Weekend Box Office: Oz: The Great and Powerful summons $80 million, with all signs pointing towards a leggy run.

I've said this before, but one of the problems with modern box office analysis is that it treats studio tracking numbers, which are supposed to be internal figures that can be used to adjust marketing in the run up to release, as ironclad box office predictions.  More often than not, pundits use tracking in a way that creates a preemptive doom-and-gloom scenario where a new release is painted as a box office turkey before it even opens *or* its used to give unrealistic expectations to a new release so that studios are then forced to defend what is actually a solid debut.  Such is the case with Oz: The Great and Powerful (trailer/posters).  The $215 million Disney prequel debuted with a strong $80.3 million this weekend.  Alas, due to rumblings and arbitrary presumptions that the film would open with as much as $100 million over the weekend, mostly due to the project's token similarities with Alice In Wonderland, Disney may now be forced to defend what is easily the biggest opening of 2013 by more than double and the third-biggest March debut ever behind Alice In Wonderland ($116 million) and The Hunger Games ($153 million).

The good news/bad news regarding the decidedly un-feminist female characters in Oz: The Great and Powerful.

Full-on spoiler warning...

Unfortunately pretty much everything I feared about Oz: The Great and Powerful, right from the second trailer, turned out to be true, at least from a gender perspective.  It is indeed about three seemingly powerful women sitting around and waiting for a random man who fell out of the sky to not only attempt to save Oz but, more importantly, shape all three of their respective destinies.  The film also equates beauty with virtue in a rather explicit fashion, with somewhat laughable scenes of Rachel Weisz's Evanora complaining of jealousy over Michelle Williams 'pretty face' seemingly oblivious to the fact that said evil witch is played by *Rachel Weisz* (spoiler: Rachel Weisz is insanely hot). It's not just that Mila Kunis and Michelle Williams play seemingly strong female characters who constantly yap about needing some prophesied male wizard to swoop down and save their asses. The biggest problem in the film is that it allows its feeble and somewhat selfish male hero to basically define them and their actions.

Oz: The Great and Powerful earns $2 million at 10pm/midnight.

Let's do the quick midnight math, shall we?  Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful earned an impressive $2 million at 10pm/midnight last night.  Now this isn't a geek-friendly comic book sequel or young-adult literary property in the vein of The Hunger Games, so midnight frontloading should be pretty limited.  That's a bit less than the $3.5 million earned by Alice In Wonderland and larger than the $1.6 million earned by Snow White and the Huntsman.  If we were talking about Thor 2: The Dark World, a $2 million 10pm/midnight number would mean around $40 million for the weekend, with an expected 5% of the weekend represented in advance showings, with potential for even harsher front-loading   But for a 'normal' movie, we're usually looking at between 2% and 4% representing the midnight number.  And let's be honest, this thing is going to explode on Saturday if only due to the lack of family films in the marketplace.  So offhand I'd wager a 3% 10pm/midnight take for a $66 million Fri-Sun debut, as Alice in Wonderland also did 3% of its $116 million weekend at midnight (as did Snow White and the Huntsman in a $56 million debut).  But the lack of family fare could mean an even bigger growth during weekend matinees and the film arguably has less 'must see now' factor due to the fact that Burton is a more mainstream name than Raimi.  So let's just call it 2.5% at 10pm/midnight for a $80 million weekend take.  But don't be too surprised to see it flirting with $100 million by Sunday.

Scott Mendelson  

Movie stars aren't an endangered species, they are more vital than ever in the $200 million fantasy tentpole era.

There are $200 million fantasy spectaculars opening within two weeks of each other at the moment.  If the $400,000 10pm/midnight figures for Jack the Giant Slayer is any indication, Warner Bros. is about to have its very own John Carter/Battleship ($25 million debut, $65 million finish, around $250 million worldwide at best).  Conversely Walt Disney has let the embargo wall fall for its Sam Raimi-helmed Oz: The Great and Powerful, which is allegedly tracking to open at around $75 million.  There are a number of reasons why Sam Raimi's fairy tale-redux is prime to perform better than Bryan Singer's such attempt. For one thing, I can take my daughter to the one that isn't PG-13 and doesn't involve giants biting peoples' heads off and/or setting them on fire.  Also helping is the strength and confidence of Disney's marketing versus Warner's "we know we laid a financial egg" trepidation.  But perhaps most importantly, Oz: The Great and Powerful has actual movie stars.  What?  I thought the era of the movie star was gone and the proverbial movie star was a relic of a bygone era?  Well... it's actually only half-true.

Oz: The Great and Powerful gets an FX-packed Super Bowl tease.

I'm still not uber-impressed, but I imagine I'll like the marketing more where James Franco talks less.  It's no secret that the current season is absolutely starved for kids-faire.  My daughter literally asked me today when there would be more kids movies for her to see. Whether or not I end up dragging her to this (my wife wants to see it too apparently), I imagine it will benefit mightily from the lack of such family-friendly fare in the first two months of the year, akin to The Lorax opening to $70 million last year for the same reason.  Come what may, it reminded me that I probably ought to show her the original Wizard of Oz, as I imagine she'd enjoy that one. It's also a fine education in the whole 'color vs. black-and-white' issue since she didn't end up seeing Frankenweenie.  This certainly looks visually impressive, with a sparse and less cluttered look compared to Burton's Alice In Wonderland.  The laughing at the end pretty much rules out Michelle Williams as the 'wicked witch', so now it's just a question of whether or not Rachel Weisz (who the laughing voice sounds most like) is the real villain or merely the red herring to hide Mila Kunis's true villainy.  Anyway, this is probably the last major tease we'll see until release, give or take the usual clips released online.

Scott Mendelson        

Oz: The Great and Powerful gets four new character posters. Why I might owe Disney a slight apology.

This banner dropped awhile ago, but I never got around to posting it so I'm using it at the top for convenience.  After the jump you'll get the four character posters that dropped on Friday but officially dropped from Disney on Monday.  In my essay last week about The Little Mermaid 3D, I included this film as a Disney property that was technically targeting boys but had female appeal.  I still stand by that statement, as the film is clearly James Franco's journey.  But it must be stated that the film also has three major female characters, all played by actresses of note and at least one of them playing something other than the love interest (I'm presuming some misdirection with Mila Kunis being revealed as the main 'wicked witch').  It doesn't mean I don't think the film looks a little iffy or that Franco seems to be attempting to give a bad performance, but it does mean that we'll get a major would-be tent pole where the major female characters outnumber the major male ones.  That frankly doesn't happen all that often so it deserves notice when it does.  Also of note is Michelle Williams's role in this, as it represents the acclaimed actresses's first tentpole appearance and her first major role in an overtly commercial picture since oh, Halloween: H20 in 1998 (you could say the superb Dick in 1999, but that flopped anyway).  Yes I know she cameoed in Shutter Island and did a voice in Where the Wild Things Are, but you know what I mean! Anyway, the character posters are after the jump.  And no, I will not be posting the 12-second teaser for this Sunday's Super Bowl commercial.

Scott Mendelson

Only James Franco can save the dames in second trailer for Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful.

Pretty much the same as the first teaser.  This thing looks pretty spectacular, and I can see where the $200 million went.  But the dialogue is painfully on-the-nose, the acting feels oddly stilted, and the narrative seems to center around a bunch of magical women who are helpless against the tyranny of a wicked witch until a random man arrives to save their ass.  One presumes that at least Rachel Weisz is revealed to be villainous and one hopes that the story ends on a somewhat somber note, as befitting Oz's somewhat crooked role in the classic Wizard of Oz story.  Still, what's being sold is a Mad Libs 'random white man must save us' story that made John Carter and Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes remake so dull, complete with the likes of Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, and Michelle Williams (plus possibly Abigail Spencer) treating Franco's clearly hapless visitor as the greatest thing since sliced bread.  The film may be more complicated than that, and I'd argue the talent involved implies that it may well work out.  But the film that Disney is selling is painfully derivative, arguably far more of a rip-off of Burton's Alice In Wonderland (which was of course a 'random white woman must save us, without the pre-adolescent fantasy present here) than any of the would-be copycats that we've seen over the last 2.5 years.  Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful opens March 8th, 2013.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson        

Watch/Discuss: Sam Raimi's Wizard of Oz prequel, Oz: The Great and Powerful, gets a badly acted teaser.

Not much to say here, as the first of I presume several Comic Con trailers comes online (The Lone Ranger screened for the convention, but it's not online yet). It looks like Disney and Sam Raimi are clearly trying to emulate Alice in Wonderland via The Wizard of Oz. Oddly enough, the acting is actually pretty bad in what little of it we see, as James Franco (Oz) ', Mila Kunis, and Michelle Williams (Glinda the 'Good Witch') come off as stilted and uncomfortable with the fairy-tale trappings. I'm sure Rachel Weisz will kick ass as Evanora (IE - the Wicked Witch) and the $200 million visuals will be a feast for the eyes, but the oddly 'off' lead performances should put up an immediate 'danger' signal. Anyway, Oz: The Great and Powerful opens on March 8th, 2013. As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful gets a teaser poster. Is it the next Alice In Wonderland or the next John Carter?

It's going to be a slow week at Mendelson's Memos this week, both because I have holiday-related family stuff and because I have a slight case of writer's block (I don't want to incessantly whine about The Amazing Spider-Man and not much else is happening news-wise at least until I see Savages on Friday morning).  Anyway, Disney dropped this poster for Sam Raimi's $200 million (!!!) Oz: The Great and Powerful, which is apparently a prequel to the original Wizard of Oz.  Disney is opening this on March 8th, 2013, or the same weekend that Disney's Alice In Wonderland debuted in 2010.  Let's hope they have better luck with this James Franco/Mila Kunis/Zach Braff/Michelle Williams/Rachel Weisz tent-pole than they did with their last first-weekend-of-March entry, John Carter.


Scott Mendelson

Review: Ted (2012) is a blisteringly funny and painfully insightful look at generational nostalgia.

Ted

2012
105 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Seth MacFarlane's Ted joins the ranks of Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle and Observe and Report among razor-sharp cultural satires cleverly disguised as dumb comedies. While it doesn't quite reach the brilliance of the former, it is an altogether warmer, sweeter, and more empathetic film that the latter pitch-black comedy. It would be tempting to write the film off as pure popcorn exercise in vulgarity, and on that account it is an unquestionable success. But beneath the one-joke premise and the R-rated humor lays a piercing examination of a culture unable to let go of the entertainment they grew up on. To paraphrase a very wise friend of mine*, our generation defines itself not by the historical events of our lifetime but rather by the entertainment we consumed as we grew up. Writer/director Seth MacFarlane, along with co-writers Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild, would surely agree with that statement.  But they take it a step further.  For those in our generation who refuse to truly grow up, the entertainment of our past is a crutch for furthering the cause of arrested development. That MacFarlane would craft a film so critical of both his core demographic and one of the key components of his own joke box is an act of genuine bravery.

Weekend Box Office: (07/24/11): Captain America opens with $65m, Friends With Benefits opens to $19m, Harry Potter 7.2 drops 72% but dominates worldwide..

Captain America: The First Avenger (review) debuted at number one this weekend, earning a rock-solid $65.1 million.  The opening puts it just behind Thor ($65.7 million) for the second-biggest superhero debut of the year.  The film scored an A- from Cinemascore and had an okay 2.52x weekend multiplier.  It played 64% male and 57% over-25 (I don't have 3D stats yet).  I had hopes for a higher opening weekend after the $4 million midnight debut (bigger than any non-sequel this year), but in the end it played like every other super hero film this year.  On a personal note, I'm a little disappointed that the film didn't play better to women, as Hayley Atwell's Peggy Carter ranks as one of the best female lead/love interest characters in comic book movie history (IE - she's an authoritative ass-kicker whose general bad ass-ness is taken completely for granted and whose eventual romance with Steve Rogers actually has emotional weight).  Still the large over-25 percentage implies that the film is playing well to older audiences who were drawn in more by the period and the older actors (Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, etc) than the comic book genre or character popularity.  Still those older audiences are being heavily targeted by Universal's campaign for Cowboys and Aliens (also based on a comic book, albeit a relatively cult one), which hopes to lasso non-geeks with the James Bond (Daniel Craig) teams with Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) gimmick.  Barring unexpected collapse, it should go toe-to-toe with Thor, which just crossed $180 million this weekend.  Overseas numbers are a bigger question (the movie doesn't expand much internationally for a couple weeks), as Paramount is emphasizing the international nature of Captain America's 'Howling Commandos' as well as the fact that the primary threat isn't nation-specific (IE - Red Skull is too crazy even for the Nazis!).  But for now, this is a dynamite debut for one of the summer's biggest question marks, fitting for a movie that turned out to be far better than most were expecting (and if you're that idiot who wants to assign the movie to a specific ideology, READ THIS first).  

Cheap but funny: Ben Churchill mashes up No Strings Attached, Friends With Benefits into a single trailer.

This may be cheap (I'm sure you can do this with any number of movies that happen to have a similar premise), but the result is a genuine hoot.  No Strings Attached was relatively okay, a C+ picture that merits a DVD rental and at least tried to have something worthwhile on its mind.  Here's hoping the seemingly bawdier Friends With Benefits at least reaches those heights.  The latter comes out July 22nd.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Black Swan (2010)

Black Swan
2010
110 minutes
Rated R
Opens December 3rd in select theaters

By Scott Mendelson

Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan is a dazzling and often intoxicating horror story. No, it's not a body count slasher picture or a supernatural spook story, but it is every bit as unnerving as the best in traditional horror. It is at the core a character study of one woman striving for perfection in a severely competitive field and the various people around her who may or may not be looking out for her best interests. But the film is told in such a dazzling fashion that it often resembles a fever dream. It is scrumptious entertainment and a remarkable bit of cinema. It also contains a remarkably full-throttle performance by Natalie Portman, one that will likely win her an Oscar next year.