Weekend Box Office (06/03/12): Snow White and the Huntsman opens strong while Prometheus excels overseas.

Putting a non-existent end to the non-existent box office slump, Snow White and the Huntsman (review/trailer/essay) topped the weekend box office with a pretty strong $56 million.  After the flop that was Battleship, Universal is somewhat relieved that the next of its 'let's make overpriced fantasy tentpoles like every other studio' entry might actually make a small profit in the end.  With about $39 million in overseas grosses, the film has amassed $95 million in its first three days of worldwide play. Alas the film cost $175 million to produce (and who-knows what to market), so this is another situation where a major picture is praying for $400 million worldwide just to break even.  That's obviously not healthy, but the opening is still a darn-good one. It's the second-biggest 2D opening of the year behind The Hunger Games and the fourth-biggest debut of 2012 behind The Avengers ($207 million), The Hunger Games ($153 million), and The Lorax ($70 million).

Review: Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) is a dull, drab, and aggressively passive chore.

Snow White and the Huntsman

2012
127 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Strange is a movie that immediately establishes its dramatic stakes but spends the rest of the film waiting for the main characters to actually take seemingly obvious action.  But such is the case with Rupert Sander's big-budget Snow White reinvention.  While the idea of retelling Snow White on a more epic scale with bits and pieces from Lord of the Rings thrown in isn't the most inspired idea (Snow White: A Tale of Terror went the Gothic horror route over a decade ago), there remain elements for a primal hero's adventure with a dash of feminist subtext thrown in for good measure.  But the picture seems to go out of its way to dismiss or ignore what shows promise while aimlessly wandering around in a literal and metaphorical dark forest waiting for its inevitable action climax to occur.  It fails at least partially because it strands its lead characters with nowhere to go while stranding its lead heroine with nothing to do.

Weekend Box Office (05/06/12): The Avengers does the impossible, scoring $207 million in a single weekend. Why the numbers are even more impressive than you think...

Ten years ago, Spider-Man shocked the industry by grossing more than $100 million in a single weekend.  Five years ago, Spider-Man 3 broke the $150 million weekend barrier.  This weekend, The Avengers has blown through the $200 million barrier, delivering a record opening weekend of $207.1 million in high style.  Yes, the number is beyond huge, besting Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II by $38 million.  But the total weekend number only tells part of the story.  Arguably as important as the massive three-day figure is the manner in which it was earned.  First of all, The Avengers is the first film in modern times (going back to Batman 23 years ago) to break the opening weekend record without shattering the opening day record.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II still holds the record for the biggest single day, biggest opening day, and biggest Friday with $91 million.  The Avengers earned a massive $80 million on its first Friday, good for the second-highest single day of all time.  But for the last several years, massive opening weekends of this nature have been predicated on overly front-loaded opening days, in turn predicated on frontloaded midnight showings.  Harry Potter 7.2 made $43 million at midnight alone, or 25% of its $169 weekend total.  The Hunger Games did 12% of its $152 million debut at midnight.  Twilight Saga: New Moon did 18% of its $142 million debut at midnight alone.  The Avengers did just 9% of its gross, or $18.7 million, at midnight. This means that the film played obscenely well all weekend, not just on opening day for frenzied fans.

Thoughts on the big (inevitable) Avengers plot twist...

There is really only one genuine plot twist in The Avengers.  Sure there are visual moments that will shock or delight, clever lines of dialogue that one wouldn't want ruined, and/or certain narrative choices that merit discussion.  But there was only one truly 'shocking' moment in the 140-minute picture.  And now I'm going to discuss it.  Right after this first paragraph, so you've got plenty of warning, folks.  If you haven't seen it yet and don't want to know, don't read any further.  I'm giving you plenty of space between the start of this post and the actual discussion of the matter at hand.  SPOILER WARNING staring in  5...4...3...2...1...

Review: So close yet so far, Joss Whedon's The Avengers (2012) is an often soaring but occasionally frustrating B-movie with several A+ ingredients.

The Avengers

2012
142 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

In a film like The Avengers, which brings together strands of several prior pictures into a mostly cohesive whole, it is arguably inevitable that individual pieces will end up working better than the sum of its parts. That the film works at all is almost a miracle, and it's so purely entertaining and contains so much that works like gangbusters that it's tempting to ignore what doesn't work and merely salute the enterprise. It is a relentlessly engaging and confident motion picture, boasting a cast that in a more respected genre would make it an Oscar-bait film. But the film comes so close to out-and-out greatness that it's almost disheartening to point out the core issues at fault, both because it feels petty and because it's almost a genre masterpiece. Still, there is much to like and quite a bit to love about Joss Whedon's The Avengers. On a pure popcorn spectacle scale I can't imagine anyone feeling that they didn't get their money's worth. As a piece of art however, it's a trickier proposition.

Press Release: Disney announces release date for Captain America 2.

The Walt Disney Studios has announced a release date for Marvel Studios’ sequel to the blockbuster Captain America: The First Avenger on April 4, 2014.  The second installment will pick-up where the highly anticipated Marvel’s The Avengers (May 4, 2012) leaves off, as Steve Rogers continues his affiliation with Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D and struggles to embrace his role in the modern world.

So now it appears that the studios are attempting to begin the unofficial summer season as early as April, thanks to the huge late-March business generated by The Hunger Games, along with the last two Fast/Furious entries, which pulled in blockbuster numbers in early-April 2009 and late-April 2011 respectively.  The last sentence seems to dispel any hope that a sequel would somehow primarily take place in the 1940s/World War II-era, although I wouldn't be surprised to see a story that blended flashbacks to Rogers's war efforts with a present-day story (it might be too soon to play the 'Winter Soldier' card, but I imagine that will pop up eventually).  Anyway, nothing more to report here.  I suppose the next step is to find a director, as Joe Johnston will apparently not be returning (which is a damn shame, but I digress).  Among those 'on the list' are F. Gary Gray (yay!), The Adjustment Bureau's George Nolfi (boo!), and Community directors Anthony and Joseph Russo (Sure, why not?).

Scott Mendelson

Snow White and the Huntsman gets a second (and very expensive) trailer.

This is certainly an improvement over the first teaser, if only in that it actually highlights Kristen Stewart's Snow White over the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth).  Whatever my thoughts on what this film represents (the rush to stick promising young actresses in the fairy tale princess box, the trend of giving completely green young filmmakers the reins to insanely expensive tentpoles, the creative bankruptcy that has spawned two competing Snow White films), this does look awfully compelling, at least on a visual level.  While I still think it's insane, I now can see why Universal spent $175 million on this picture, as at least the money looks somewhat on the screen.  There are certain special effects (the shattering soldiers for example) that are 'new', which is always a plus for your marketing campaign.  And while the young leads seem quite boring, Charlize Theron appears to be having the time of her life as the 'wicked queen'.  But at the end of the day, this still a Snow White meets Lord of the Rings hybrid, and thus there are only so many narrative paths the story can take.  Still, whatever my issues with the project in principal, this doesn't look like a lazy thoughtless effort (that it's going out as 2D theoretically implies a certain amount of care).  Universal drops this one on June 1st.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson       

Updated! The Avengers gets (surprisingly not terrible) character posters.

As you can see, Geek Tyrant snagged a full banner comprised of the posters below (individuals after the jump).  Maybe it's because the focus on each hero doesn't necessitate cramming six of them into a single one-sheet.  Maybe it's because the tight imagery makes the threat just outside the frame look genuinely world-threatening.  But for whatever reason, this is the first official piece of Avengers movie art in a while that I actually like.  Anyway, share your thoughts below, and kudos for finally getting Cobie Smulders on a poster.

Scott Mendelson

The Avengers gets a hilariously bad new poster, but provides marketing insights...

First and foremost, the photo-shopping on this poster is pretty terrible.  The proportions are off, Downey Jr's head is affixed on his body as poorly as the various male leads in that infamous Takers poster 2.5 years ago, and no one seems to be in the same scene (here's a great look at the various light-source issues).  And, just to annoy me, they went out of their way to make sure the lone female of the group is much shorter than anyone else in the poster.  Anyway, this one-sheet again sells the notion that the entire climactic battle scene (which seems to represent most of the film's action judging by the marketing thus far) takes place on a single street in downtown New York City.  More importantly, while director Joss Whedon has confirmed that the story will be somewhat Steve Rogers-centric, the marketing is (wisely or by decree) focusing on Tony Stark.  Not only is Robert Downey Jr. front-and-center on the poster, not only does he get top billing on the cast roll-call, but he actually gets his name BEFORE the title.  Anyway, Marvel/Disney is dropping a new trailer tomorrow.  I'm not sure why they aren't waiting nine days and attaching said trailer to prints of John Carter. That film will need what little help an Avengers trailer can provide on opening weekend.  But no matter, what are your thoughts on this particular piece of marketing?  Oh, and what are your thoughts on the news that the film will be titled The Avengers Assembled in the UK to avoid 'confusion' with The Avengers television series from the 1960s (edit - yeah, probably the infamous 1998 Avengers movie too)?

Scott Mendelson  

Snow White and the Huntsman gets a trailer and posters.

I know Tilda Swinton already played 'The White Witch' in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but Charlize Theron is seemingly doing a vocal Swinton impression anyway.  The rest of this looks pretty boiler-plate.  For what it's worth, Theron looks to be having a grand old time.  It's worth noting that while the teaser gives us token shots of Kristen Stewart wearing armor and engaging in battle, the 112-second clip makes sure to establish Chris Hemsworth's warrior huntsman as the alpha-figure of the film.  Regardless, this is a rather dull and uninspired clip, with only the sheer scale of the battle scenes and the whole 'knights shatter like glass upon being struck' trick that may be about winning the film a PG rating.  Anyway, this one comes out from Universal on June 1st, 2012.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson 

The Avengers trailer delivers kaboom, but it looks oddly small, soulless, artless.

Well, this is indeed a teaser for The Avengers.  I don't expect to see a ton of new footage behind what was teased in the Captain America credits sequence last July, but I am weary that this trailer is actually a perfect example of what I discussed yesterday.  While the film seems action packed, you'll notice that 80% of the action beats seem to be from the same exterior sequence, which is indeed the finale of the picture (with the remaining 20% apparently from a second-act invasion of the 'hall of justice').  With a budget of $220 million, only $20 million more than the nearly action-less Iron Man 2, will the film be mostly set-up for one giant battle in the last 20-30 minutes?  What we do see looks fine, if a bit small in scale and lacking any real sense of art or purpose.  Yes the special effects are not done, and I wonder if we'll see alien ships in that big shot of the randomly exploding cars in the final cut, but what's there pales in comparison to the sense of scale found in any number of big tentpoles of late (Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II, even Battle: Los Angeles).  It's characters we know and love basically posing for the camera (with Johansson again causing an explosion with her farting) and trying to convince us, the already converted, how bad-ass these heroes allegedly are.

Avengers assemble in poorly-photoshopped Entertainment Weekly cover.

It's no great tragedy, but the photo-shopping on display is pretty terrible.  The only real harm is that this poorly constructed and awkward Entertainment Weekly cover will probably count as a 'first look' for a large number of general moviegoers, just the sort that need to be intrigued to get this sure-to-be expensive comic book epic over the $185 million mark that seems to be the ceiling that non-Iron Man Marvel Studios projects seem to be reaching for.  Of course, Tony Stark is in this picture, but it really isn't going to be Iron Man 3 (especially since Thor and Captain America both did well this summer).  Anyway, enjoy Mark Ruffalo giving his best 'blue steel' look.  Derek Zoolander would approve.

Scott Mendelson

A place at the table: Patty Jenkins (Monster) to direct Thor 2. Why it matters.

Variety has apparently confirmed that Marvel Studios is indeed in talks with Patty Jenkins to replace departing Kenneth Branagh in directing Thor 2, which is due for release on July 26th, 2013.  I generally don't comment on news about who is 'in talks' or who is 'on the wish-list', but Patty Jenkins inclusion on this specific wishlist is worth commenting on.  Jenkins is best known for having helmed Monster, which won Charlize Theron a Best Actress Oscar in 2003 for her portrayal of serial killer Aileen Wuornos.  Since that triumph, she has unfortunately been relegated to directing occasional episodes of television, most recently helming the pilot for the AMC series The Killing.  This is a pleasantly out-of-left field choice that plays to Marvel's greatest strength as a studio, picking talented filmmakers who aren't necessarily known for comic book spectacle and/or aren't 'the hip new flavor of the month'.  While much of the coverage will focus on 'YAY, Marvel is possibly hiring the first-ever woman to direct one of its superhero movies!', there are two things worth noting.  First of all, Lexi Aexander, who directed Punisher: War Zone in 2008 (review) is also of the female persuasion.  Second of all, the lack of credits on Jenkins's IMDB page brings up a troubling double-standard.  Had a male, arguably any male, directed a critically-acclaimed and Oscar-winning drama like Monster, they surely would have been on every studio's wishlist for every major project (see Hopper, Tom or Forrester, Marc).  But, Jenkins has barely worked in the last eight years.

Is Richard Lester available? Disney and Marvel press ahead with Thor 2 for summer 2013, without director Kenneth Branagh.

Well, it looks like summer 2013 is the one where we find out how much the Marvel franchises truly depend on their would-be auteurs.  The summer will kick off with Iron Man 3 (directed not by Jon Favreau but by Shane Black) opens on the same first-weekend in May slot the previous two have debuted in.  And Disney announced today that Thor 2 is scheduled for July 26th, 2013.  The big news is that while star Chris Hemsworth will be back, original helmer Kenneth Branagh will not (Natalie Portman is contracted for a sequel, but we'll see if she makes the choice to return).  This is a surprise to say the least.  This is not a case like the Iron Man franchise, where Jon Favreau butted heads with Marvel throughout the sequel and decided to quit at two.  This isn't a case like Green Lantern, where Martin Campbell found himself a bit over his head with the whole green-screen/CGI action department and will probably fall on the sword for the movie's poor box office (Warner Bros' new habit of micromanaging didn't help either).  Thor withstood a weak marketing campaign and ended up with a rock-solid $437 million worldwide, earning relatively solid reviews in the process.  I don't wish to speculate and will only say that I hope that Branagh's choice to move on was merely a case of not wanting to get tied to the franchise, and not another case of penny-pinching by Marvel or some kind of corporate decision by Disney (which takes over the previously-Paramount owned Marvel films after Captain America).  Anyone want to offer suggestions or guess the release date?  As for replacement directors, it's the same list I always have: Sophia Coppola, Werner Herzog, and Terrence Malick.

Scott Mendelson      

Thor grosses $25.7 million on opening Friday, looks headed for $65-72 million debut weekend.

It was pretty much a foregone conclusion once the midnight numbers were released, but Marvel's Thor has opened with a rock-solid $25.7 million for its first Friday. The film is polling at a 'B+' from Cinemascore, with an 'A' from audiences under 18. The film did about 12% of that from midnight showings, which is normal for such fare. Where it goes from here is an open question of course. Non-sequels that did the 12% of their Friday grosses on midnight or Thursday night (Avatar and Inception for example) had weekend multipliers of about 2.8x, which would give Thor a hearty $72 million. But even a slightly front-loaded 2.6x would give the picture $65 million, which still feels like the likely end result for the Fri-Sun period. The other two major openers, Something Borrowed and Jumping the Broom, opened with $4.8 million and $4.1 million respectively, so both should gross around $12 million for the weekend. More to come once the weekend numbers roll in (although my analysis may be a little later than usual, due to the whole Mother's Day celebrations and what-not).

Scott Mendelson

Thor grosses $3.25 million in midnight sneaks, appears headed towards $43-72 million for the weekend ($65 million sounds about right).

With pretty much every major summer tentpole doing the whole 'midnight screening' thing this season, it's going to be that much easier to predict the weekend even earlier. So with that, we can report that Marvel's Thor (review) has opened with $3.25 million in midnight sneaks last night. As I've written before, a film that goes wide at 12:01am generally makes between 5% and 6% of its opening-weekend take in midnight screenings. There are exceptions (Avatar and Fast Five pulled in around 4.5% of their Fri-Sun grosses in 12:01am screenings), but 5-7% seems to be a healthy average. So with that in mind, assuming that Thor is inexplicably front-loaded (unlikely as its not a sequel) and/or suffers from poor word of mouth (also unlikely, as the film is pretty fun and satisfying), let's assume that Thor does about 5% of its opening weekend grosses at midnight. That would give Thor a $65 million opening weekend take. Playing the averages, Thor could gross anywhere from $43 million (7.5% in midnight sneaks, or a likely worst-case scenario) to $72 million (a best-case scenario 4.5% in midnight sneaks). We'll know more when the Friday numbers come in, but for now, it looks like Paramount has pulled off another massive opening for a challenging franchise. For those who want a detailed look at the math regarding midnight screenings, go here.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Thor: A 3D IMAX Experience

Thor
2011
115 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Despite Marvel and Paramount's best marketing efforts to convince otherwise, Kenneth Branagh's Thor is a perfectly satisfactory piece of popcorn entertainment. It is cheerfully silly and openly operatic, but played out with absolute conviction. It is no great landmark in the realm of comic book films, but it is easily the best of the Marvel-financed films thus far released. It has larger than life action with human-scale emotions, and Branagh directs with an unexpected confidence that seeps through the finish product. It is no great piece of art nor defining statement of our times, but its good-natured pomp makes its obvious flaws almost endearing.