Without comment or emphasis: Why The Avengers may end up this summer's most progressively-feminist blockbuster.

I wasn't going to write about The Avengers again for awhile (other than box office) both because I didn't have much more to offer and because I didn't want this blog to turn into 'all Avengers all the time'.  But I would like to take a moment to single-out a specific element that the film does quite well.  There has been much hand-wringing this week about whether or not The Avengers (and specifically its two major female characters) qualifies as 'feminist'.  Pundits are understandably upset about the lack of more female lead characters, and the fact that the film fails the Bechdel Test.  Merely presenting a couple strong female characters doesn't automatically make your product feminist in nature nor does creating a sausage-fest with a token love interest make your film inherently misogynistic, although the latter does make me roll my eyes a bit more often than not.  But the way Joss Whedon and company present their female superheros merits acknowledgment primarily because of what they don't do. In short, they don't draw one damn bit of attention to it.

Unconventional Wisdom: So Chris Nolan's Batman films inspired a trend of dark/gritty blockbusters? Such as?

I've discussed this a few times over the years, so while debunking the concept in question I must accept guilt for believing it uncritically on prior occasions. If you've been reading reviews and general commentary for The Avengers, you've probably read at least a few pundits talk about how Joss Whedon's The Avengers is a welcome respite from the grim/gritty blockbusters that were born from the massive success of Chris Nolan's Batman movies (the second of which is still falsely held up as a NeoCon propaganda fantasy).  It's an easy sell, as the bright, colorful, and larger-than-life super-heroics found in The Avengers are worlds away from the street-level fights and chases in the Nolan-verse.  But in the seven years since Batman Begins debuted, where exactly are all of these grim/gritty blockbusters that Nolan is constantly credited with inspiring?  In short, they basically don't exist.  Whether it be comic book films or unrelated fantasy blockbusters, the films that soared highest are still the biggest, most colorful, most larger-than-life, and arguably the most 'fun'.  Four years after The Dark Knight, Chris Nolan's second Batman epic remains not a template for blockbuster success but somewhat of an anomaly.

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.

Friday box office: The Avengers grosses $80 million on Friday. Why we may be looking at a $200 million opening weekend!

Ten years ago we had the first $100 million opening weekend.  Five years ago we had the first $150 million opening weekend.  This weekend, we may be looking at the first $200 million Fri-Sun opening weekend.  The Avengers followed up its $18.7 million midnight haul with a $80.5 million gross for its first full day.  That's the  second-biggest single day on record, behind the $92 million opening sprint for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II.  It's also by far the largest single-day gross not counting midnight screenings.  Even if you negate the midnight haul, The Avengers still grossed $61 million during 'regular business hours'.  For example, The Dark Knight earned $18.5 million at midnight and $67 million for its first full Friday, giving it a $49 million 'normal day' Friday figure.  Among the various single day champions in recent years: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II ($92m - $43m = $49 million), Spider-Man 3 ($59m - $10m = $48m), The Hunger Games ($67m - $19.75m = $48m), and The Twilight Saga: New Moon ($72m - $26m = $46m).  As you can see, The Avengers is so-far actually far less front-loaded than all of them, meaning it is playing less like a heavily-anticipated geek-centric smash and more like a general audiences mega-hit. Point being, the three-day opening weekend record ($169 million for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II) is still very much in jeopardy.

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...

For those who wish to rant: The Avengers spoilers thread...

It's just about 11:00pm, meaning that folks on the east coast will soon be getting out of the midnight screenings of The Avengers.  Anyway, I've never done this before, but I'm officially opening the floor to those who comment regularly.  I'm guessing 90% of my readers will have seen The Avengers by Sunday evening, so this is the spot to discuss the film in all its spoiler-filled glory over what may be a record-setting weekend.  I may come back in the morning and add a few spoiler-y thoughts, but for now, it's your turn.  Obviously if nobody comments I won't do this kind of thing again, so please don't be shy.  What worked, what didn't?  How was the theatrical experience, in terms of projection quality and the crowds?  Anyone in costume?  Any anecdotes?  You get the idea.  And with that, I hope you all had a good time and I'm off to bed...

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (04/15/12): Hunger Games fends off Three Stooges, Cabin in the Woods, and Lockout.

In the third-to-last weekend before summer, The Hunger Games fended off a trio of "B-movies" to retain the top spot this weekend for the fourth time in a row.  But the ranking is arbitrary and the real news is (as always) the numbers themselves. There were three new wide releases this weekend and none of them were expected to set the box office on fire.  None of them did, although Fox had a surprisingly solid debut for the Farrelly Bros' The Three Stooges.  Despite painful trailers and an initial batch of lousy reviews, the film played well to family audiences and reviews seemed to improve as reluctant critics took in a matinee show and came out surprised.  The picture opened with $17 million, which is good for the third-biggest debut for the Farrelly Bros, behind the $22 million debut of Shallow Hal in 2001 and the $24 million debut of Me, Myself, and Irene in 2000.  Since Shallow Hal, the comedic directing duo have not had a film gross over $45 million in the US, so this spry opening should help them pass that particular benchmark even if it collapses next weekend.  Although it scored a rare 3x weekend multiplier, so it's not hard to imagine the film having token legs until summer arrives.   The film earned a B- from Cinemascore, with a 'C' from audiences over 25 but an 'A' from audiences under 18.  This $30 million production should be quite profitable especially when you factor in the seemingly invincible 20th Century Fox foreign marketing machine (this could easily be another Fox film that earns $60 million here but $120 million overseas).  While the Farrelly Bros have probably peaked critically and commercially, as long as they can bring in comedies at $30-40 million, they can probably do what they want for the rest of their careers.

Review: Cabin in the Woods (2012) is about as wonderful as you've heard.

Cabin in the Woods

2012
90 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

The problem with discussing a film like writer/director Drew Goddard and writer Joss Whedon's Cabin in the Woods is that the very things that make the movie most worth discussing are the very things that should barely be hinted at.  So I will simply say that the hype and buzz are real.  The script is pulpy and intelligent, so clever is the writing and so surprisingly sympathetic are the characters that I would gladly watch a more conventional 'teens go to the woods and bad stuff happens' movie with this specific cast.  But as you learn within the first few minutes, there is a token twist to the seemingly generic proceedings.  What that is I will not say.  But I will say that what starts as something resembling a deconstruction of the last 10 years of horror films becomes a rallying cry against the sort of obsessively-anal dissection that makes up much of 'fanboy' discussion these days, often in the form of pre-release manufactured hype ("Ten clues found in the Dark Knight Rises poster... what do they MEAN?!?!").  But even if you don't feel like embracing its philosophical undertones, the picture operates in a skewed way as an endorsement of horror as a genre, both for its entertainment value and its social function as a healthy outlet for dealing with unpleasant ideas.  And oh yeah, it's also a funny and scary little gem of a movie.

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  

Super Bowl commercial: The Avengers (extended preview) adds money-shots, lacks visual oomph, high-toned polish, and a sense of grand scale.

There are certain a handful of 'money-shots' in this 70-second spot, and the final Hulk action beat is the kind of thing that gets people excited.  Still, there is something missing here, both in the sense of actual action content (it still feels like 80% of the action occurs in the third act) and a certain visual pizzazz.  The first preview was in 1.85:1 and while this one seems to be 2.35:1 (or something close to that), there is a certain flatness to the footage.  I'm as much of a Joss Whedon fan as the next nerd, but he is known more for his dialogue and his character-plotting than any directorial flourish.  Without a certain polished sheen or rich color-scheme, scenes like that final 360-degree pan looks like five people playing dress-up with high-end Halloween costumes (compare the new Captain America costume with any still from Johnston's Captain America).  It's tough to put my finger on it, but the whole film (from what we've seen so far) looks and feels a bit plain, and thus doesn't feel as epic or even as 'big' as it damn-well should.  Of course, if the writing and acting are up-to-par, the visual issues will matter that-much less.  But it is still a bit disheartening to see what is supposed to be 'the mother of all superhero films' that looks significantly less epic and large-scale than even the first Spider-Man picture.  The Avengers of course drops on May 4th.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson