Weekend Box Office (02/05/12): Chronicle and The Woman In Black both debut to around $20 million while Big Miracle tanks.

As I wrote yesterday (HERE), I don't care which of the two big releases end up at number one for this weekend.  Chronicle and The Woman In Black are both low-budget over/under $15 million releases that are somewhat abnormal in terms of what's considered a mainstream release, both were exceedingly well-marketed (as opposed to 'saturation marketing'), and both are unqualified hits after their first three days.  But since I have to choose which film to discuss first, I will pick Chronicle (review), which A) I've seen and B) is the unofficial #1 film this weekend with $22 million (as opposed to The Woman In Black, which made 'just' $21 million).  Chronicle announces the arrival of director Josh Trank (and writer Max Landis, son of John).  The quite compelling and thoughtful character study, which is plays with the genre trappings of as super-hero origin story through the 'found footage' format, cost just $12 million and drew a large chunk of young audiences of both genders (it played 45% female).  I have no idea what the legs will be like on this downbeat morality play (it received a B from Cinemascore), but I'd argue its artistic and box office success pretty much kills Warner Bros's planned live-action Akira remake and hurts Sony's The Amazing Spider-Man (which is advertising itself as a more low-key and emotionally-gritty superhero origin story... whoops).  Come what may, a very good and creative little movie just opened very well, and that's a win for everyone.

I don't care whether Chronicle or The Woman In Black tops the box office, and here's why you shouldn't either...

With a neck-and-neck opening Friday, two of the three major wide releases both look like they will end up with around $20 million over the Super Bowl weekend.  Both Chronicle and The Woman In Black had budgets around $15 million and targeted ad campaigns, meaning that a $20 million debut makes both films pretty solid hits right out of the gate.  But many of the box office pundits are of-course obsessing over which film will be #1 for the weekend, offering up-to-the-minute updates as to which of the two films is in the lead over the ongoing weekend.  For example, Exhibitor Relations tossed out a Facebook post stating that "Chronicle is holding off The Woman In Black again today, up by about 500k, but the lead could shrink tomorrow. Still too close to call."  I've written now and then about how the spin and 'campaigning' in mainstream Hollywood is similar to the political scene in Washington DC, and it certainly applies in this case.   Like many of the political primaries being waged all over the country in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, weekend box office is not a winner-take-all proposition.  Just as most states' (38 out of 50) delegates are divided up based on percentage of total votes for a given candidate, the film that takes the number 01 spot does not get all of the ticket sales for the weekend.

Trailer: Daniel Radcliffe's The Woman In Black teases old-school gothic horror and period-piece ghostly menace. Yes, please.

This frankly looks fantastic.  First of all, Daniel Radcliffe genuinely looks like a young adult, which is of paramount necessity to selling this one.  But, most importantly, this looks like a slice of genre heaven.  The atmosphere feels real, the production looks stark and foreboding, and the use of a young girl to narrate the sinister poem sounds just right.  Kudos to CBS Films for apparently leaving much to the imagination, as the film offers plenty of creepy imagery while leaving the general narrative and presumably most of the big shocks unspoiled.  This one comes out on February 3rd of 2012.  As always, we'll see, but I'm pretty sure this one will be worth the babysitter (be it for a press screening or opening night).

Scott Mendelson 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II nets $92.1m in single day, crushing the single day record and heading towards new opening weekend record ($175-185 million seems likely).

In November 2001, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone set a new opening weekend record by grossing $90.2 million in three days.  Yesterday, the series finale, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II (review) grossed $92.1 million in a single day. Let that sink in for a moment.  Yes, the eighth and final chapter of the Harry Potter series overtook the single-day record from The Twilight Saga: New Moon, which had grossed $72.7 million on its opening Friday back in (same weekend, natch) mid-November 2009.  Yes, some of this 26% increase can be attributed to the 3D price-bump (I imagine that Summit is in a room right now convincing themselves to convert the last two Twilight films to 3D).  And yes, the film earned a record 47% of its opening day total at midnight alone ($43.5 million).  But I'll let someone else complain about that.  Even with inflation and 3D prices taken into account, the film still sold 11.7 million tickets, the most ever for a single day (and a little over 2 million more than The Dark Knight and Twilight Saga: New Moon).  Even if Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II has the most front-loaded opening weekend in history (African Cats has the record with a 1.81x weekend multiplier), it still will likely dethrone The Dark Knight ($158 million) as the new opening weekend champion.

A look back at Harry Potter part VI: The Half-Blood Prince delivers the worst adaptation from one of the best books.

This will be a six-part retrospective on the Harry Potter film series, covering films 1-6 (I think most Potter fans can remember the one that came out eight months ago...).  This essay will be covering Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

When I first saw the film two years ago, I concluded that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was my least favorite of the series (original theatrical review).  Looking back at the films, I've amended that somewhat.  The Chamber of Secrets is arguably the worst film in the franchise (keeping in mind that I like them all), and The Half-Blood Prince is what it always was: a good entry in the franchise that suffers from (in my opinion) the choice to edit out much of what made the original book worthwhile.  At the time, I gave the film much grief for how it handled the climactic plot twist, rendering what I remember being shocking and unexpected in the book something that was all-but preordained.  But the movie is not the book.  Whatever issues I have with the film as an adaptation of a novel that I was quite fond of, the film itself remains a solid piece of character-driven fantasy.  Like The Goblet of Fire, The Half-Blood Prince arguably was judged harsher than it should have been because it was among my favorite of the books.  I still have problems with the film, but that should be kept separate from my problems regarding its worth as an adaptation.

A look back at Harry Potter part V: Order of the Phoenix proves value of editing, creating one of the best films from the worst book.

This will be a six-part retrospective on the Harry Potter film series, covering films 1-6 (I think most Potter fans can remember the one that came out eight months ago...).  This essay will be covering Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

In my humble opinion, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the worst book in the seven part series.  It is obscenely long, endlessly padded, and painfully frustrating.  Yes, the frustration thing is intentional, as we're supposed to empathize with Harry as the original 'order of the phoenix' ignores him, as Dumbledore inexplicably avoids him, and as Dolores Umbridge torments him.  But the book is nearly 900 pages long, and the original novel plays out like one long waiting game before what is sure to be a massive climactic event and/or revelation.  As we all know, there is a big climactic event, but the revelation is halfhearted (wait... so Voldemort watched Gargoyles in the 1990s?) and undermined by an even more tantalizing reveal (that Neville Longbottom is actually the chosen one) which is shot down moments after it is introduced.  But the longest book is the second-shortest movie at 138 minutes (behind the series finale, which runs 130 minutes, although it's technically half of a single book).  Making his series debut, David Yates and screenwriter Michael Goldenberg (taking over for Steve Kloves just this once) trim every drop of fat from the overlong text, shaping a lean and potent bit of pop fantasy that is easily one of the best films in the series.

A look back at Harry Potter part IV: The Goblet of Fire hits the most of the major story points, but lacks the fiery emotion of the best book in the series.

This will be a six-part retrospective on the Harry Potter film series, covering films 1-6 (I think most Potter fans can remember the one that came out eight months ago...).  This essay will be covering Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is easily my favorite book in the series.  It is not my favorite movie in the series.  It is also a very long and complicated book, one that was nearly split up into two films.  That director Mike Newell decided to stick to one long movie is I suppose commendable.  But as a result, the fourth Harry Potter film is the only entry that truly feels like a Cliff Notes version of the original text.   It hits most of the major plot points, but feels understandably rushed and somewhat compromised.  Taken outside of its worth as an adaptation, it still remains one of the better films in the series.  It is easily the most action packed film in the franchise (until the finale, I presume), and there is plenty of solid character interaction between our young heroes.  The adults again get the shaft, although Michael Gambon finally comes into his own as Dumbledore (I love the moment where he basically attacks Harry while asking him if he indeed sneaked his name into the Tri-Wizards tournament cup).  It is, objectively, an exciting and entertaining fantasy action picture, but one that feels curiously remote considering the emotional stakes and epic narrative.  As the first entry actually directed by a Brit (Mike Newell), it perhaps maintains too much of that stiff upper lip.

A look back at Harry Potter part III: The Prisoner of Azkaban deepens the mythology and lets the adult wizards come out to play.

This will be a six-part retrospective on the Harry Potter film series, covering films 1-6 (I think most Potter fans can remember the one that came out eight months ago...).  This essay will be covering Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

As anyone who follows my year-end lists can attest, I firmly believe that it is possible for a film to be good yet still be overrated.  So it is we come to the third Harry Potter film, which is often referred to as 'the only good one' or 'the arty one' or 'the only cinematic one' and other such rubbish.  I am not going to get into the reasons why certain film critics and film snobs hold this third chapter is such high esteem compared to the others, but I'd wager that a big part of it comes from an elitist attitude towards original helmer Chris Columbus, combined with a certain snobbery directed in favor of director Alfonso Cuaron.  Point being, while this third Harry Potter picture does branch out a bit in several positive directions, it also undermines itself and the eventual fifth film by failing to properly develop its most important new character.  As a result of this, while it may be one of the more stand-alone of the pictures, it flirts with irrelevancy in the ongoing narrative despite technically jump-starting that very mythology.

A look back at Harry Potter part II: The Chamber of Secrets stumbles with far too much time to do far too little.

This will be a six-part retrospective on the Harry Potter film series, covering films 1-6 (I think most Potter fans can remember the one that came out eight months ago...).  This essay will be covering Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is not one of the best films in the series.  It is arguably one of the lesser books as well, although I enjoyed that book more than most.  But both the book and the movie accomplished the same feat: they made me feel right at home upon arriving back at this world, and reaffirmed that I would be returning again and again.  But looking objectively at the second film, there is a distinct lack of an emotional core.  It lacks the thrill of introduction and it lacks the highly personal stakes that start to reveal themselves in the next installment.  As a result of these comparative deficiencies, it is far-too long a film considering how little ground it has to cover (to be fair, I watched the extended cut, which runs nearly 3 hours long).  Of all the films in the series, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets most closely resembles 'just another episode' for Harry and his pals.  In X-Files terms, it was a 'standalone', as opposed to a 'mythology' episode.  But it remains an entertaining romp in good company, and it represents a genuine leap in terms of visual effects and intensity of action.

A look back at Harry Potter part I: The Sorcerer's Stone starts things off right.

This will be a six-part retrospective on the Harry Potter film series, covering films 1-6 (I think most Potter fans can remember the one that came out eight months ago...).  The first essay will be covering Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

I have long defended the Chris Columbus Harry Potter films.  Despite their kid-friendly nature and exposition-heavy narratives, they had to do the heavy lifting right from the get-go.  And in hindsight, with the series about to end, it is apparent that Chris Columbus's first two pictures had two major jobs to do: nail the casting and introduce the world at-large.  And in that respect, Christopher Columbus's films are triumphant successes.  I have said countless times over the years just what a miracle it was that the gigantic cast of youngsters and British character actors stayed intact over the course of eight films.  Aside from the death of Richard Harris in 2002, there was not a single cast change from the first film to the last.  And while few would expect anything but the best from the likes of Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, and Robbie Coltrane, the kids were where Columbus and company really hit pay-dirt.  That Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson all grew up to be capable actors and (it must be said) physically attractive young adults is a gift, that's even discounting the sheer luck that so many of the smaller supporting players (Bonnie Wright, Matthew Lewis, Tom Felton, etc) turned out to have the relative chops when they were needed (and yes, puberty was quite kind to them as well).  So before I get into the strengths and minuses of the first two pictures, let us acknowledge how much of a bloody miracle this cast was from the very beginning, a cast that Columbus deserves much credit for assembling.