Love the sinner, hate the sin: Films I like or love despite finding them morally or ideologically objectionable.

Let's pretend for a moment that Zero Dark Thirty does in fact do all of the things that its critics, many of whom have not even seen the film, are claiming.  Let's pretend that it endorses torture on a practical and/or moral level.  Let's pretend that it implies/states that information gleaned from torture was essential in catching Osama Bin Laden and would not have been discovered any other way.  Does that (incorrect, I'd argue) interpretation automatically negate its worth as quality film making?  There has been much discussion of the alleged morality of Bigelow and Boal's superb procedural, much of it penned by those who believe that either it is 'pro-torture' or at least will be interpreted as much by general moviegoers (a classic case of 'I'm smart enough to understand but they aren't').  The question for those critics becomes whether its alleged sins negates its worth and/or can be separated from its qualities as a film.  But quite frankly, it's more than possible to enjoy a film while disagreeing with its opinions or moral worldview.  In fact, this whole thing started with David Edelstein picking the film as his favorite of 2012 while also calling it morally reprehensible.With that in mind, without endorsing any of the somewhat simplistic ( in my opinion wrongheaded) views of Zero Dark Thirty, I thought this would be a good time to discuss a few films that I happen to like and/or love despite being vehemently opposed to their respective ideologies. Spoilers ahoy!

Review: Hitchcock (2012) thinks you can't handle the truth.

Hitchcock

2012

95 minutes

rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

It is telling that the opening frames of Sacha Gervasi's Hitchcock don't even give us the usual 'based on a true story' text as its allegedly non-fiction story begins.  It's the only honest moment of the entire picture, which is so gloriously full of shit that it can't bear to even pretend that the story it's presenting is remotely truthful.  Technically based on Stephen Rebello's 1990 book, Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho, the film alters history, dilutes the contributions of talented individuals, commits outright libel against others, while basically ignoring its central subject (the, um, making of Psycho) in favor of a contrived would-be romantic conflict between Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) and Alma Reville (Helen Mirren).  Worse yet, the story is told in broad, on-the-nose strokes that resembles the kind of writing found in bad childrens' cartoons and the picture revolves around hindsight-superiority that renders it potently obnoxious.  It plays less as an adult drama and more like a Hitchcock biography blandly written for first-graders.

Hitchcock (IE - The Making of Psycho) gets a trailer.

Well this looks like good fun, even if it tries to sell the making of a popcorn entertainment as an epic "Us vs. the World!" underdog story.  Based purely on the cast alone, this is one of my top must-sees of the Oscar season, as I can't imagine it not being a gold-star acting treat.  I could carp that it follows the standard biopic trailer, even to the point of trying to sell the story of the world's most famous director making his next pulp fiction as a grand David vs. Goliath story.  But the actors all look grand and this looks like a good bit of inside-baseball fun.  I don't know how much general moviegoers will care about this one (when I was twelve, would my friends and older relatives flocked to a film about the making of The Treasure of Sierra Madre?), but if it's cheap enough if should be a solid investment.  I do wish we had gotten a glimpse of Michael Wincott as serial murderer Ed Geinn, but I hope his apparent absence doesn't mean he's but a cameo. Anyway, Hitchcock debuts on November 1st as the opening film of the AFI Film Festival before debuting in limited release on November 23rd.  As always, we'll see.  Your thoughts?  

She has a name. Her name is Sharon Carter! On the way we discuss actresses and female characters in genre fare.

One of the big would-be stories yesterday was the announcement of five actresses apparently on the 'short list' to play Sharon Carter in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.  Such stories are always big news in the blogsphere, mainly because it allows bloggers to write a handful of sentences and then decorate their site with various pictures of attractive women.  What's amusing/disconcerting about these stories is how pretty much every single website describes this role as 'the love interest' or 'the romantic interest'.  Most of the sites can't even muster a token 'female lead', opting to describe the role as Steve Roger's "arm candy".  Look, barring some inexplicable surprise, we all know that one of the five actresses in the running (Emilia Clarke, Jessica Brown-Findlay Teresa Palmer, Imogen Poots, and Alison Brie) is likely playing Shield agent Sharon Carter, distant relative (grand-daughter/great-niece, etc.) of Hayley Atwell's Peggy Carter in the last Captain America film.  She has a name, she has a character and a history that can be referred to when discussing this casting news.  How about we use some of that information instead of just referring to her as Steve Roger's newest sexy time partner?  

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.

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.

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.

First look at Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock.

I wrote a piece last month detailing ten films I was eagerly anticipating post-Dark Knight Rises.  Had I waited just a few weeks, I damn-well would have included Fox Searchlight's Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho (or Hitchcock, as its allegedly been renamed).  The film is an adaption of the Stephen Rebello book detailing um... Alfred Hitchcock's making of Psycho back in 1960.  It's a fascinating bit of old-school film history, and its lined-up one of the coolest casts in recent memory.  You've got Anthony Hopkins as the 'master of suspense' himself and Helen Mirren as his wife.  You've got Scarlett Johansson (as Janet Leigh), Jessica Biel (Vera Miles), Toni Collette (Peggy Robertson), Danny Huston (Whitfield Cook), Kurtwood Smith (Geoffrey Shurlock), and James D'Arcy (as Anthony Perkins).  And that's not including my two favorite bits of inspired casting.  Aside from the much-appreciated hiring of Michael Wincott to play infamous serial murderer Ed Gein (essay), they've also brought on Ralph Macchio as Psycho screenwriter Joseph Stefano (no word yet if the author of the novel Psycho, Robert Bloch, will show up). Wincott and Macchio are both highly under-appreciated actors who have struggled to get steady work over the last decade, and neither of 'obvious choices'.  The film has no release date as of yet, but it's easily one of Mendelson's Memos' most anticipated films over the next couple years.

Scott Mendelson

Coolest casting news of the year: Michael Wincott to join Fox Searchlight's Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho as Ed Gein! Dare we hope for a comeback?

Variety broke the story, but since they have a pay-wall, I'll link to The Playlist.  I'm not one to comment on every bit of casting news as it happens, but this one is personally exciting so I'll share.  Most of the hub-bub about Fox Searchlight's Alfred Hitcock and the Making of Psycho has focused on the casting of Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh and Jessica Biel as Vera Miles, with Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as Mr. Hitchcock and his wife.  But buried in the flurry of casting news is what I can only pray is a comeback role for one of my favorite character actors.  Among those joining the cast is none-other than Michael Wincott, who will be playing real-life serial-murderer Ed Gein, who allegedly served as the inspiration for Norman Bates (arguably more-so in the original Robert Bloch novel than the Hitchcock movie).  Anyway, I won't go into Gein's sordid history here (although he's only confirmed to have murdered a few people), but I will say that if you feel like spending $9 to buy the 2003 remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre  on blu-ray, there is a fine documentary about the man.  He is the loose inspiration for Norman Bates, Leatherface, and Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs, so I suppose it makes sense that he would play a role in this making-of-a-movie story.

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  

Cameron Crowe's We Bought a Zoo gets a cute and clever poster and a PG rating.

Please don't stink.  Please be better than Elizabethtown.  I don't expect anything approaching Almost Famous, but please be at least as good as Vanilla Sky. By the way, somewhat unexpectedly, this one just got a PG for 'language and some thematic elements'.  As I wrote three years ago, it's pretty rare for a live-action film to get a PG in this day-and-age, and it's clear that Fox is going after the 'bring the whole family' crowd that made Marley and Me such a smash in Christmas 2008.

Scott Mendelson