em>Alice in Wonderland</em>), and the final (I hope) entry to what can be argued is the finest trilogy of our time (<em>Toy Story 3</em>, yes we can debate that another day too). In 2011 we had three such blockbusters, all summertime sequels released in 3D. They were <em>Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides </em>(which earned just $240 million domestic - far lower than the previous three films), <em>Transformers: Dark of the Moon, </em>and <em>Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II, </em>which was the culmination of a popular and awfully good eight-film fantasy epic spanning ten years. What we saw in 2011 was the $1 billion mark being crossed by not zeitgeist defining blockbusters but merely relatively popular sequels that capitalized on the ticket price-surcharge that comes with 3D tickets.<br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">2012 saw a somewhat shocking four new releases cross that once unthinkable goal post, plus a 3D reissue of </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Wars: Episode One: The Phantom Menace </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">crossing that milestone as well (</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Phantom Menace </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">earned over $900 million back in 1999 when that was a big deal). The newbies to the club were the expected successes of </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Dark Knight Rises </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">(no subplots about Chinese gangsters this time, thank you much!) and </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">(which crawled to $1 billion despite pretty much every one admitting it was a major comedown from the </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Lord of the Rings </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">trilogy), plus the somewhat unexpectedly huge success of </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Avengers </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">(which earned a massive $1.5 billion, good for the biggest grossing film not helmed b</span></span>y James Cameron) a<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">nd the completely unexpected $1 billion run of </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Skyfall</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, a series whose previous worldwide high was $599 million for </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Casino Royale</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">. The interesting news is that two of those films, </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Dark Knight Rises </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">and </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Skyfall</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, were released strictly in 2D. This year, there is a pretty decent chance that not a single film will gross that milestone in 2013. Well, okay, so the 3D rerelease of </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Jurassic Park </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">will likely push that film's original 1993 global gross of $914 million over the goal line (</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Titanic 3D </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">made $285 million overseas last year), but we're talking new releases here.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">There is the possibility for surprise and the unexpected breakout. </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Trek </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">made just $395 million worldwide in 2009, but it's certainly possible that the 3D/IMAX-enhanced </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Star Trek into Darkness </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">could 'pull a </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Dark Knight' </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">and capitalize in the original's good will and massively outperform its predecessor (</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Batman Begins </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">earned just $375 million back in 2005). But that's not a guarantee. </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Iron Man 3 </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">could build on the success of </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Avengers </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">and earn $1 billion the third time around, again enhanced by 3D and IMAX, but the previous two films topped out at $585 million and $623 million respectively, so that's an awfully big jump to presume. </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Man of Steel </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">is no guarantee, as </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Superman Returns </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">earned $391 million back in 2006 and it's partially a question of whether or not the Zack Snyder-helmed/</span></span>Christopher Nolan-<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">produced epic can deliver an iconic Superman film and/or whether the world still needs a Superman film. </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Pacific Rim </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">is the major wildcard of the summer, an original entry that is gaining massive buzz among the geek set but. But even with that whole 3D boost thingy going for it, I'd argue that how well Guillermo Del Toro's monsters vs. robots epic</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">does in July depends on how good or bad the summer slate up to that point is (I'll expand on that in a later essay).</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Hunger </em><i>Games w</i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">as huge in America ($408 million) but only earned $283 million overseas, so </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Catching Fire </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">is not a likely $1 billion grosser (especially in mere 2D). </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Thor: The Dark World </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">in November will surely get a post-</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Avengers </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">boost, but going from $4449 million to $1 billion without a major selling point (like a marquee villain played by a major star) is arguably impossible. That leaves </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">in mid-December. By default it's the most likely contender because </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">An Unexpected Journey </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">earned $1 billion last year. But very few people really liked the first </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Hobbit </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">film, leaving the second picture in a position to actually slightly decrease in box office this time around. Looking at what's out this summer and this holiday season, there are no sure things, which I would argue is a good thing. Because once the idea of grossing $1 billion worldwide becomes not just possible but feasible, the industry starts expecting such a thing to become commonplace and starts budgeting for it.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">Disney's </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Oz: The Great and Powerful </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">may not have been expected to equal the $1 billion that Disney's </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Alice In Wonderland </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">earned in 2010, but at a cost of $215 million to produce and around $100 million in marketing costs, it has to make around $700 million just to break even, a total that it may not cross at this point. And there were any number of would-be blockbusters last year that basically *had* to make nearly $1 billion to break even. Some of them pulled it off (</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Dark Knight Rises</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">), some of them scratched out that $600 million they needed to save face (</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Men In Black 3</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">), while others crashed and burned (</span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Battleship </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">and </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">John Carter</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">). Many of the bigger budgeted films are surefire smash hit sequels and films like </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Fast & Furious 6 </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">or </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Iron Man 3 </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">are relatively safe bets despite their $200 million budgets. But mega-budgeted films like </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Lone Ranger </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">are basically banking on playing like proverbial sequels. If Disney could call the Gore Verbinski-helmed, </span></span>Johnny Depp-<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">starring western </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Pirates of the Caribbean 5: The Lone Ranger</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, they certainly would.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Even as some sense of fiscal sanity has returned to Hollywood over the last few years in terms of reasonably budgeted adult genre fare (think the $45 million spent on <em>Argo </em>or $13 million spent on <em>The Call</em>), spending on too many of the would-be tent poles presumes not just blockbuster status but near record box office triumphs. Not every film can go the distance and up until recently only a few did. But as what constitutes a smash hit climbed higher and higher (back in "my day", a film could open to $15 million and slowly crawl to $100 million and be massively profitable), the once fabled $1 billion global gross is now in danger of becoming commonplace to the point where it's all-but expected for the biggest films of a given year. That's a dangerous precedent, especially as overseas audiences will eventually grow tired of 3D just as domestic audiences have mostly stopped caring about it (most such blockbusters sell more domestic 2D tickets than 3D these days). </div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
One or more of the 2013 releases discussed above may in fact break out accordingly. Or maybe none of them will, and that's okay. Hollywood can't keep budgeting would-be tent poles so that each one has to be not just a hit but a global blockbuster. While I do not wish box office failure on anything coming out this year, I do think it would be a little healthy for the industry to not have a $1 billion earner this year. For those with $1 billion-blockbuster withdrawal, you can hold out until 2015 at the latest. I'm pretty sure <em>The Avengers 2 </em>and <em>Star Wars: Episode VII </em>are locks at this point.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Scott Mendelson</div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-69955077230202294712013-04-14T06:08:00.000-07:002013-05-31T06:10:01.977-07:00Weekend Box Office: '42' Sets Record, 'Scary Movie 5' Bombs, 'Oblivion' Launches Overseas<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<a href="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/42148.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" class="alignright wp-image-150" height="226" src="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/42148.jpg" width="261" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Here's an odd statistic: Despite baseball being theoretically America's national past time and being the subject of any number of feature films over the decades, not a single baseball-themed film has ever opened at over $20 million. Not until today that is, when the Jackie Robinson biopic <em>42</em> (review <a data-mce-href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/11/review-42-2013-rounds-the-bases-with-dignity-and-style/" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/11/review-42-2013-rounds-the-bases-with-dignity-and-style/" title="Review: '42'">HERE</a>) opened with a surprisingly robust $27.3 million. Not only is that the biggest baseball opening weekend on record, it's the biggest baseball-themed opening weekend even when adjusted for inflation (in 2013 dollars, <em>A League of Their Own </em>has a debut of $26.6 million). This is good news for the somewhat beleaguered Warner Bros, which has seen the disappointing returns for <em>Bullet to the Head</em>, <em>Beautiful Creatures</em>, and <em>The Incredible Burt Wonderstone </em>(all well under $25 million in domestic totals). The film scored a rock-solid 3.0x weekend multiplier and a somewhat rare A+ score from the audience polling service CinemaScore. The film played 52% male and 83% 25-and-older. So yeah, the $38 million production is likely going to have long legs at least for the month of April with a trip over the $100 million mark a genuine possibility.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">It's also going to have a very healthy post-theatrical life, becoming a convenient choice for school viewing and a lifetime of play on </span></span>TNT. Alas, because stars Chadwick Boseman and Nicole Beharie are African American, their stock won't rise much despite the film's success as there are all-too few high profile roles in mainstream studio pictures for black actors not named Will Smith or Denzel Washington. Idris Elba seems to have found a niche in sci-fi ensembles and Anthony Mackie has become the go-to token black guy, but there's a reason so many actors of color (especially actresses, natch) end up working for Tyler Perry. But director Brian Helgeland will possibly see his name attached to more projects as a result, although probably not the theoretical <i>Black Panther </i>that Marvel keeps finding reasons not to make. I don't mean to be grouchy about this, but there is no small irony in a film about a black man breaking through baseball's color barrier where the black actors involved will all struggle to find quality work because there is such an obvious glass ceiling for non-white and especially non-whites of the female variety. What this film's success *should* again prove is that there is a real and vibrant audience for mainstream films involving African Americans aside from just the Tyler Perry franchise. Maybe this time the studios will take notice?<br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<em>Scary Movie 5 </em>somewhat tanked on the same weekend as <em>42 </em>soared. $15.2 million isn't terrible for a film that cost $20 million, but this is a franchise where three of the four prior entries opened with over $40 million. The <em>Scary Movie </em>franchise started out as a horror movie spoof series for the Wayans Bros. The first <em>Scary Movie </em>opened with $42 million back in July 2000, a record for an R-rated debut at the time, and ended its run with $157 million. But after the second film opened with "just" $20 million and grossed just $72 million, the Weinsteins basically took the series away from the Wayans Bros. and turned it into a more traditional franchise, IE with lots of white people and a few token black characters. The last two installments, from 2003 and 2006 respectively, both opened with over $40 million. But seven years is a long time, and audiences obviously didn't miss the series (in that time, the Friedberg/Seltzer would-be parodies have come and gone). This is where the irony comes in.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">Exactly four months ago, Marlon Wayans wrote and produced his own horror parody, </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">A Haunted House</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, which opened with $18 million and went on to gross $40 million on a $3 million budget. That film, which was partially brought about after the Wayans lost the </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Scary Movie </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">series, is getting a sequel. At a cost of $20 million, </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Scary Movie 5 </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">will be lucky to cross $35 million after debuting with a relatively mediocre for this franchise $15.2 million. More irony, </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Scary Movie 5 </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">is directed by Malcolm D. Lee, an African American filmmaker who helmed the underrated blaxplotation satire </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Undercover Brother </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">eleven years ago (to quote a line from a deleted scene from Sarah Polley's superb </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Away From Her</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, life is... complicated). Other than that, there isn't much to say about it. Everyone knew it was going to be terrible, </span></span>Charlie Sheen<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"> and Lindsey Lohan aren't stars in the 'get your butts into the seats' variety, it will make money by virtue of its low cost, and Ashley Tisdale deserves much better.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">The big new release overseas was the foreign debut in 52 international markets of the </span></span>Tom Cruise sci-<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">fi thriller </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Oblivion</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">. The film debuts in America next weekend (you'll be hearing that a lot this summer) and was supposed to have an IMAX-only release this weekend before it was abruptly cancelled. Anyway, it adventure earned a rather impressive $61.1 million overseas, meaning that it's well on its way to long term profitability. Kudos to Universal for keeping the budget at $120 million. I'm seeing this one on Monday so you should have my review on Tuesday. The major limited release debut was the 18 screen release of Terrence Malick's </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">To the Wonder</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">. Like pretty much all of Magnolia's releases, the Ben Affleck/Rachel McAdams romantic drama went out on </span></span>Video On <span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">Demand too, although most of their releases are available on VOD about a month before theatrical, so this day-and-date simultaneous release is somewhat noteworthy. The film earned $130,000 for a $7,222 per-screen average, which is again mitigated by the option to see this um... minor Malick effort at home. Short review: I liked </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Tree of Life </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">a lot better.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
The rest is all holdover news. There were three major expansions from art house to the multiplexes, and they arguably cannibalized each other in the process. The Ryan Gosling/Bradley Cooper father-son drama <em>The Place Beyond the Pines </em>went to 516 screens and ended its semi-wide debut weekend with $4.1 million. The $15 million drama has earned $5.5 million thus far. The Danny Boyle's <em>Trance </em>also went semi-wide, on 438 screens but earned just $925,000 million for its troubles. Robert Redford's <em>The Company You Keep </em>expanded to 41 screens and earned $310,000 in its second weekend. <em>Upstream Color </em>(which is a mainstream thriller compared to <em>To the Wonder</em>) expanded to eleven screens and earned $74,140. In multiplex holdover news, <em> Jurassic Park 3D </em>earned another $8.8 million, down 53% for what was a pretty obvious one-weekend wonder. Still, with an additional $31 million in the bank, the film might have *just* enough steam to push its domestic total over $400 million, to say nothing of probable overseas booty (<a data-mce-href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/05/the-box-office-legacy-of-jurassic-park-20-years-later/" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/05/the-box-office-legacy-of-jurassic-park-20-years-later/" target="_blank" title="Box Office legacy of Jurassic Park, 20 years later.">related essay</a>). <em>The Croods </em>earned another $13.2 million, bringing its domestic total up to $142.5 million and well-over $350 million worldwide (<a data-mce-href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/10/can-20th-century-fox-and-dreamworks-combined-challenge-the-disney-animation-empire/" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/10/can-20th-century-fox-and-dreamworks-combined-challenge-the-disney-animation-empire/" target="_blank">related essay</a>).</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">G.I. Joe: Retaliation </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">dropped harder this weekend, dropping 50% in weekend and earning another $10 million. Still, the film pushed itself over $100 million domestic and is still burning up the overseas box office charts. With $168 million overseas, it's already topped the foreign total of </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">The Rise of Cobra </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">with China still to come (</span></span><a data-mce-href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/08/paramount-did-everything-right-with-g-i-joe-retaliation-except-make-a-good-movie/" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/08/paramount-did-everything-right-with-g-i-joe-retaliation-except-make-a-good-movie/" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;" target="_blank" title="Paramount did everything right with GI Joe: Retaliation... ">related essay</a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">). Last weekend's top film, </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Evil Dead</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">, tumbled a somewhat expected 64%, giving it a new domestic cume of $41 million. It's already topped </span></span><i>Texas </i><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Chainsaw 3D </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">but won't do much more than twice its $25 million opening weekend. </span></span><i> Tyler Perry's</i><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">earned another $4 million this weekend bringing its total to a healthy $45 million. </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Oz: The Great and Powerful </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">is at $219 million and will likely top out at around $230 million domestic. It's a massive hit, even if the budget means it still has some work to do overseas even with its current $471 million global gross. Finally, </span></span><i>Olympus </i><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Has Fallen </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">earned another $7.2 million in its fourth weekend, pushing it over the $80 million mark.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Join us next weekend for the American debut of</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Oblivion</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> and basically not much else. I'm sure Rob Zombie's</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Lords of </em><i>Salem </i><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">will burn up the box office on its 300 screens, although I'm glad its going somewhat wide on principle. My wife wants to see it, she being a horror junkie and all. Fun fact for new readers: Our first date was an opening night showing of</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Saw II. </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Her choice.</span>Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-30336343407618594872013-04-13T06:05:00.000-07:002013-05-31T06:06:47.058-07:00Why Guillermo del Toro's 'Pacific Rim' Will Be a Bigger Hit if Summer 2013 is an Artistic Failure<a href="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/pacificrim15.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" class=" wp-image-140 " height="216" src="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/pacificrim15.jpg" width="406" /></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">As I </span><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/06/on-the-once-rare-1-billion-blockbuster-and-why-it-should-remain-rare/" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;" target="_blank" title="On the dangers of the normalization of the $1 billion blockbuster">mentioned last week</a><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">, the success of Guillermo del Toro's large-scale monsters vs. robots action tale </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Pacific Rim </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">is at least partially predicated on how well-received the previous two months of summer films happen to be. This summer will mark the ten year anniversary of </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">. As most of you know, the Disney pirate adventure was a surprise of sorts, both in terms of its unexpected quality and its huge financial success. The film was a proverbial dark horse of summer 2003, a film based on pirates (box office poison!) starring </span><span active="true" class="forbes_entity" display="Johnny Depp" key="johnny-depp" natural_id="faris/11138" style="background-color: #336699; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: white; padding: 1px;" type="person">Johnny Depp</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> (usually box office poison way back when) and based on a theme park ride. On paper, the $130 million film was seemingly a recipe for disaster. But two things happened that summer. </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">was very good and a large portion of the May/June summer releases were not. As such, by early July, summer movie audiences were primed for a would-be tent-pole that actually delivered the goods. Gore Verbinski's pirate adventure was the one we were waiting for, and audiences responded accordingly with a $73 million five-day opening and a $303 million final domestic total.</span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a>It's a somewhat unique phenomena. You have one film that basically capitalized on the somewhat underwhelming slate of movies that preceded it, allowing it to be presented as the proverbial 'one you've been waiting for.' In terms of mainstream opinion, it delivered crowd-pleasing thrills and unexpected quality in a summer where <em>The Matrix Reloaded </em>(a film I believe is massively underrated, but that's for another day)<em>, Hollywood Homicide, Daddy Daycare, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, </em>and Ang Lee's <em>Hulk </em>did not. </div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
This is not dissimilar to what happened in summer 2007. Even factoring it massive financial success due to audience goodwill and old-school front-loading, audience disappointment with <em>Spider-Man 3 </em>($151 million opening/$336 million total), <em>Shrek the Third </em>($121 million opening/$322 million total), and (ironically) <em>Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End </em>($156 million Fri-Mon opening, $309 million total), along with a relatively unmemorable June, gave way to the unexpectedly crowd-pleasing <em>Transformers</em>. Minority opinion aside (I was among the only ones who didn't like that film back in summer 2007, to the point where I saw it twice just to see what I was missing), <span active="true" class="forbes_entity" display="Michael Bay" key="michael-bay" natural_id="faris/10899" style="background-color: #336699; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: white; padding: 1px;" type="person">Michael Bay</span>'s robot-smashing epic delivered the blockbuster goods in a way that had thus-far mostly been missing in the various big movies of summer 2007. Cue the $155 million six-day debut and $319 million domestic total.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Chris Nolan's <em>Inception</em>, also a mid-July release, capitalized on the same trend, truly becoming the lone diamond in the rough during one of the absolute worst summers in modern history. Seriously, summer 2010 was such a wasteland of mediocrity and disappointment (<em>Iron Man 2</em>, <em>Prince of Persia, Sex and the City 2, The Last Airbender, The A-<span active="true" class="forbes_entity" display="Team" exchange="NASDAQ" key="team" natural_id="fred/company/9653" style="background-color: #336699; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: white; padding: 1px;" subtype="company" ticker="TISI" type="organization">Team</span></em>, etc.) that the Jackie Chan/Jaden Smith <em>Karate Kid </em>remake felt like an honest-to-goodness Oscar bait picture merely because it was very good. Enter mid-July, and, aside from the then-standard Pixar triumph, audiences were literally starved for a genuinely good "big" summer movie. Chris Nolan's twisty mind-bending heist picture delivered and audiences responded, with a $62 million debut starting a rather leggy run that ended with $292 million domestic. </div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
But this idea actually backfired in summer 2011, when Paramount basically sold J.J. Abrams's <em>Super 8 </em>as the diamond in the rough, an original genre picture rooted in character in a sea of sequels and franchise properties. But, while the film did solid business ($35 million opening/$127 million finish), it failed to capitalize on the trend discussed here because well, it opened in mid June, the films that kicked off summer 2011 were surprisingly solid (<em>Fast Five</em>, <em>Thor</em>, <em>Bridesmaids</em>, <em>Kung Fu Panda 2</em>, and <em>X-Men: First Class </em>were all arguably better than anticipated), and <em>Super 8 </em>just wasn't very good. If you want to be the breath of fresh air, you have to hope that the rest of the air is suitably toxic and that you really do smell better.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
So yes, I'd argue that the domestic success of Warner Bros' <em>Pacific Rim </em>is arguably rooted somewhat in how the summer season shapes up prior to its July 12th release date. But the ingredients are similar: A non-sequel from a visionary filmmaker that promises to absolutely deliver the goods. But the seemingly huge monsters vs. robots fable will partially depend on how well received the first half of summer is. If <em>Iron Man 3</em>, <em>Star Trek Into Darkness, Fast & Furious 6, Man of Steel, </em>and <em>The Lone Ranger </em>mostly deliver on an audience-pleasing level, then <em>Pacific Rim </em>is just another large-scale would-be blockbuster. But if <em>Iron Man 3 </em>isn't an improvement on <em>Iron Man 2</em>, if <em>Star Trek Into Darkness </em>is a slave to the now-cliche dark sequel template, if <em>Fast & Furious </em>peaked at <em>Fast Five</em>, if <em>Man of Steel </em>plays closer to <em>Green Lantern </em>than <em>Batman Begins</em>, and if <em>The Lone Ranger </em>is more <em>Prince of Persia </em>than <em>Pirates of the Caribbean</em>, *and* if <em>Pacific Rim </em>is as good as we've been hearing... well you know how this story ends. </div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Obviously that's a lot of "if"s. And I'd imagine most film fans don't necessarily want to sacrifice the artistic quality of <em>Iron Man 3 </em>and <em>Star Trek 2</em> so that <em>Pacific Rim </em>can be the biggest possible hit. But I'd argue that <em>Pacific Rim</em>'s best chance of success comes if it becomes the de-facto <em>Inception </em>of summer 2013, which requires a certain amount of failure on the part of its summer movie predecessors We'll know soon enough.</div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-51534946257923888422013-04-11T06:16:00.000-07:002013-05-02T06:18:32.925-07:00Summer Movie Marketing Challenge: Tease, Don't Spoil!<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<iframe height="360" seamless="" src="http://videos.movie-list.com/embed.php?id=elysium" width="640"></p>
<p>
</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">
<font style="text-align: left;">Neill Blomkamp's </font><em>Elysium </em><font style="text-align: left;">holds the distinction of being among the very last, if not *the* very last major summer tentpole picture to release a trailer. The Matt Damon/Jodie Foster futuristic thriller is scheduled to open on August 9, 2013 from Tri-Star Pictures. This is the first real look at the film, and frankly it's a pretty decent trailer. If I'm not as over-the-moon about it as other, it's because the visuals feels awfully video game-esque and the 136-second clip offers so little plot that it basically presumes that we'll want our hero (Matt Damon) to succeed in his goal (reaching </font><em>Elysium</em><font style="text-align: left;">, the above-Earth utopia where the rich and privileged live above the destitute masses still residing on a ravaged Earth) purely because he's established as our lead character and he's played by a movie star. Still, the imagery looks impressive and rather large-scale, as befitting the man who made the $30 million </font><em>District 9 </em><font style="text-align: left;">look like a $150 million production. And that there is so little plot revealed only means that the moviegoer remains that much-more unspoiled at this point in the marketing cycle. So now here's my challenge to Tri-Star: No more video-based marketing before August 9, 2013!</font></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">
</p>
<hr class="more">
We don't need another full-length trailer that spoils the plot, explicitly establishes character relationships, and ends with a 45-second montage of money shots. We don't need character posters laying out who the major players are. We don't need spoiler-filled television spots that contain Matt Damon protecting children or kissing a girl in a cynical attempt to stereo-typically appeal to female moviegoers. The studio already has two minutes of footage to pick from to make a handful of TV spots. We don't need featurettes, either released online or as part of an in-theater promotion, that contains major sequences and talking head interviews of the stars and filmmakers discussing their characters or the moral of the story. We don't need interviews where the filmmakers discuss their potential sequel plans and/or who does or doesn't survive to return for said sequel. And we absolutely don't need Tri-Star to release 10% of the finished film online in the weeks prior to release in the form of stand-alone 'clips'. The trailer above does its job almost perfectly.<div>
<br><p>
</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">
The trailer above establishes the world, introduces its two main characters, tells you who is in <em>Elysium</em> and who is making it, and establishes the core journey. We've been teased. We don't need to be spoiled. If Tri-Star has the courage to show restraint, they can establish a new precedent for marketing major studio releases. They can say "We know we have the goods, we don't need to give away the store to convince you to shop inside". The film is expensive, but at just $90-$100 million, it doesn't need to be a world-changing blockbuster to make a profit. Tri-Star can take the risk that letting moviegoers discover the film's pleasures for themselves will pay off in a superior audience reaction and superior word-of-mouth after opening weekend. But a certain restraint, both in quantity and "quality" of marketing materials can pay off accordingly. Marvel/Disney has already failed the test several times over with <em>Iron Man 3</em>, giving away what should have been a major surprise in a targeted television spot. Universal seemingly didn't think audiences would *really* want to see <em>Fast & Furious 6 </em>unless they released a 3-minute long trailer that basically laid out the entire plot.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">
<br></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">
Warner Bros. has the chance to do it right with <em>The Hangover part III</em>, with the main plot and major story beats hidden in secrecy just over a month prior to release (hopefully this week's trailer won't be spoiler-ific). They also have released two trailers for <em>Man of Steel </em>that still shows barely a glimmer of the last two acts of the film. Paramount is seemingly hiding the goods with <em>Star Trek Into Darkness</em>, but I'd argue that only works if the film's laughable "<em>Dark Knight</em> into <em>Skyfall</em>" marketing scheme is merely misdirection (spoiler - Benedict Cumberbatch was planning to get caught!). Tri-Star doesn't have to spoil the entire movie and its various pleasures just to entice the very moviegoers who were likely already set to buy their tickets. The clips and spoiler-filled red-band trailers are in fact targeting the converted, yet the effect is spoilage for everyone.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">
<br></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">
So from here on out, here's the challenge: No more stills, no more trailers, no featurettes, no clips, and no TV spots that divulge any more plot than what's already been revealed. It will save the studio a decent amount of money (cutting three trailers, a dozen TV spots, and several featurettes costs a lot more money than cutting one trailer and three TV spots) and will (I'd argue) pay off in terms of audience satisfaction after the all-important opening weekend. <em>Elysium, </em>by virtue of its modest budget and strong initial teaser, would make a fine test case for the less-is-more principal of film marketing. We don't need to see everything before we buy our ticket. And I'd argue we wouldn't miss the total spoilage if it magically went away. What say you? Is the 'show everything!' mentality a necessary evil in the realm of tent-pole marketing or is it merely an unnecessary expense designed to preach to the previously converted?</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">
<br></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">
Scott Mendelson</p>
</div>
</iframe>Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-52283685915288074402013-04-10T23:00:00.000-07:002013-06-19T06:29:07.576-07:00Review: 42 (2013)<a href="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/42ChadwickUpSlideposterfull580-2.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" class="wp-image-116 alignright" height="420" src="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/42ChadwickUpSlideposterfull580-2.jpg" width="284" /></a>Writer/director Brian Helgeland's <em>42 </em>is an openly earnest and sentimental bit of old-school hokum. It is the kind of studio programmer biopic that was once a standard issue release, and it is absolutely successful in its respective goals. It doesn't aim to be an all-encompassing epic of race relations in the 1940's, nor does it even strive to use the Jackie Robinson story as a grand statement on the eventual Civil Rights movement to come, even as its characters are all-too-aware of the color barrier being broken. It masks a certain subtly and nuance beyond sweeping music and sometimes obvious monologues. Released in April instead of October or November, it is surely not intended to win Oscars but merely to tell an educational story to a generation for whom its significance may have lessened over the years.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The film's 128 minutes frankly fly by with nary an ounce of fat to be found once the primary narrative kicks into gear. Baseball fans will argue that the film gives short shrift to this detail or that detail, and the picture doesn't even try to present an overview of post-war Jim Crow America. We get as much detail as we need, from the 'whites only' restrooms to the near constant barrage of racially-charged attacks, mostly verbal, hurled at Mr. Robinson on and off the field. There is a scene, arguably meant to be amusing, where Jackie (Chadwick Boseman) and his wife (Nicole Beharie) are approached by a white man and the young couple braces for a violent assault only to be greeted with good cheer from a fan. It's an obvious turn, but the very real fear in Boseman and Beharie's eyes, of any random white person who would seek to do them harm with no real consequence to be paid, represents the psychological trauma of racism more vividly than any other moment in the film.<br />
<br />
Moments like that help offset the somewhat self-congratulatory nature of the film, especially in how it halos the white people of the time who happen to have anti-segregationist attitudes. And it must be stated that most of the best lines and showiest moments go to white actors. Boseman merely acts as the rock around which his own story revolves (this is of course something the film acknowledges, as Robinson is forced to play the role of the generic black man in the eyes of his fans). In what is arguably a co-starring role, Harrison Ford gives one of the more energetic and showiest performances of his career as Dodgers owner Branch Rickey. It's a rare thing to see Ford overact and the film gifts his role with an endless fountain of wisdom and profoundities. But the film still provides him a climactic moment of shading that is appreciated. Had this been a more high profile film with a more awards-friendly release date, I'd argue Harrison Ford would have good-willed himself into an Oscar nomination.<br />
<br />
Nicole Beharie is far better than the material she is given as the standard supportive wife. The likes of Chris Meloni, Lucas Black, Alan Tudyk, T.R. Knight, and John C. McGinley add class and entertainment value to the production, while Heigland's direction is refreshingly non-showy. The film is honest about its time without sacrificing its family-friendly nature (why it's PG-13 I absolutely cannot say). For every cheesy moment of a young (black) boy being inspired by Jackie Robinson there is another chilling moment where another young (white) boy gives into peer pressure and hurls racial epithets at the ballplayer. The film ends on a relative high note, but it doesn't pretend that Robinson's struggles with racism have ended. It doesn't pretend that there aren't ten still-racist white people for every one who sees their prejudice wane.<br />
<br />
Without being too overt about it, <em>42</em> presents Jackie Robinson as a modern day Christ figure, and argues that every person who is the first to break a certain culture boundary must suffer on a grand(er) scale so that the next ones of their ilk can cross the proverbial line unmolested. Bosemark's best moments are not his stolen bases or his quick-witted replies to the racism hurled his way, but rather the sheer terror at not only withstanding the abuse and death threats but also measuring up to an impossible ideal of being the very first African American baseball player. And without being overt about it at all, the film works as a parable/commentary for the current debate on openly-gay athletes. Call it intentional or accidental timeliness, but only a blind and deaf person won't notice the similarities in terms of the talking points hurled by the 'other side'.<br />
<br />
Purely as an old-fashioned biography of a somewhat sainted individual, <em>42 </em>is absolutely entertaining from start-to-finish. The film is filled with fun character turns and is smarter than you'd expect about the inherent flaws in telling such a story (re - the first act moment where Jackie acknowledges all of the other people basically 'allowing' him to make history). It is a fine film and a solid movie. It relies on formula and occasionally dives headfirst into cheese. But it gets the job done and crosses the home plate in style. <em>42 </em>may not be a home run, but it steals third without breaking a sweat.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
<br />
Box Office Take: Sadly even the success of a film like this will likely have little effect on the industry, as studios are often all-too quick to write off successes of anything outside the norm as a 'fluke'. Still, if <em>Red Tails </em>can open with $20 million, that seems to be a reasonable Fri-Sun result for the film. No one's career is going to rise or fall with this one, as sadly it's not like any studio is lining up to give Chadwick Boseman a superhero franchise even if this hits big (there is a whole separate essay on the irony of that) . Brian Helgeland will still be in demand as a writer regardless, but a strong box office showing could put him on the director 'hot list' for various studio tent poles. Still, <em>42 </em>is a strong example of the moderately-budgeted studio programmer that used to be par for the course before the era of the four-quadrant global blockbuster.Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-46637674951517876272013-04-10T06:30:00.000-07:002013-05-31T06:17:38.305-07:00Can Fox And Dreamworks Combined Challenge Disney's Animation Empire?<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/epic-movie-1.jpg"><img alt="" class=" wp-image-102 alignright" height="320" src="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/epic-movie-1.jpg" width="640" /></a> </div>
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">During the summer of 2013, there will be six animated (or live-action/animated hybrid) entries. At a glance, it would seem like healthy competition as each of the major current players are offering an official entry into the summer box office sweepstakes. You've got 20th Century</span> Fox <span style="line-height: 19px;">taking a shot at proving they can do more than </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Ice Age </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">sequels, delivering the somewhat on-the-nose-titled </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Epic</em><span style="line-height: 19px;"> over Memorial Day weekend. Pixar unleashes their official summer entry, the </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Monsters Inc. </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">prequel </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Monsters University </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">on June 21st. Universal delivers its trump card with </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Despicable Me 2 </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">over July 4th weekend while Dreamworks releases its snail-racing comedy </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Turbo </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">on July 17th, a frankly unusual release date for them, but no matter. </span>Sony<span style="line-height: 19px;"> delivers </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">The Smurfs 2 </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">on July 31st while Disney offers up the previously straight-to-DVD entry </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Planes </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">on August 9th.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 19px;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">A seemingly normal summer slate, except that due to recent inside baseball business, four of those animated films actually belong to two studios. After several mostly successful years with Paramount controlling distribution and marketing, Dreamworks Animation got swooped up by 20th Century Fox <span style="line-height: 19px;">in August 2012. Heck, </span>Fox<span style="line-height: 19px;"> has already distributed their first official Dreamworks Animation property, </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">The Croods</em><span style="line-height: 19px;">, which opene</span>d just three weekends ago. It was a somewhat unexpected move, as 20th Century Fox<span style="line-height: 19px;"> has been doing pretty well with Blue Sky Studios, the production house behind the insanely successful </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Ice Age </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">series. Moreover, while Paramount has decided to make a go of it with their own animated content (such as the Oscar-winning </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Rango </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">from two years ago), Warner Bros. could have frankly used a powerhouse animation slate as they have mostly failed to capitalize on big-screen variations of their various DC Comics television franchises or </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">The Looney Tunes</em><span style="line-height: 19px;">.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 19px;">But no matter, off to 20th Century </span>Fox Dreamworks has gone, which does two things right off the bat. First it gives the house that Katzenberg built the full might of 20th Century Fox's overseas box office magic. Paramount is no slouch in this department, but I'd argue that Fox<span style="line-height: 19px;"> is second-to-none when it comes to cashing in on the emerging overseas market (random example, the Justin Timberlake/Amanda Seyfried sci-fi economic parable </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">In Time </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">earned $36 million in the states but $137 million overseas). It's no surprise that </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">The C roods, </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">an original film as opposed to a sequel, is already roaring past the $325 million mark after seventeen days, seemingly on course to match the upper-level Dreamworks entries (again, Paramount is no slouch, as </span><i>Madagascar</i><em style="line-height: 19px;">: Europe's Most Wanted </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">earned $742 million last summer). 20th Century</span> Fox<span style="line-height: 19px;"> was among the first (if not *the* first) to start treating America as just another market to be targeted among many others worldwide.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 19px;">The second major shift this causes is that it immediately establishes just who the titans in modern day American animation are. This is no longer a multi-pronged competition with Pixar and Disney fending off Dreamworks/Paramount while 20th Century </span>Fox, Universal, and Sony fought to establish their foothold. Now Paramount is basically out of the game for the (very) near future while Dreamworks (which has by far the most recognizable characters and potent animated franchises outside of Disney/Pixar) and 20th Century Fox have created a massive tag-team of sorts that combined are a very real threat to Disney/Pixar. And, most importantly, it leaves the would-be contenders on unequal footing, with Universal's Illumination and Sony <span style="line-height: 19px;">Pictures potentially fighting for scraps while they attempt to establish their foothold beyond one of two major successes. Dreamworks was always the likely top contender, with viable franchises and brands via the </span><i>Madagascar</i><span style="line-height: 19px;"> animals, the </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Shrek </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">universe, and the expanding mythologies of </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">How to Train Your Dragon </em><span style="line-height: 19px;">and </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Kung Fu Panda</em><span style="line-height: 19px;">. Now it's not even a contest between Dreamworks and </span>Fox<span style="line-height: 19px;">. They are now, for the moment, one animated mini-empire.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 19px;">Point being, the second and third-place animation studios just teamed up, which automatically makes them a strong bet to challenge the Mouse House. Yes, Universal scored huge with </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Despicable Me</em><span style="line-height: 19px;"> and </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">The Lorax</em><span style="line-height: 19px;"> (both of which were the first two non-Pixar/Disney or Dreamworks animated features to cross $200 million domestic) and </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Despicable Me 2</em><span style="line-height: 19px;"> could be their </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Shrek 2</em><span style="line-height: 19px;"> moment. </span> Sony<span style="line-height: 19px;"> Pictures Animation has two solid successes in </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs</em><span style="line-height: 19px;"> and last September's </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">Hotel Transylvania</em><span style="line-height: 19px;">, but it has yet to achieve the kind of worldwide success of its brethren outside of the established property adaptation of </span><em style="line-height: 19px;">The Smurfs</em><span style="line-height: 19px;"> (which, it should be noted, grossed a ridiculous $563 million worldwide two summers ago).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 19px;">With this new deal between </span>Fox and Dreamworks, the animation landscape has shifted. It's no longer about Disney/Pixar versus a handful of studios who are attempting to depose them as rulers of the animation kingdom, but rather Disney/Pixar vs. 20th Century Fox<span style="line-height: 19px;">/Dreamworks vs. everyone else fighting for scraps against the two relative titans. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years. But this deal was indeed a proverbial game-changer in the realm of American animation. Stay tuned, folks.</span></span><br />
<div style="line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Scott Mendelson</span></div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-30663499606987185512013-04-09T22:25:00.000-07:002013-05-31T06:10:44.898-07:00Paramount And MGM Did Everything Right With 'G.I. Joe: Retaliation' (Except Make A Good Movie).<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/gijoe21011.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" class="aligncenter wp-image-87" height="425" src="http://b-i.forbesimg.com/scottmendelson/files/2013/04/gijoe21011.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">It's no secret that I didn't much care of </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">G.I. Joe: Retaliation</em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> when I saw it at the All-Media screening just under two weeks ago. Heck, I'm one of maybe ten critics on the planet who actually preferred Stephen Summers's first (and I'd argue, underrated) </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">G.I. Joe </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">picture from summer 2009. But despite my personal preferences, the film is a solid hit worldwide, ushering in an almost immediate green-light for</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">G.I. Joe 3. </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Paramount did a few very smart things during the production of this Jon Chu-helmed sequel. In fact, other than the fact that it's not a very good movie (arguably the hardest variable to plan on, natch), Paramount Pictures and MGM's handling of</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">G.I. Joe: Retaliation </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">may be a primer on how to successfully launch a tentpole film in today's marketplace. First of all, that much-debated nine-month delay from June 2012 to March 2013 turned out to be the right call. Aside from the obvious 10-20% bump in ticket prices per 3D-ticket sold, overseas audiences went for the 3D, and the delay in order to convert the film to 3D is partially responsible for its strong $232 million-and-counting worldwide total, or already within reach of the $300 million that</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> </span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Rise of Cobra </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">earned altogether.</span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>Second of all, they kept the budget down just a little bit. <em>Rise of Cobra </em>cost $175 million and thus barely broke even with its $300 million gross. For newbies, a film generally has to make twice its budget back to break even, give or take marketing costs and/or afterlife on various home video formats. <em>G.I. Joe: Retaliation </em>cost "just" $130 million. Which means, offhand, that it needs to gross $90 million less than <em>Rise of Cobra </em>to approximate that film's relative success. Since it's already earned $232 million worldwide, it's already at the magic 'double your budget' point in just ten days of worldwide play. A 'triple your budget' total of $390 million is more-than-plausible at this point, meaning that Paramount and MGM will make money on the film before it even goes to the various home viewing formats (Paramount has the domestic distribution rights while MGM has overseas rights). In an era when studios spend $200-$250 million on would-be tent-poles and then wonder why their big picture didn't connect with audiences on a global scale and gross $600 million worldwide, Paramount's comparability frugal spending means that the film doesn't need to be the next <em>Inception </em>just to break even. I'd argue the smaller budget sadly shows onscreen (the action is much smaller in scale this time around), but I'd also say that spending $200 million would not have turned the film into any more of a blockbuster than it is.<br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Another smart play was the decision not to use that nine month delay to do extensive reshoots. It's a mistake we see all too often, to little avail. As I said above, <em>G.I. Joe: Retaliation </em>isn't very good. But it can be debated how much better it could have been with reshoots, since the film is what the film is regardless. For example, Universal made a very different choice with <em>The Wolfman </em> in 2010. Joe Johnston's werewolf horror drama was scheduled to be released in November of 2008 at a cost of around $90 million. Cut to February 2010 and the heavily reshot <em>The Wolfman</em>, now at a cost of $150 million, opens to what should have been a decent $32 million opening weekend over Valentine's Day weekend. But since the film cost $150 million instead of $90 million, its final $142 million gross was not just a disappointment but a catastrophic flop. Would Universal have not been better off just releasing the mediocre werewolf movie they had in late 2008 as opposed to the mediocre werewolf movie they had in 2010 at a cost of an additional $60 million? Paramount had nine months to tinker with <em>G.I. Joe: Retaliation, </em>but they chose not to. Aside from one brief (and special effects-free) new scene involving <span active="true" class="forbes_entity" data-mce-style="padding: 1px; color: #fff; background: #336699;" display="Dwayne Johnson" key="dwayne-johnson" natural_id="faris/11444" style="background-color: #336699; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: white; padding: 1px;" type="person">Dwayne Johnson</span> and Channing Tatum playing video games together, the film that was released last week is the same film as was intended to be released in June of 2012.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">What the studios realized is that the film they had was "good enough" to successfully market as a pre-summer would-be blockbuster. They knew that the 3D conversion (which probably cost around $15 million) would pay for itself and then-some in foreign box office and decided to basically leave the film it was. They resisted the urge to insert more second and third-act scenes of rising star Channing Tatum, because the film was never intended to be sold on his emerging bankability. They knew that it had the </span></span><em style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">G.I. Joe </em><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">brand and action stars like</span></span> Dwayne Johnson <span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Bitstream Charter, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">and Bruce Willis. Speaking of which, that's the other thing Paramount did right: movie stars + concept. People like to scream how the movie star is dead, but it's more complicated that that. Long-story short, you need a combination of stars *and* concept. Paramount knew that the film was "good enough" (IE - it had enough trailer-friendly moments) to garner a strong opening weekend. The studio knew that it was pointless and counter-productive to throw tens-of-millions of dollars in order to slightly improve what was always going to be a B-movie action picture based on a line of toys.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Paramount and MGM kept the budget low enough so that <em>G.I. Joe 2</em> didn't need to be a record-setting smash in order to be profitable. The studio knew not to spend additional countless millions when the film they had was perfectly acceptable for mass consumption. They had the 3D conversion (an extra expense that paid for itself almost instantly) for overseas audiences, plus the media-friendly movie stars who could successfully plug the film in various outlets. They knew what they had and what they didn't need. As any <em>G.I. Joe </em>fan can tell you, knowing is half the battle. Of course, since we are getting a <em>G.I. Joe 3</em>, maybe next time they can make a better movie. Yo Joe?</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Scott Mendelson</div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-50025061129682238962013-04-08T06:22:00.000-07:002013-04-08T06:22:12.888-07:00Scott Mendelson goes to Forbes! A word about the future...I was going to write this on Thursday, but then Roger Ebert died and I just didn't have it in me. So I apologize to those who follow this blog but not my social media outlets and have no idea where I've been since Thursday. Long-story short, I have been hired to write about box office and marketing for Forbes. It's not a king's ransom, but it's a token amount of extra money to do what I've been doing purely for fun for five years going. The "bad" news is two-fold. First of all, the pieces that go on Forbes are exclusive to Forbes for five days, so if you're wondering where my weekend box office column is, it's right here. Now certain pieces, like the first two I wrote for the site, aren't quite as time-sensitive and thus can be republished here in a week's time. For those who don't want to go to <i>Forbes </i>to read my work (although I wish you would, since I get extra commission based on traffic), I will do my best to republish the work here in good time. The other "bad" news is that this means that I will be altering my focus just a bit. <br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Yes I will do the financial/inside baseball pieces that I've always done. And yes I'll still do early film reviews, even if I happen to add a footnote regarding potential box office and what-not. But there will be less time for some of the kind of stuff I'd otherwise like to write, such as the 'films I love more than anyone else' series, or the essays purely focusing on film as it relates to social issues. Point being, if I only have a limited amount of time to write, it behooves me to write the kind of stuff that I'm being paid for. I've put five years into this site, with nearly 2,700 pieces to show for it, so I'm not quite willing to just ditch the site entirely. As I'm sure you noticed, Brandon Peter struck out on his own last week because if worst comes to worst, I didn't want him hanging around a dilapidated shack. <br />
<br />
For the moment, I will be writing material on Forbes and then, if it's not uber-timely, re-posting it here about a week later. I will likely be linking to articles I write there here that are uber-timely, such as box office write-ups and pre-release film reviews. This is a new and exciting development, but I also don't know and can't predict what will happen to this site in the long term. I want to keep it alive, if only because so many of you have helped keep it alive for so many years. But for the moment, the best thing you can do is go to my <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/">Forbes page</a> and "follow" me. And of course, you can read the pieces I've already published and share them as you would the stuff that originates here. Mendelson's Memos will still survive in some form or another. But for now, hang in there as I figure out what that form happens to be.<br />
<br />My pieces thus far:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/07/weekend-box-office-040713-evil-dead-tops-with-27-million-jurassic-park-3d-earns-18-million/">Weekend Box Office (04-07-13)</a>...<br /><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/06/on-the-once-rare-1-billion-blockbuster-and-why-it-should-remain-rare/">On the normalization of the $1 billion blockbuster</a>...<br /><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/05/the-box-office-legacy-of-jurassic-park-20-years-later/">The box office legacy of <i>Jurassic Park</i> 20 years later</a>...<br /><br />
And with that, I keep moving forward. I hope you will too...<br /><br />Scott Mendelson Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-42231616561856796132013-04-04T13:54:00.001-07:002013-04-04T16:11:15.896-07:00Roger Ebert has died. But cinema is more alive than ever... <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcP-a8DkqMP7Hm8pU6h_Hl5pCOIdGBn5-tPDv0fiGshaFedjs0Wepitc5hK-A6kdiPti4OMO6ueqI3G-sG6YFhyMG5i35a5E3kdQ0FFA0u3jgdM2fo45P9Tbu7ZuFVjZn2zDSvwdmaekI/s1600/tumblr_lg62diXwFi1qcirj4o1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcP-a8DkqMP7Hm8pU6h_Hl5pCOIdGBn5-tPDv0fiGshaFedjs0Wepitc5hK-A6kdiPti4OMO6ueqI3G-sG6YFhyMG5i35a5E3kdQ0FFA0u3jgdM2fo45P9Tbu7ZuFVjZn2zDSvwdmaekI/s640/tumblr_lg62diXwFi1qcirj4o1_500.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
If the film critic has any kind of noble purpose, it is to shine a light on the good and the unexpectedly great in film. No one gets into film criticism because they hate movies. We got into this because we love the cinema and we love the singular experience of watching great movies. If we have any kind of noble goal, it is to highlight what we love, even if its a minority opinion and even if it opens us up to ridicule from our peers. If we have a social good, it is in highlighting the great movies that may have slipped under the radar. It is in highlighting the little-seen independent film that desperately needs the publicity to stand out alongside its peers. It is also in highlighting the genuine artistry found in mainstream studio pictures, especially in a time when so many film scholars are all-too willing to write off every would-be 'big movie' and thus declare that cinema is dead. Cinema is not dead. Cinema is as alive as it's ever been. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Thanks to DVD, consumers can now watch films in their original aspect ratio and with subtitles to boot. Thanks to Netflix the smallest art film and most obscure documentary has just as much of a chance of being discovered on your home page as the biggest blockbuster. Thanks to Video On Demand, the smaller films that no longer find themselves being booked in the best theaters can now be viewed in the comfort of your own home in a high quality presentation for only the cost of a single movie ticket. Thanks to revolutions in film making techniques and technology, nearly anyone *can* make a movie if they so choose, and we are meeting new and exciting film making talents each and every day. Thanks to the Internet, film lovers from all over the world can converse with the click of a mouse on any number of social media platforms. Thanks to the Internet, an entire generation of film critics have sprung up from the multiplexes, which makes it all the more likely that one of them will discover a gem that otherwise would have gone unnoticed.<br />
<br />
It is not a perfect system. Too many would-be seemingly mainstream films are consigned to the art house because too many blockbusters (good and bad) take up too many of those multiplex screens with their 2D, 3D, and/or IMAX formats. The industry is still overwhelmingly dominated by white males and the critical masses still give their stories more critical respect than those made by and/or intended for female and/or minority audiences. Film criticism is on the brink of falling into a bottomless pit of irony and snark, where how badly you trash a film or how ironically distant you can be is considered more of a virtue than being willing to unabashedly love a film so much that it hurts. The ability to turn a phrase in criticism is not without value, but what value is our profession if we merely exist to point out how everything is terrible? But we can recover from this and we can do so quite easily. <br />
<br />
We can highlight not just the films we love over the films we hate, but we can highlight the film writing we admire, film criticism that highlights the good and the great, the underrated or undervalued, as opposed to YouTube videos that bank purely on snark. We can walk into that theater expecting every would-be blockbuster be as good as every would-be Oscar-bait picture and we can give the 'big movies' the same under-the-hood analysis we would offer for a film we expected to be great. We can spend our time writing about the movies we love over the movies we hate. We can point out what is good about the movies that are mostly bad. We can defend the films and the filmmakers who have been unfairly maligned in the media. We can not just write our own work but share the work of those whose work deserves notice. Obviously many of us already do this and many of us occasionally stumble along the way. But when we stumble we (sorry...) keep moving forward and do better next time.<br />
<br />
Roger Ebert has died, but the art form he loved is very much alive. We honor him not so much by remembering his reviews of <i>North </i>but rather his and Gene Siskel's raves for <i>Do The Right Thing </i>during a time when pundits were sure that Spike Lee's drama would cause race riots. We honor him by remembering his essays and his and Gene Siskel's relentless championing of <i>Hoop Dreams</i>. We honor him by remembering what films and what filmmakers we never would have discovered at a young age had Ebert (and yes Siskel) not introduced us to them. I had never heard of Martin Scorsese until I started reading Roger Ebert. Sight-unseen, I presumed that <i>Halloween </i>was just another crappy slasher film until Ebert's four-star review compared it to <i>Psycho</i>. To read his review of <i>Speed </i>is to read a film critic absolutely in love with the very idea of top-quality popcorn cinema. We all have our favorites and we all have our disagreements. It's no secret that I felt that Ebert had become spoiler-happy in the last several years, and that he much preferred his essays to his film reviews. But his mark on film criticism is unmatched by anyone before or since. <br />
<br />
To paraphrase a film I didn't like as much as he did, Roger Ebert was an inspiration to all of us who loved movies and all of those who loved writing about movies. It will be a very long time before someone... inspires us the way he did. In his honor, I will link to a new movie review site that has greatly impressed me, one that deserves the plaudits that will surely come its way over time (<a href="http://moviemezzanine.com/">Movie Mezzanine</a>). In his honor, I will plug the wonderful work and wonderful writers found at <a href="http://whysoblu.com/">Why So Blu</a>, because I have so much damn fun whenever I participate in their podcasts and commentaries. In his honor, I will also link to the brand new, fresh-off-the-blog <a href="http://naptownnerd.blogspot.com/">website of Brandon Peters</a>, finally ready to strike it out on his own after nearly a year of impeccable work on this very site. In his honor I will watch one of my fa... no. In his honor, I'll let my wife pick one of her favorite movies. So if I end up watching <i>Grease 2, Batman & Robin</i>, or <i>White Chicks </i>tonight, it's your fault Roger. The balcony remains open, as it always shall. Goodbye, Rog. And thanks for everything.<br />
<br />
Scott Mendelson Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-26834657424862383522013-04-04T06:30:00.000-07:002013-04-04T08:34:51.096-07:00Scott Mendelson: On seeing Jurassic Park 20 years ago...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSA7l65A15F00UaUU6I_7EJWGbHwcR9fCcM2ONwGpjY0G_1NBkBCo-P_G8EwLD7rWo73S8MNJPpfUdyZw6p8JMoZ4XTsNqnRhRtVmJjvuX5Ruw3Nvn371E2We7lqvvL44hhaMWVcMItA8/s1600/800pxJurassic_Park_screenshot_4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="350" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSA7l65A15F00UaUU6I_7EJWGbHwcR9fCcM2ONwGpjY0G_1NBkBCo-P_G8EwLD7rWo73S8MNJPpfUdyZw6p8JMoZ4XTsNqnRhRtVmJjvuX5Ruw3Nvn371E2We7lqvvL44hhaMWVcMItA8/s640/800pxJurassic_Park_screenshot_4.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: left;">I'll make this simple. My first theatrical viewing of </span><i style="text-align: left;">Jurassic Park </i><span style="text-align: left;">remains, without question, the best theatrical movie going experience of my life. It encapsulated pretty much everything good about the theatrical experience, including any number of elements that are perhaps non-replicable in today's film culture. The viewing was an unexpected advance-night screening, back before every movie opened on Thursday at 12:00 am, if not 10:00 pm or earlier. </span><i style="text-align: left;">Jurassic Park </i><span style="text-align: left;">had a whole slate of advance screenings on Thursday the 10th of June, starting at I believe 8:00 pm. I had presumed I would be seeing it sometime that weekend, but my mother informed me that my dad was coming home from a business trip and he was picking me up in time for a 10:00 pm screening. Obviously excited, I hurriedly rushed to finish the original Michael Crichton novel that I had been blazing through. We got to the theater early enough and the auditorium, as well as the auditoriums around us, were absolutely jammed packed. Everyone was excited to be there, but nobody really knew what they were in for.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: left;">
You see, you have to remember this was 1993. There was no Internet. There were no published test screenings or embargo-busting reviews. Most reviews for new movies were published in the Friday edition of the local paper. Heck, most reviews even in rags like <i>Entertainment Weekly </i>would appear in the issue dropping on the Friday or Saturday of opening weekend. So as lucky ticket holders for an advance-night showing, we got to see <i>Jurassic Park </i>having absolutely no idea if it would be any good or not. And thanks to a relatively restrained marketing campaign, we also didn't know the major 'money' shots weeks in advance. We didn't know every major plot reveal or character moment via released clips online or the filmmakers discussing who would or would not be in a theoretical <i>Jurassic Park II</i>. If the studios didn't want you to know something about a film back then, you didn't know it. And Universal made sure paying consumers like myself and my dad knew very little about what was about to transpire. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Oh, and those dino effects? Yeah, the marketing kept most of that offscreen too. Nobody, but nobody knew how astonishing Stan Winston's special effects were going to be. That iconic moment 22 minutes into the film when Dr. Grant, Dr. Sattler, and Dr. Malcolm see the brontosaurus for the first time? That moment of jaw-dropping astonishment perfectly set to John Williams's classic theme? Yeah, everyone in the audience felt the exact same way. No one expect the dinosaurs to look *this* real. Also kept under wraps was the sheer quality of the film. Steven Spielberg was coming off of <i>Hook</i>, not exactly his finest hour, and he had somewhat struggled since <i>E.T. </i>nine years earlier. Oh the <i>Indiana Jones </i>films did fine box office-wise (although the meme was still that the second was too mean and the third was too campy), but his venture into serious projects like <i>Empire of the Sun </i>and <i>The Color Purple</i> didn't strike as much of a chord as hoped (although we forget that <i>The Color Purple </i>made nearly $100 million in 1985 and earned several Oscar nominations). Point being, nobody knew if Spielberg still had the goods. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Well yes, <i>Jurassic Park </i>was *that* good, an exciting, funny, and surprisingly scary thrill ride that felt like a perfect merger of the horror of <i>Jaws </i>and the wonderment of <i>E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial</i>. Those who bought into the false meme of Spielberg as a no-harm, no-foul shiny-happy-fluff filmmaker were shocked by how intense and violent the picture was, putting its adult and kid characters directly into harm's way with zero apologies. Did your audience scream when the cup of water started vibrating? Did they shriek during the climactic kitchen chase? My audience went absolutely nuts for the scare right after Laura Dern restored power to the park. "I think <i>Jurassic Park </i>is back online!" The jump scare that followed was so perfectly timed and the audience's reaction so thunderous that most of us missed the fact that Samuel L. Jackson had just been killed offscreen. But more than just a thrill-ride, <i>Jurassic Park </i>remains a thoughtful and compelling adventure movie. And we loved every crowd pleasing minute of it. As my dad and I drove home, we passed my brother and his friends driving elsewhere. My brother asked us how the movie was. My dad merely shouted that "It was awesome!". And it was... </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Twenty years later, that screening serves as a perfect encapsulation of why we love movies. It was a major film that absolutely delivered the goods both on the screen and on the page, offering characters just quirky enough ("I wonder if they'll have *that* on the tour...") and dialogue just thoughtful enough ("We spent so much time wondering if we could we never stopped and considered whether we should!") to make it more than just a pure genre exercise. Its quality was a complete and total surprise because the studio had the good sense to let us discover the goods for ourselves. And that 10:00 pm screening is the reason I'm such a junkie for the now somewhat common and almost mundane midnight/advance-night screening, as well as the reason I was so angry by what transpired in Aurora last July. In the two decades that followed, the movies got a lot less surprising. The studios became more and more willing to spoil the fun as a matter of marketing, fully expecting that a film would play itself out by the end of the second month anyway. The once thrilling excitement of seeing a movie just before opening night before a single review had been published gave way to long-lead embargoes that established a film's critical consensus before most critics had seen it, let alone paying audiences. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
There has been a lot of talk lately about how the studios have basically turned to outright spoilers as a form of pre-release marketing. 20 years ago, <i>Jurassic Park </i>was a perfect example of keeping it close to the vest. Audiences discovered how good the film was and how wonderful its best parts were all by themselves, allowing true word of mouth to take hold for a now unthinkable year-long theatrical run. It was the last of an era. It was the last film to run that long in any theaters and it was the last blockbuster to truly take advantage of the second-run theatrical play. And while it's not entirely true, <i>Jurassic Park </i>feels like the tipping point from surprise smash to preordained blockbuster (nobody thought it would be as massive of a hit as it was, becoming the highest-grossing film of all-time worldwide for a few years). But it all comes down to a young movie fan thrilled to unexpectedly see a sneak preview of the summer's most anticipated film, sitting in a crowded audience as everyone, son, father, and everyone else around them, thrilled to the onscreen spectacle that was actually every bit as good as they could have possibly hoped. *That* was <i>Jurassic Park</i>.<br />
<br />
Scott Mendelson</div>
</div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-56098360970265410152013-04-03T21:34:00.000-07:002013-04-03T21:35:16.855-07:00Guest Review: Evil Dead (2013) is a solid horror remake... <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinxT9eLVMqjEeybxs5fKTdERIqjoAAd9g62HeyTKexewklty0fT1DXhu1Wj20RvJ2wmMr8BRPPw7Du3ZHsFv_g0K3DCDq6rL06OT0BCWphQJ9saGvP65fchwZsnU-9TEPBj1fqtExeakY/s1600/evil-dead-poster-hi-res.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinxT9eLVMqjEeybxs5fKTdERIqjoAAd9g62HeyTKexewklty0fT1DXhu1Wj20RvJ2wmMr8BRPPw7Du3ZHsFv_g0K3DCDq6rL06OT0BCWphQJ9saGvP65fchwZsnU-9TEPBj1fqtExeakY/s640/evil-dead-poster-hi-res.jpg" width="432" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<i>Evil Dead</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2013<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
92 minutes<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rated R<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Evil Dead</i> is a
surprisingly faithful yet reimagined retread of the legendary Sam Raimi film
that pushes the limits of commercial theatrical wide release horror films. This is a horror film that isn't afraid or
ashamed to be one. With a intense,
blood-drenched finale that should leave a packed theater cheering, <i>Evil Dead</i> falls on the side of good
remakes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The story of this iteration of <i>Evil Dead </i>surrounds a girl, Mia (Jane Levy), who is being taken out
to an old abandoned secluded cabin, once owned by her family, to hopefully
detox her current drug problem. Along
the way to assist, are 2 of her friends and her brother with his
girlfriend. Upon exploring a smell in
the basement, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) and David (Shiloh Fernandez) find a
ritualistic set of dead cats and the Book of the Dead. After reading some passages, wild things
begin to happen to Mia. Should her
friends believe the things she says or is it her trying to escape cold turkey
detox?<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>The biggest shock I had with 2013’s <i>Evil Dead</i> was how much it follows beats and directions of the
original. The characters, settings,
events are all very similar. The film
adds a much more weight and depth to them this time around though. There’s a whole other “important film” type
story that in the middle of this supernatural disaster that’s going to
happen. The characters aren't just
“there” this time around. There’s a lot
more going on in the way of the choices, actions and decisions made by all of
them. Its quite fun and sometimes you’re
sitting there and realizing you might be seeing the same thing comes as almost
a surprise plot twist. They also play
with what you think may happen based on your prior knowledge. It’s a fun little game the Fede Alvarez and
company have going on.<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fede Alvarez delivers a film with the look and feel of a
Alexandre Aja film. If one had to go
blind and guess who directed this movie, I’m guessing he’d be the most popular
answer. Alvarez populates this
attractive with an abundance of gross real/fun practical effects that the
horror genre seems to have been lacking for years. This film has some great work going on, it
knows it, and it flaunts it every chance it gets. So many great prosthetics and genuine looking
terror floods the film. For someone who
loves stuff like that, it was greatly appreciated. There is unfortunately one brief use of
noticeably poor CGI, but it’s early on. I’m actually looking forward to seeing
the Unrated cut when it hits Blu-Ray.
This film will put smiles on horror fans’ faces and keep the hands
planted over the eyes of the casual filmgoer.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The actors in this film all appear to have been put through
the Bruce Campbell gauntlet. Everybody
gets messy, everybody gets beat up. It’s
quite impressive. I was notably
impressed by Jane Levi and Lou Taylor Pucci.
All the actors turn in pretty solid performances for a horror
movie. Only one cast member seems to be
noticeably subpar, but doesn’t have enough lines to really get a good grasp on
that. Jessica Lucas was the only
recognizable cast member for me going in.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While I say the film keeps faithful to the original and does
keep to the tone, it’s a bit of a different tone. Whereas the deadites in the original took joy
in making a living hell for Ash and the others before killing them or
possessing them, these deadites seem to be just straight up killing
machines. Mia’s deadite is the only one
who attempts any real form of communication.
The original’s all were discernable and had character, these are all
pretty much monotonous one-note beings.
They brings the intensity, but in a killing machine type of way, not a
“haunt you in your sleep” fashion.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The film’s final act plays for a great amount of suspense
driven fun. The film gets loud, the gore
hurts and you’re on your tip toes seeing how it will finish. The setting for it is infinitely cool in
spectacle and I really couldn’t get over how sweet it looked. But once that’s over and the credits roll,
please stay to the end. 90% of my
screening had cleared out and missed an absolute money tag at the end.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fede Alvarez’s <i>Evil
Dead</i> delivers an eventful rendition on an original classic. The new <i>Evil
Dead</i> gives more depth and takes the story to some new, welcome places. It’s definitely a worthy remake and a nice
introduction for younger people to this legendary cult series. This is definitely a movie to see with a
packed late night weekend crowd on opening weekend. Even if you’re desensitized to gore, you’ll
appreciate the practical work done and squeamish cries from the people sitting
in the row behind you. This film isn't ashamed of the genre its in and makes no apologies for it. Believe the chainsaw buzz, this film is
bloody fun!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Grade: B+<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Follow me on Twitter – <a href="http://www.twitter.com/@btpeters">www.twitter.com/@btpeters</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
E-mail – <a href="mailto:naptownnerd@gmail.com">naptownnerd@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - <a href="http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos">http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos</a><o:p></o:p></div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-16186773770148256232013-04-03T15:30:00.000-07:002013-04-03T15:30:01.390-07:00Brandon Peters ranks the Evil Dead films...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk1iBBN0NSsKvarb1DjfLfFwyGnTgzqI_pPp1y4sh1tm87oWED-5BTuf8tgOKvrYGt3Yo4gNxw0Nciyojr-D28LQQLZyK5oAZ5PBlRxHp_smRGlaBrJ3yQgBMhRFZiiaEh2orYft9_khM/s1600/evildead122939121.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="468" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk1iBBN0NSsKvarb1DjfLfFwyGnTgzqI_pPp1y4sh1tm87oWED-5BTuf8tgOKvrYGt3Yo4gNxw0Nciyojr-D28LQQLZyK5oAZ5PBlRxHp_smRGlaBrJ3yQgBMhRFZiiaEh2orYft9_khM/s640/evildead122939121.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
RANKING THE EVIL DEAD<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, this is the shortest rankings I’ve done so far. If I did <i>French
Connection</i> or <i>John Carter</i>, there
could be shorter ones. I really love the
<i>Evil Dead</i> franchise. I think it’s a perfect trilogy as is right
now. All three films are great on their
own level. I’m not against additional
films in the series or the remake that’s being done. The remake has a heavy hand from Sam Raimi
AND Bruce Campbell, so I trust it. And
the fact that they both WANTED to do the remake is encouraging. My only worry is that it’s a good film, but
I’m hoping its not overhyped. There’s a
lot of crazy praise happening for it. I
feel I’m someone pretty well versed in horror/desensitized, so it takes a lot
to genuinely scare me. And you got to
make your over the top gore count for narrative and character to give it that
impact you want from me. I’m excited for
it though, I really am.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now…lets RANK<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<ol start="3" style="margin-top: 0in;" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><i>ARMY OF DARKNESS</i></li>
</ol>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
This one gets third-place due to pace.
While the runtime is right in line with the others, it does feel a bit
longer when watching it. There feels
like just a bit of extended set up for the big battle. There’s also the feeling that the film is
just kinda hanging out. Granted a lot of
it is going through the tropes of the series, but some of them may be too
similar to warrant going through them again.
All that said, this is the most quotable of the series and just a damn
fun movie. When watching them close
together or in a marathon, this one falls third, but on its own on a random
night, its king.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<ol start="2" style="margin-top: 0in;" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><i>EVIL DEAD II: DEAD BY DAWN</i></li>
</ol>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
Yes, this is a retread, but it’s
done with such a different tone and under different circumstances. Its funny, its scary, its campy, it’s a great
party movie (<a href="http://www.thecodeiszeek.com/2010/10/evil-dead-drinking-game.html">http://www.thecodeiszeek.com/2010/10/evil-dead-drinking-game.html</a>). The film has a tour de force of splatstic
horror by Bruce Campbell. Everything up
until Bruce meets up with the rest of the cast is absolute GOLD. This is why we love Bruce Campbell. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<ol start="1" style="margin-top: 0in;" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><i>THE EVIL DEAD</i> (1981)</li>
</ol>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
Yes, I prefer the first one. I’m big on the straight up horror with the
insanity played for the uneasy disturbing factor. The scene at the end where everything goes
crazy on Ash is the best of its kind since The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
(1974). Its just wild, uneasy and has
you uncomfortable and on edge. If you
couldn’t tell by my passionate piece on it, I kinda am attached to this one. I love low budget films in the horror genre
like this. They always seem to turn out
far better than the ones a lot of money is thrown at. And most of our “legends” in the genre are of
this ilk. But yet, its 2013 and studios
still don’t see to know this. Using the
super low budget helps to create innovative and creative decision making on set
rather than piling on a few more dollars.
Its what separates the gifted from the stooge.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
Okay…<i>Evil Dead</i> is in the Necronomicons.
Always great to revisit this series.
I guested on Out Now With Aaron & Abe for a couple commentaries on <i>Evil Dead 1</i> & <i>2</i> if you’re interested in hearing me discuss the series further. (Find
them here <a href="http://www.hhwlod.com/out-now/blog">http://www.hhwlod.com/out-now/blog</a>)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
“Join Us” Next Time as I infuse my
next retrospective with a buster load of NOS<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Follow me on Twitter – <a href="http://www.twitter.com/@btpeters">www.twitter.com/@btpeters</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
E-mail – <a href="mailto:naptownnerd@gmail.com">naptownnerd@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - <a href="http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos">http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos</a><o:p></o:p></div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-25157300114865012322013-04-03T12:46:00.000-07:002013-04-03T12:46:01.320-07:00Brandon Peters's Evil Dead franchise retrospective part V: Drag Me to Hell (2009)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDlzKTV1E76M2PJXcqP7tTdTpseXQI1qM0W-c33zhgFfrEUAgWHjTjtDjcMzQrv4QHuz3_ZCn950_rSXMK3zOaw5ELonN0yhJ3AtU2E3g2sLLN8VZ4TM0dC8tiaOvpLri8qWU4PnT8baI/s1600/Dragmetohell.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDlzKTV1E76M2PJXcqP7tTdTpseXQI1qM0W-c33zhgFfrEUAgWHjTjtDjcMzQrv4QHuz3_ZCn950_rSXMK3zOaw5ELonN0yhJ3AtU2E3g2sLLN8VZ4TM0dC8tiaOvpLri8qWU4PnT8baI/s640/Dragmetohell.jpg" width="430" /></a></div>
Brandon Peters has returned! Leading up to the April 5th release date of the new <i>Evil Dead</i> remake, Mr. Peters will be doing his voodoo with the <i>Evil Dead</i> series. He continues with a bonus look at <i>Drag Me To Hell</i>. For those who want my original theatrical review, go<a href="http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2009/05/review-drag-me-to-hell-2009.html"> HERE</a>. Otherwise, without further ado...<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Drag Me To Hell<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2009<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Director: Sam Raimi<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Starring: Alison
Lohman, Justin Long, David Paymer, Lorna Raver, Dileep Rao<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rated PG-13 (I watched the Unrated cut)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>You tricked me, you
black-hearted who-o-o-o-o-ore! You b-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-itch!<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
~Goat<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you’re question why I covered this film in my <i>EVIL DEAD</i> retrospective series, then
you’ve never seen <i>Drag Me To Hell</i>. And if you haven’t seen <i>Drag Me To Hell</i>, stop reading, go out and Netflix or BUY it (it's
like $5 at Fry’s). You've been missing
out on one of the best horror films of the previous decade. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>Welcome back. So
yeah, you can see how <i>Drag Me To Hel</i>l is a sister film to the <i>Evil Dead</i> series. This film is almost as if the deadites
vacationed away from the woods. <i> Jason
took Manhattan</i>, what if the deadites went to LA? This film perfectly melds the horror and
scares of the original <i>Evil Dead</i>
along with the gross outs and laughs of <i>Evil
Dead 2/Army of Darkness</i>. We even get
the car! What you get in this film is
genuine and plot focused jump scares and eerie/suspenseful quiet moments that
keep you on your toes along with scenes that make you want to puke and scenes
that go over the top and make you laugh.
I honestly feel like I went on <i>Double
Dare</i> after watching this film. So
much, blood, goop, bugs and mud to keep things dirty. <o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The film has a wonderfully sympathetic protagonist in
Christine. Alison Lohman is sent through
the ringer in this film. A lot of stunt
work, wrestling, getting covered in blood/goop and just getting down and
dirty. It’s an insanely physical
role. Its very similar to what Bruce
Campbell was put through in the Evil Dead series. And this poor girl is put in a difficult
situation, makes a difficult choice because she is pressured to and has to pay
this ultimate price for it. Raimi does a
fantastic job of making us feel for this girl feeling pressure in her life from
all sorts of angles not involving curses.
The only thing that isn’t a challenge is her boyfriend who is in for the
long haul and is dedicated to being there for her no matter her
faults/shortcomings. The only problem is
she really wants to go out of her way to impress him when we all know she
really doesn’t need to.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I feel like every Halloween we need to be talking about <i>Drag Me To Hell</i>. While the evil in the film is heavily similar
to the <i>Evil Dead</i> franchise, it's quite
a thrilling original horror film that delivers on many levels. My only qualm is that some of the CG is fun,
but looks fake (should have gone fully practical). And how is this movie rated PG-13? Man, the things they get away with now... While I watched the Unrated cut, it was the
same length as the PG-13 cut…so I don’t know what all was different. Anyhow, see <i>Drag Me To Hell </i>if you
haven’t. It's the <i>Evil Dead</i> movie you'd been
clamoring for before even this remake came to fruition.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I tried to get my wife to watch this, as she doesn't like
horror movie and this would have been extreme for her. I wanted to take joy in her jumps and getting
totally grossed out. Cuz, if you can't
watch something like this for the first time, its most fun to watch it with
someone who is seeing it for the first time.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Join Us” next time as I rank the <i>EVIL DEAD</i> franchise<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Follow me on Twitter – <a href="http://www.twitter.com/@btpeters">www.twitter.com/@btpeters</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
E-mail – <a href="mailto:naptownnerd@gmail.com">naptownnerd@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - <a href="http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos">http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos</a><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-26130305042289414902013-04-02T12:49:00.000-07:002013-04-02T12:56:28.133-07:00R.L. Shaffer: On seeing Jurassic Park 20 years ago...<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-QMue9j_RKg" width="420"></iframe></div>
This is the second of a handful of essays regarding your first (and second and/or third) viewing of<br />
<i>Jurassic Park </i>twenty summers ago, as we brace ourselves for the film's 3D IMAX rerelease this Friday. I'm sure every single one of my readers has such a memory so feel free to share them in the comments section below.<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span> <br />
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6937848248469121586" name="internal-source-marker_0.441461897920817"></a><b>Memories of <i>Jurassic Park</i>:</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;">By R.L Shaffer</span></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I was a mere 12 years old when I first visited <i>Jurassic Park</i>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">From the very first teaser (seen above) I was hooked. As a self-professed lover of dinosaurs (or dino-sars as Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcolm pronounced it), it would be my duty to see any film about these mysterious creatures. I </span>didn't<span style="font-family: inherit;"> know what I was going to get, either, but if director Steven Spielberg was going to take me there, I was more than willing to enjoy the ride.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div>
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">It’s hard for me to think about <i>Jurassic Park</i> without remembering the film’s competition, the underrated action flick, <i>Last Action Hero</i>. For some reason my cousin and I ended up choosing sides as to which film would be the big hit of the summer. I picked <i>Jurassic Park</i>. He picked<i> Last Action Hero</i>. It started innocently, but quickly escalated. And like the HD DVD vs. Blu-ray debate of yor, we endlessly discussed and sometimes even argued our points, right down to which fast food restaurant (commercials below) got the rights to promote which film, and what that meant for the ultimate box office. For the record, <i>Last Action Hero</i>’s promotion sported some nifty cups. I still wish I had one, though I imagine it would be all gross and sticky by now, decaying from years of sugar abuse.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IAIDxoGOsaY" width="420"></iframe></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #0000ee;"><u><frame allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IAIDxoGOsaY" width="420"></frame></u></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/M5UIFnbrSbw" width="420"></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Obviously, we all know how the competition between these films turned out.</span><i style="font-family: inherit;"> Last Action Hero</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> opened one week after </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">Jurassic Park</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> and </span>under-performed<span style="font-family: inherit;">, tucked deeply under the shadow of Spielberg’s latest hit. </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">Jurassic Park</i><span style="font-family: inherit;">, on the other hand, would quickly become a worldwide box office sensation, adored by children and adults alike, spawning two sequels, a 3D re-release that’s upon us now and a fourth chapter on the way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I can’t really remember the first time I saw <i>Jurassic Park</i>. It was all a blur. I believe I saw the film with my mother and a few friends. It was the last day of school and my sixth grade class was going to take a day trip to Sea World Ohio. Mother nature, purportedly a fan of <i>Jurassic Park</i>, decided otherwise. A torrential storm broke out, not unlike the one you see in the film, and the trip was quickly cancelled before we even got on the road. The kids were sent home with their parents and my mother took me and a few friends to see <i>Jurassic Park</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The rest is gone. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I can’t remember what the theater looked like, what it smelled like, how full it was or what my reactions were to what I had just seen. All I can remember was my unholy obsession with the film for the rest of the summer. I read Michael Crichton’s book several times. I read movie magazines that focused on the film. I played the games. I read junior novels, activity books, comics - you name it. If there was a </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">Jurassic Park</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> logo on it, I probably had it. I </span>couldn't<span style="font-family: inherit;"> get enough of the film. I saw it three or four times in the theater that summer, at least, always sharing the experience with new friends.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Alas, my cousin, still bitter over the upset of </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">Last Action Hero</i><span style="font-family: inherit;">, decided to skip out on </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">Jurassic Park</i><span style="font-family: inherit;">. He was a stubborn brute and </span>wasn't<span style="font-family: inherit;"> going to contribute to that film making any more money. He saw </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">Last Action Hero</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> two or three times instead. A noble effort for a solid early meta action film. But it just </span>wasn't<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">Last Action Hero</i><span style="font-family: inherit;">’s time. That time would come later, as fans (like myself) would discover the film on home video and transform the Schwarzenegger yarn into a bona fide cult hit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Believe it or not, <i>Jurassic Park</i> actually ran in theaters for two summers. There was the original June 1993 run, and some theaters were still playing the picture the following summer, ahead of it’s early fall 1994 VHS release. Finally, after many attempts, I wore my cousin down and got him to see <i>Jurassic Park</i> during this run. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This was the <i>Jurassic Park</i> experience I truly cherish. It was as if my mind had fogged out the other memories just so I could recall this one, and only this one. It was as if I was meant to experience the film with my cousin. After all, I knew he would love the film. And he did.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We walked in and immediately saw that the theater was empty. We waited for other patrons to arrive, but they never did. It was just us. The film started and the sounds echoed off the walls through the empty theater adding a disturbing chill to every thrilling sequence. I felt like the world had ended and we were the last people on Earth to watch <i>Jurassic Park</i> on the big screen. And what an experience it was! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We initially sat in the center of the theater, for the optimum DTS surround sound experience. After the opening moments of the film, I suggested we make our way down to the first row. We opted to lay on the floor. After all, why not? The place was empty. It was our theater. Our rules, tacky floor be damned. So there we laid, tucked beneath the mammoth silver screen, munching on buttery popcorn and sweet soda while enjoying the frights, fun and science fiction of <i>Jurassic Park</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">My cousin was marveled by the film, and almost ashamed he had missed it the summer of 1993. It’s almost ironic that he got to see the film in a similar fashion to how Danny Madigan got to experience <i>Jack Slater IV</i> in <i>Last Action Hero</i>. Alas, no raptors jumped out of the screen, though sitting that close it seemed like they would. And now in 3D, they just might.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><br />
</b>Afterward my cousin apologized. It was probably the first argument or debate I recalled winning, but it was a bittersweet victory. Sadly, he has not watched <i>Last Action Hero</i> since theaters. He feels scorned by the film, which is a shame. Today, he is a<i> Jurassic Park</i> man, and he’s looking forward to taking his children to see the film in theaters on April 5th. I can only hope he’ll sit down in the front row and relive those fond memories while creating new ones with his kids.</span> <o:p></o:p></div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-84481592261196865092013-04-02T10:21:00.004-07:002013-04-02T12:38:19.935-07:00Brandon Peters's Evil Dead franchise retrospective part IV: Army of Darkness (1992)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHrPxs108a62w5kRVQB2nsnTe8inSy9_bsbyQFEXHcgAaoG9c_QKS_U8-SX7z9_SB85X46bxFnIlgk4vds3zi6rBt8jVTpgTCrBHa3puGylaCUf0PTAk3NT10ROWcKDb7gMf1EFEfFy6w/s1600/darkness.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHrPxs108a62w5kRVQB2nsnTe8inSy9_bsbyQFEXHcgAaoG9c_QKS_U8-SX7z9_SB85X46bxFnIlgk4vds3zi6rBt8jVTpgTCrBHa3puGylaCUf0PTAk3NT10ROWcKDb7gMf1EFEfFy6w/s640/darkness.jpg" width="414" /></a></div>
Brandon Peters has returned! Leading up to the April 5th release date of the new <i>Evil Dead</i> remake, Mr. Peters will be doing his voodoo with the <i>Evil Dead </i>series. He continues with a look at <i>Army of Darkness</i>. As only a casual <i>Evil Dead</i> fan, this was an extra-special treat as this isn't a film series that I've memorized by heart. This was as informative for me as I hope it will be for you. So without further ado...<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Army of Darkness<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
1992</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Director: Sam Raimi</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Starring: Bruce Campbell, Embeth Davidtz, Ian Abercrombie,
Marcus Gilbert, Richard Grove…also Bridget Fonda and a line-less Linda, <i>Night of
the Living Dead</i> remake’s Patricia Tallman as a deadite and Wedding Singer’s
Angela Featherstone as an S-Mart girl</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rated R</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Good. Bad. I’m the guy
with the gun.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
~Ash</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With the success of <i>Darkman</i>,
Sam Raimi was finally able to bring to life his vision of Ash fighting deadites
in medieval times. Originally titled <i>The MediEvil Dead</i>, the film was the
first in the series to be backed by a major studio. However, the film is still done on the
cheap. Bringing the comedic aspect of <i>Evil Dead 2</i> to the forefront this time
around, Raimi unleashes an insanely fun, quotable film featuring an encore
performance by Bruce Campbell and a tribute to the comedy and adventures Sam
Raimi enjoyed growing up.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i></i></div>
<a name='more'></a><i>Army of Darkness</i>
treats us immediately to another recap.
This time it features new footage mixed in with footage from <i>Evil Dead 2</i>. This time around Linda is cameo’d by a young
Bridget Fonda, which is pretty fun. We
also learn that Ash worked at a department store prior to taking his long
weekend vacation to the cabin in the woods (zing). If <i>Army
of Darkness 2 </i>actually comes to fruition, I can only hope the tradition of re-shooting and retelling the events of the first film is kept around and had
fun with.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The film finally progresses this story far away from the
cabin. This doesn't stop it from keeping
around the series tropes. A lot of the acts
we loved in the first to film are revisited in creative ways here. The mirror is here, the quick cut workshop
montage, the crazy breakdown, all present.
This time the scare factor is at an all time low. Maybe it’s the setting (I really doubt it),
but the horror is played for scenery and monsters. Everything’s a little cartoon/comic
book-esque in presentation. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Replacing a lot of the horror, but keeping with the insanity
is even more of the physical comedy tour de force by Bruce Campbell. Its clear why we love this guy, and this
movie just gives us ultimate Ash. He’s
in full schmuck mode, acting arrogant as he feels he is an advanced being and
above all people in the kingdom because he comes from the future. Most of this derives from his new-found confidence in <i>Evil Dead 2</i>, this time
taking him overboard, creating his own conflict and leading to his own
peril. The villain is “Bad Ash” who comes
directly from him. Ash puts everyone in
danger in this film, but learns to take the reigns, become a leader and fix
best he can what he created. In the
beginning he’s only wanting to go home and get away from everybody, but in the
end, he wants to leave, but he wants to make sure the kingdom is a better place
than when he got there.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sam Raimi pays a lot of tribute in this film. We get a Gulliver’s Travels segment, some
more <i>3 Stooges</i> love and the final battle is a massive love letter to Ray
Harryhausen. The finale is also done in
a very fun, swashbuckling fashion akin to something like <i>Princess Bride</i> meets <i>Jason
& the Argonauts</i>. Its quite the
spectacle for the type of low budget movie it is. Once again, a low budget does not stop
Raimi. He goes incredibly ambitious and
acts as if he’s got the budget twice of what he has. Skeletons are given a surprise amount of
detail and character during the battle.
Its quite a joy and charming to watch.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;">While production went smoothly, Universal butted in during post production.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;">The film’s original ending was scrapped as Universal wanted an upbeat happy ending.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;">Raimi found Ash to be a schmuck and wanted the ending to reflect as such.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;">In a weird choice, the ending overseas was Raimi’s original and domestically Universal go their ending.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;">If we’d have Raimi’s original ending of Ash awakening to a desolate future, I’m sure we’d have seen an attempt at an <i>Evil Dead 4</i> before now.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;">The S-Mart ending seemed to be a nice wrap up.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;">Which do I prefer?</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;">I think I slightly lean toward the S-Mart ending.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;">Its more fitting in the tone of the film and feels more complete to the journey taken in Army of Darkness.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif;">As a young lad I thought the idea of the ending I couldn't have was cooler.</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px;">Its fun, but…what if we never saw a continuation to this?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Army of Darkness</i>
might be the “for everyone” entry in the <i>Evil
Dead</i> franchise. Yes, it’s the third film, but its probably the most easily accessible from general audiences. A person who isn't in to horror or doesn't get horror comedy could easily dig this movie.
Its not very graphic at all and has a much lighter tone. I’m not gonna say kids should be watching it,
but I'd say if you got a target age for you kid to watch horror movies, you get
start them a year or two earlier than that on this. It's a fun time, and you'll definitely be
quoting Ash, trying mock his voice or ripping him off with your own property
(looking at you Duke Nukem). It's just as
an enjoyable romp as the previous entry and caps off what is currently a
trilogy, making three highly enjoyable parts and pretty much a perfect trilogy.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Join Us” next time for:
A bonus piece on a film I consider a “sister movie” to the <i>Evil Dead</i> franchise</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Follow me on Twitter – <a href="http://www.twitter.com/@btpeters">www.twitter.com/@btpeters</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
E-mail – <a href="mailto:naptownnerd@gmail.com">naptownnerd@gmail.com</a></div>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - <a href="http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos">http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos</a></span>Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-18113999954047683642013-04-02T09:25:00.000-07:002013-04-02T09:25:17.940-07:00Press Release: Finding Dory swimming into theaters 11/25/15.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQpLGEvFA8lfdr1grmEvhAqtKO_xw5Cdqr7l3ApfcsLk4RMiQBkY9GbpYVVl8UdEF4mB5ovgUtBPad1sqnk24Y1mA_9pZU0dL3lt1ubM3iLzBxy27czQ1Sm_L4NBS0BzN281ORgKKj2rI/s1600/image003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQpLGEvFA8lfdr1grmEvhAqtKO_xw5Cdqr7l3ApfcsLk4RMiQBkY9GbpYVVl8UdEF4mB5ovgUtBPad1sqnk24Y1mA_9pZU0dL3lt1ubM3iLzBxy27czQ1Sm_L4NBS0BzN281ORgKKj2rI/s640/image003.jpg" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDF6j7pfoLpA_UzA5PKr1tTni4_kOFKkDu35gfPxI_sRNAuO2tFfs1fXeeg_VNU0r89oRmmroAwhiSwfhZZLAbItgBihjvErTEA0sA801NEFdZYsBLNGNfMx5JtTHK0Bb7e31vHb8WtlE/s1600/image001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDF6j7pfoLpA_UzA5PKr1tTni4_kOFKkDu35gfPxI_sRNAuO2tFfs1fXeeg_VNU0r89oRmmroAwhiSwfhZZLAbItgBihjvErTEA0sA801NEFdZYsBLNGNfMx5JtTHK0Bb7e31vHb8WtlE/s640/image001.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">
<b><u><span style="color: #0070c0; font-size: 16pt;">STILL SWIMMING!<u></u><u></u></span></u></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Disney•Pixar’s “Finding Dory” to Dive into Theaters<u></u><u></u></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt;">November 25, 2015<u></u><u></u></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: 13pt;">Ellen DeGeneres, the Voice of the Beloved Blue Tang Fish in 2003’s “Finding Nemo,” Shares Plans for the All-New Big-Screen Adventure<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"></span></b><br />
<a name='more'></a><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">BURBANK, Calif. (April 2, 2013) – </span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When Dory said “just keep swimming” in 2003’s Oscar®-winning film “Finding Nemo,” she could not have imagined what was in store for her (not that she could remember). Ellen DeGeneres, voice of the friendly-but-forgetful blue tang fish, revealed details today about Disney•Pixar’s “Finding Dory”—an all-new big-screen adventure diving into theaters on Nov. 25, 2015.<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">“I have waited for this day for a long, long, long, long, long, long time,”</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> said DeGeneres. “I’m not mad it took this long. I know the people at Pixar were busy creating ‘Toy Story 16.’ But the time they took was worth it. The script is fantastic. And it has everything I loved about the first one: It’s got a lot of heart, it’s really funny, and the best part is—it’s got a lot more Dory.”<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Director and Pixar veteran Andrew Stanton takes audiences back to the extraordinary underwater world created in the original film. “There is no Dory without Ellen,” said Stanton. “She won the hearts of moviegoers all over the world—not to mention our team here at Pixar. One thing we couldn’t stop thinking about was why she was all alone in the ocean on the day she met Marlin. In ‘Finding Dory,’ she will be reunited with her loved ones, learning a few things about the meaning of family along the way.”<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">According to Stanton, “Finding Dory” takes place about a year after the first film, and features returning favorites Marlin, Nemo and the Tank Gang, among others. Set in part along the California coastline, the story also welcomes a host of new characters, including a few who will prove to be a very important part of Dory’s life. <u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">“Finding Nemo” won the 2003 Academy Award® for Best Animated Feature; the film was nominated for three additional Oscars® (Best Writing, Original Screenplay; Best Music, Original Score; Best Sound Editing). It was also nominated for a Golden Globe® Award for Best Motion Picture–Comedy or Musical. In 2008, the American Film Institute named “Finding Nemo” among the top 10 greatest animated films ever made. At the time of its release, “Finding Nemo” was the highest grossing G-rated movie of all time. It’s currently the fourth highest grossing animated film worldwide. The film has more than 16 million Likes on Facebook, and Dory—with more than 24 million—is the most Liked individual character from a Disney or Disney•Pixar film.<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">DeGeneres’ distinctive comic voice has resonated with audiences from her first stand-up comedy appearances through her work today on television, in film and in the literary world. Her syndicated talk show, “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” is in its 10th season and has earned 38 Daytime Emmy® Awards. DeGeneres has won 12 People’s Choice Awards and the Teen Choice Award for Choice Comedian for three consecutive years. Additionally, her show won two Genesis Awards and a GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Talk Show Episode. For her unforgettable turn as Dory, DeGeneres was nominated for an MTV Movie Award for Best Comedic Performance.</span></div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-35125835979820968402013-04-02T06:30:00.000-07:002013-04-02T14:29:44.001-07:00The conformist rebellion of Spring Breakers...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9DDDvOwaCAHgR3QmEdGANzrm-u7LVVM8LBmT-1wdEsjAofqn18J7O7wCTsdBbcL1BaK184bfgVscZVbIOM4IFlolWnV9w8kOKJUWMtHroqETgU3QXEXgrzjeeWKvLOw4k98ZskHo17_s/s1600/spring1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9DDDvOwaCAHgR3QmEdGANzrm-u7LVVM8LBmT-1wdEsjAofqn18J7O7wCTsdBbcL1BaK184bfgVscZVbIOM4IFlolWnV9w8kOKJUWMtHroqETgU3QXEXgrzjeeWKvLOw4k98ZskHo17_s/s640/spring1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
There is something oddly safe and reassuring about the alleged shocking content found in Harmony Korine's <i>Spring Breakers</i>. It is something so explicitly fashioned to be viewed as 'outrageous' yet its actual onscreen content would presumably only be shocking to those who are somewhat, pardon the simplification, sheltered or easily hot-n-bothered. It contains moments of overt sexuality and moments of stark violence, but nothing that wouldn't be out of place in a more conventional action picture. The fact that the very idea of former Disney starlets (and a current ABC Family Channel star) running around in bikinis and engaging in "Girls Gone Wild" type behavior is considered "controversial" or "outrageous" is perhaps a dangerous sign of our current puritanistic attitudes. The film, at least from a marketing standpoint, seems intentionally designed to give an outlet for "serious" critics and/or journalists to have their cake and eat it too. <br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>That doesn't mean I think it's a bad film. It's a decent film that errs only in having too much time to ramble after making its primary point quite efficiently. But in terms of being "shocking", it's akin to watching <i>Ren and Stimpy </i>on Spike TV. <i>Ren and Stimpy </i>as a kids' cartoon on Nickelodeon is arguably shocking and daring in concept and execution. <i>Ren and Stimpy </i>on an adult television network with no real boundaries or content restrictions negates much of its taboo appeal. The idea of four young college-age women, no matter their kid-friendly backgrounds, engaging in R-rated behavior in an R-rated film that is technically intended as an art house release shouldn't be anything other than normal. I do think there is something to be said about the sheer number of younger (mostly female, it would seem) viewers who reacted with moral outrage or disgust at these actresses playing these characters, as if they had a moral obligation to only play squeaky clean protagonists. But that's a whole different essay and a whole different can of worms.<br />
<br />
I do think that the presence of James Franco is the saving grace of the picture, both thematically and commercially. Like the Genie in <i>Aladdin </i>or The Joker in <i>Batman: The Mask of the Phantasm</i>, this larger-than-life overwhelming character shows up to give the film a proverbial shot in the arm just when it needs it most. Without Franco's over-the-top figurehead, the film is merely four young women randomly misbehaving for 85 minutes. But Franco provides pure entertainment value to break up the relative monotony of the women doing shots, engaging in sexually aggressive behavior, and randomly dancing at various parties. Franco's "Alien" also provides audiences (especially male film critics, I'd argue) the major male character to latch onto, the key I'd argue which allows male critics to take the film more seriously than it if merely focused on four 'girls gone wild'.<br />
<div>
<br />
I could ask why the overt sexualization of the females in <i>Spring Breakers </i>gets a critical pass while the more implicit sexualization of the five young women of <i>Sucker Punch </i>causes all of its subtexts to be ignored, but I will merely say that both films are (to varying degrees) flawed pictures about women with interesting gender-related ideas at their core. Personal preferences aside, I will give more credit the more entertaining and less repetitive action fantasy that preaches its thesis under the guise of a big budget blockbuster versus the one that has the protective sheen of 'art film'. As for Korine's ultimate message, it is two-pronged. I'd argue its core idea, that young women in today's society finding themselves attempting to achieve an ideal that is actually a pointless and demoralized reveling in debauchery, isn't too far off from any number of male sex comedies that play with the same notion. <br />
<br />
But this is where the film's casting gimmick pays off. What Korine is arguably also commenting on is what we, as a society, consider to be young girls becoming young women. When the likes of Britney Spears or Miley Cryus wish to be taken seriously as adult artists, they don't necessarily make more adult-skewing music but rather become well, more overtly sexualized creatures for public consumption. Ashley Benson's character on the soapy but amusing <i>Pretty Little Liars</i> deals with any number of 'adult' issues in regards to her friends, her family, and her relationships. Vanessa Hudgens had to make adult decisions in all three of the <i>High School Musical </i>films, be it juggling what she wanted to do versus what was expected of her culturally and socially, or attempting to balance personal feelings versus academic and professional goals. Yet those roles are considered 'kid fare' compared to their 'insert male fantasy here' characters in <i>Spring Breakers</i>, playing nearly interchangeable young girls who exist purely to be ogled by male moviegoers and/or be 'tut-tut'ed by moralists.</div>
<div>
<br />
Young women are taught by society at large to express their alleged adulthood not by actually pursuing adult interests or increasing their foothold in society but merely by more overtly acknowledging or exploiting their sexuality in a fashion purely intended to carnally impress the men around them. Former child stars signal their would-be adulthood merely by being, to be crude about, 'more sexy'. Child stars who get starring vehicles or meaty supporting roles when they are too young to be "appropriately" sexualized get tossed into the token girlfriend box as soon as it's considered okay to lust after them. Along with a more generalized societal condemnation of what constitutes 'freedom' or 'utopia' for young women, Korine makes a strong case against the whole 'no longer a girl, not yet a woman' shtick that's so prevalent in pop culture and general society as well. <br />
<br />
I wish <i>Spring Breakers </i>were a better film, as its clear that Korine didn't really have the story material for a feature-length picture. But the ideas trump the tedium and as such the film is worth sampling, even if I think it errs by so efficiently establishing its thesis so early on that much of the film is merely hammering home the core message again and again. Like any number of allegedly shocking pictures, it's somewhat conservative in nature, arguing for a certain return to 'morality'. Korine doesn't explicitly judge his female protagonists other than to point out the societal failings of what 'the American Dream' has become for young women today. It's a film where its worthwhile messaging makes up for an admittedly slipshod and even occasionally dull narrative. But the idea that its onscreen contents should be seen as 'shocking' or 'outrageous' is I'd argue more a sign of pundits wanting to write about their alleged shock as a way to put up posts with hit-friendly pictures from the film than anything actually contained in the motion picture. It's actually a criticism of social rebellion in a safe, relatively non-challenging fashion. <br />
<br />
As a thesis, <i>Spring Breakers </i>is worthwhile. As a cutting edge or dangerous piece of cinema, it's merely rebellious in a conformist sort of way.<br />
<br />
Scott Mendelson</div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-38453413469879284422013-04-01T08:16:00.000-07:002013-04-01T08:16:12.256-07:00Brandon Peters: On seeing Jurassic Park 20 years ago...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEC6KK4m9MAVoClJe7qgvnJdJjfSRb7Qj-RZGA093X9wWUqv8BYeFVJbcJkNCNvvy6pSeRsDTNGFpLOnBDPJnqFhuvLX9jmxV_j3zKaPDBHOxyVbfk6X-0eq-2Zoe0IViou5Z2tkCokyY/s1600/e03.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEC6KK4m9MAVoClJe7qgvnJdJjfSRb7Qj-RZGA093X9wWUqv8BYeFVJbcJkNCNvvy6pSeRsDTNGFpLOnBDPJnqFhuvLX9jmxV_j3zKaPDBHOxyVbfk6X-0eq-2Zoe0IViou5Z2tkCokyY/s640/e03.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is one of two of three essays regarding your first (and second and/or third) viewing of <i>Jurassic Park </i>twenty summers ago, as we brace ourselves for the film's 3D IMAX rerelease this Friday. I'm sure every single one of my readers has such a memory so feel free to share them in the comments section below.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Jurassic Park Memories<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Brandon Peters<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yes, that photo supporting the article is ridiculous…but I just kinda “had to” use it. Hilariously, its one of those images that sticks in your head from the movie.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Jurassic Park</i> was one of those films that comes along once every 8-10 years that just restores your faith and fulfill the magic of seeing a film in a theater to the highest level. There was an absolute joy and “level up-ing" of my love for cinema after viewing this movie. An event movie in the greatest sense. And man, was there a craze following it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>Leading up to the film, I remember a teaser of a cave excavation where a guy with one of those flashlight mounted hard hats uncovers a mosquito encased in some sort of amber rock. The logo was everywhere, but I’m not sure if I saw too much dino action in trailers when I was that age. The buzz was that there were computer animated dinosaurs and not puppeteering. I was excited for this new wave of movie making with computer graphics. Little did I know how it would dominate in the future, most of the time be lackluster, fail to be innovative and be highly discernible from what’s real. But I digress, there was none of that in <i>Jurassic Park</i>.<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My grandmother took my cousin Crystal and I to <i>Jurassic Park</i> opening week. I don’t believe we went opening weekend. My grandma and my uncle Mark always took me to the cool movies when I was little. If there is anywhere to give credit as to how I turned out as a film fanatic/buff/expert/historian or how I was given my initial push and encouragement, ALL the credit in the world goes to those two (even if we missed half of <i>Masters of the Universe</i> and you told me we missed five or five minutes, Uncle Mark. I forgive you). My parents, eh, I was subjected to some of the most generic movies bottom dweller movies and every John Travolta and Tim Allen movies that weren't <i>Pulp Fiction</i> or <i>Galaxy Quest</i> (though I did see <i>Jurassic Park</i> a second time with them).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anyway – <i>JURASSIC PARK</i>! This was a wowing experience. Everything was larger than life. The dinosaurs looked frigging real. I argue they still hold up just as well today. It really looked as if you could touch them. I was frankly, very unfamiliar with the cast. I knew Wayne Knight, and that was the extent of it. And he annoyed me on Seinfeld and I didn't like him here. So, while I was very frightened of the dino involved in his death scene, he got what he deserved for two characters he played. I liked Ian Malcolm, and loved he scene stealing. John Hammond just seemed too devious to be trustworthy. Alan Grant was a worthy hero, but maybe it was the two kids who helped take that journey to another level of intensity for me. One of them was close enough in age to me. It worked. And normally kids dropped into a horror situation is a kiss of death, but Tim and Lex are one of the few times that it works. It may be because they never go over the top extravagant or have them or the script try to steal scenes. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Jurassic Park</i> proved to be a special effects extravaganza and an intense summer thrill ride all at the same time. I akin the experience to people in the 70’s seeing <i>Star Wars</i> for the first time on the big screen. In my own lifetime I equate it to seeing Tim Burton’s <i>Batman, The Matrix and Avatar</i>. It’s a movie that just BEGS and DEMANDS it be seen on the big screen.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’m going to embarrass myself now. After our show, my grandmother took us to Pizza Hut (where she always had a glass of Blush with her pizza, haha). Once the pizza was devoured she dropped me off at home. Well, I came home to an empty house. I believe my little sister had a little league softball game that night. There I was, home alone in a quiet house. I was in our basement and for some damn reason, I felt like the raptors from <i>Jurassic Park</i> were going to pop out and get me. Every time the air started to run or the house creaked or something shut off, I got a little chill. Oh yeah, all the lights went on. I dunno why, but that kitchen sequence, the raptors and that damn dino that killed Nedry were nasties that were just as real as the “now they’re coming to get you” feeling you get from a Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers when you’re young. So there you have it public, I was scared of raptors...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The lasting effects were pretty phenomenal. This was just a widely popular and accepted film. I remember for the next year or two, any time there was a slow day in school or whatnot, they popped <i>Jurassic Park</i> in. It was everywhere. I guess it became so popular it became that cool movie to “hate” for cinema snobs. I admit I got tired of all the hoopla for it and may have shown some disdain. But I’d like to slap ‘past Brandon’. Its still a damn fine movie and holds up perfectly. Its one of the few movies I watch and am transported back to many memories and feelings of the first time I saw it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
EXTRA:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Jurassic Park</i> spawned two sequels and I recently revisited them. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>The Lost World</i> I loved when it first came out theatrically (saw it opening weekend and then once the following week). Then I got older, thought it was dumb. But now revisiting it for the first time in maybe 10 years, I found it holds up quite well. Learning more about film and seeing more films in that time has given me a much bigger appreciation for it and I think its held up much better over time. Yes, the gymnastics girl sneaking aboard and 'gymkata’ing' the raptor is DUMB AS HELL. But, like Aaron Neuwirth’s favorite scene in <i>Live Free Or Die Hard</i>, get rid of that and its fine. It goes for a completely different type of movie, a King Kong type throwback kind of tribute. And I think it greatly succeeds. Its an insanely watchable an fun film. Its got a bit of silly story surrounded by some great action sequences and fun actors. I wonder if they didn't want to overdo themselves with the dinosaurs in this as a lot of it is at night and you don’t see dinos much or their full bodies. Still this film is a lot of fun. Not even close to the first one, but a very entertaining old school movie in the form of a summer popcorn movie.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Jurassic Park III</i> feels like a little one off story that happens to bring back two characters from the first one. The film isn’t interested in showing off the island and really we don’t need it. It feels off a half step, but that’s likely because it’s a different director. It seems to fill in the holes with dinosaurs/sequences missing from the first two films (pterodactyls!). It’s a point A to point B movie (think <i>The Warriors</i> on <i>Jurassic Park</i>), and succeeds in being such. It’s got a bit of an abrupt and “times up, lets go” ending, but its still an enjoyable film. I prefer <i>The Lost World</i>, but I’m sure many like this better. And I’m not going to say you’re wrong. I think <i>Jurassic Park</i> is actually a pretty good entertaining series. If you go into both sequels not expecting to match up to the first one (which, why would you?), you’ll be fine. I’m sure <i>Lost World </i>and<i> III</i> have their haters, but I’m not one of them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Follow me on Twitter – <a href="http://www.twitter.com/@btpeters">www.twitter.com/@btpeters</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
E-mail – <a href="mailto:naptownnerd@gmail.com">naptownnerd@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - <a href="http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos">http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos</a><o:p></o:p></div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-57587966273720797162013-03-31T08:49:00.001-07:002013-03-31T08:49:20.964-07:00Weekend Box Office: GI Joe: Retaliation tops Easter weekend while The Host tanks.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPiYVuQxAopZlFfZt13eU4TtKWUnUCvJHDqfhW8Kq1FNoBXDmdovH7DPvbKvHEw4WlMn8hkJq_YFE98PRbWGo6MidIoU4bSMpugku3MNL_sXkVQfdI1xTjgFYMXxENNiMf0CTi3Uz_RBY/s1600/gijoe125.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="404" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPiYVuQxAopZlFfZt13eU4TtKWUnUCvJHDqfhW8Kq1FNoBXDmdovH7DPvbKvHEw4WlMn8hkJq_YFE98PRbWGo6MidIoU4bSMpugku3MNL_sXkVQfdI1xTjgFYMXxENNiMf0CTi3Uz_RBY/s640/gijoe125.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
It was a crowded Easter weekend at the box office, as three new releases and a couple strong holdovers did battle over the frame. Opening on Thursday to take advantage of Good Friday (IE - no school!).<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>G.I. Joe: Retaliation </i>opened with a relatively solid $51.7 million over the four-day frame, for a $41.2 million Fri-Sun gross. Any way you slice it, this is a slightly lower figure than the $54 million Fri-Sun debut of <i>G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra </i>back in August 2009. Yes that film opened in late summer but this film had 3D-enhanced ticket prices, so it's basically an even comparison. The sequel/reboot was scheduled to open in late June of last summer only to be pulled and rescheduled so that the film could be converted to 3D in order to theoretically boost foreign grosses. One can only wonder whether Paramount possibly cut off its nose to spite its face, sacrificing a prime summer slot when the buzz was hottest only to achieve an arguably lower debut than it might have achieved had it opened when intended. <i>G.I. Joe: Retaliation </i>probably won't cross $120 million in America, which in normal circumstances would be very bad. More likely, Paramount knowingly sacrificed domestic strength for international muscle, which is yet another sign of the times. The current worldwide total is estimated to be about $132 million, so it's nearly halfway to the first film's entire $300 million worldwide total. Assuming it has anything resembling legs, Paramount's risky bet may have paid off. The new film cost less ($130 million) and the first film ($175 million), so presuming the rescheduling didn't massively add to the marketing and distribution costs, equaling or surpassing the first film's total ($150 million domestic and $150 million international) still counts as a single if not a double depending on the overall result.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The next big opener was the fourth Tyler Perry film to open over Easter weekend over the last several years. <i>Tyler Perry's Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor </i>opened to a strong $22.3 million. For Tyler Perry films that don't involve Madea, this is his second-biggest such debut after <i>Why Did I Get Married Too?</i> ($29 million), although the final figures may put it just behind the first <i>Why Did I Get Married? </i>($21.3 million). There's not much else to say about this one. Yes, its somewhat of a departure for Perry (it's a straight sexually-charged melodrama with little-to-no comedy), but he still has a strong fan base as long as the budgets remain under $20 million, as this one again did. The film played 70% female and 79% over-25. Those stunt casting of Kim Kardashian did little other than cost him a token amount of credibility any number of critics (both pro-Perry and anti-Perry) called it possibly his worst film. Still the man is nothing if not financially consistent. This is his tenth $20 million opener since 2005. And it will probably sink like a stone and still make it to $45-55 million just as most of his pictures have done. <i>Tyler Perry Presents We The Peoples</i> opens on May 10th, and we should expect similar results.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAlwXzZ86jjR9FgGH2Rni8BzDbpytU-sHBil2wcPg2bRqsGlEdBQzGHRdV30xPwZM48-QTUGuxx-x8HQTzyTm2D2IXU_mcuqWOyAOKePct6hWMf-4myYdG-bOMDt2uDTEfzfND-J7xAYo/s1600/host21.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAlwXzZ86jjR9FgGH2Rni8BzDbpytU-sHBil2wcPg2bRqsGlEdBQzGHRdV30xPwZM48-QTUGuxx-x8HQTzyTm2D2IXU_mcuqWOyAOKePct6hWMf-4myYdG-bOMDt2uDTEfzfND-J7xAYo/s400/host21.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
The last wide opener was <i>The Host</i>, the second of two 'next <i>Twilight</i>' contenders to under-perform this year. While the shockingly good <i>Beautiful Creatures </i>sadly didn't even cross $19 million domestic on a $60 million budget (it has $57 million worldwide), Open Road spent $40 million on the adaptation of <i>Twilight </i>author Stephanie Meyer's <i>The Host </i>and got just $11 million over opening weekend for their efforts, or about what <i>Beautiful Creatures </i>opened with. The reviews were terrible even from those who liked the <i>Twilight Saga</i> and Saoirse Ronan is not a household name beyond film nerds (writer/director Andrew Niccol isn't a 'name' either), so it looks like the 'new-wave young-adult-lit blockbuster' trend is 0/2 thus far. Lily Collins stars in <i>The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones </i>this coming August, so we'll see if it can do what these other two pictures could not. Otherwise, my prediction/hope that these kind of films would become a new form of cheaper 'blockbuster' that catered to females as much as superhero films catered to males might have been premature. <br />
<br />
The main limited release was the Ryan Gosling/Bradley Cooper/Eva Mendes drama <i>The Place Beyond the Pines</i>. The sprawling father/son saga debuted on just four screens and wracked up an impressive $67,536 per screen. Hopefully this means Focus Features will expand this one in the coming weeks. <i>The Croods </i>held strong in its second weekend, buoyed by the holiday Friday. It dropped 4 0% for a solid $26 million second weekend and a $88 million ten-day total. Comparatively, <i>How to Train Your Dragon </i>opened with $43 million and dropped 33% for a $29 million second weekend and a $92 million total. In terms of the various fall Dreamworks animated releases, its ten-day total is actually ahead of <i>A Shark Tale </i>($87 million) and <i>Puss In Boots </i>($75 million) and basically tied with <i>Megamind </i>($88 million). <br />
<br />
Considering how many unknowing teenage moviegoers proclaimed it the worst movie ever, the fact that <i>Spring Breakers </i>didn't drop like a rock is impressive. It was down 43% with a $2.7 million weekend and a $10 million cume. <i>Olympus Has Fallen </i>fell a hearty 54%, taking damage from <i>G.I. Joe: Retaliation</i>. Still, the $70 million action thriller now has $54 million and should flirt with $85 million before it finishes up its domestic run. <i>Oz: The Great and Powerful </i>pulled in another $11.6 million for a new cume of $198 million domestic and it flies past $400 million worldwide. <i>The Call </i>now has $39 million, <i>Admission </i>has just $11 million after ten days and <i>The Incredible Burt Wonderstone </i>has just now crossed $20 million in its seventeenth day after dropping 70% this weekend.<br />
<br />
That's it for this one folks. Join us next time for nostalgia theater, as the two wide releases are a remake of <i>Evil Dead</i> and a 3D-reissue of <i>Jurassic Park</i>. Are you planning on seeing <i>Jurassic Park </i>again in IMAX 3D or is your 2D Blu Ray good enough for you?<br />
<br />
Scott Mendelson Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6937848248469121586.post-75097624095114903812013-03-31T06:41:00.001-07:002013-03-31T06:41:52.311-07:00Happy Easter from Mendelson's Memos (and a herd of killer rabbits heading this way)!<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_yww2x3bm9k" width="560"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Yes, I'm Jewish and I married a Jew, but that hasn't stopped me from having to endure the various Christian holidays, specifically the commercialized portions. So off to Easter brunch I go this morning, which explains why my box office write-up is a slightly more succinct than usual (a good thing?). While I have a back-log of movies to catch up on at the moment (<i>Room 237</i>, <i>The Man With the Iron Fists</i>, etc.), I'm severely tempted to spent Easter night watching this absolutely classic for what seems to be the perfect occasion. <br /><br />Scott Mendelson</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Scott Mendelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08131426080984100749noreply@blogger.com0