Can Fox And Dreamworks Combined Challenge Disney's Animation Empire?

 

During the summer of 2013, there will be six animated (or live-action/animated hybrid) entries.  At a glance, it would seem like healthy competition as each of the major current players are offering an official entry into the summer box office sweepstakes.  You've got 20th Century Fox taking a shot at proving they can do more than Ice Age sequels, delivering the somewhat on-the-nose-titled Epic over Memorial Day weekend.  Pixar unleashes their official summer entry, the Monsters Inc. prequel Monsters University on June 21st.  Universal delivers its trump card with Despicable Me 2 over July 4th weekend while Dreamworks releases its snail-racing comedy Turbo on July 17th, a frankly unusual release date for them, but no matter.  Sony delivers The Smurfs 2 on July 31st while Disney offers up the previously straight-to-DVD entry Planes on August 9th.

White House Down gets a conspiratorial trailer...

Well, color me intrigued. Sony is making smart choices here, selling this second Die Hard In the White House movie not as a pulpy action flick but as a large-scale disaster movie.  It puts the film squarely in the realm of director Roland Emmerich and successfully differentiates itself from Olympus Has Fallen.  Also of note, other than the larger scale seemingly on display (this is the more expensive version, natch), is the opposing narratives.  While Olympus Has Fallen concerned a certain xenophobic 'scary foreigners will try to destroy America!' plot line, White House Down seems to be going for the more conspiracy-minded 'we did this to ourselves by betraying our morals' or what-have-you.  It also teases plot twists and surprises beyond the action template, making viewers wonder what terrible secrets will be revealed and who and what actually caused the onscreen carnage.  So yeah, I think the world is big enough for two White House-under siege movies.  White House Down opens June 28th, 2013.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson         

M. Night Shayamalan's After Earth gets a second promising trailer.

Cautious optimism is the phrase here.  This looks good.  This looks like a solid and visually creative piece of big-budget science-fiction.  Will Smith generally doesn't make awful movies.  Jaden Smith held his own three years ago against an Oscar-worthy Jackie Chan in The Karate Kid.  And M. Night Shyamalan?  Well, one can only hope that this seemingly work-for-hire project allow him to find his groove again, especially with Will Smith in the producer's chair able and willing to tell him "no".  I know I say this a lot, but I still believe in M. Night Shyamalan.  The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are two of the best films of the last fifteen years.  Signs is top-notch popcorn entertainment and even The Village and Lady in the Water have things worth noting (potent political subtexts and a powerful musical score in the former, a haunting Paul Giamatti performance in the other).  But come what may, even if After Earth turns out to be another miss, even if Shayamalan never makes another good movie again, so be it.  M. Night Shayamalan made The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable.  Nobody can take that away from him.  Anyway, After Earth opens on June 7th, in IMAX no less.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

Skyfall director Sam Mendes will not be helming the next 007 adventure. Why Martin Campbell should return to the fold...

Okay, so Sam Mendes is officially out.  There was rumbling over the last few weeks that Sam Mendes would actual But as of today, Mendes politely bowed out of the running.  He will not return to helm the next James Bond picture following his phenomenally successful Skyfall.  I'm sure I will be but one of a million people offering their thoughts on who should helm the next 007 picture. It's tempting to once again half-jokingly offer up Terrance Malick, Warner Herzog, Sophia Coppola, and Michael Haneke as go-to picks.  But the choice is obvious.  The name is Campbell, Martin Campbell.  He directed two of the very best 007 pictures of the post-Connery era, if not outright ever (it's no secret where I stand on this... Goldfinger can suck it).  He revitalized the franchise twice with two different Bond actors in the last 18 years.  The stain of Green Lantern leaves him in a position of 'needing a hit', and there is no reason to presume he won't knock it out of the park for a third time.  But more importantly, doing the follow-up to Skyfall gives Campbell a new set of tools to play with in the 007 sandbox.  This time he'll just get to play with few restraints, without the burden of franchise rebirth.

Daniel Craig doesn't deserve a raise for The Girl Who Played With Fire because Daniel Craig is not a box office draw...

This one is pretty simple.  Daniel Craig allegedly (Hollywood Reporter) wants a raise for his appearance in Sony's planned The Girl Who Played With Fire.  Sony is refusing and may even be trying to wrangle a pay cut.  Sony is allegedly digging its heels out of the desire to cut costs, as the first film grossed $232 million worldwide yet still barely broken even due to its frankly absurd $90 million budget.  Had the film cost a more reasonable $60-$70 million, it would have been quite profitable for Sony.  But it didn't so it wasn't.  If we must see the two other chapters in the original series, then they damn-well shouldn't cost nearly $100 million apiece. You could argue that Rooney Mara is an essential component of any sequel and should be hired even at a token higher cost this time around.  But everyone else involved is expendable.  Daniel Craig, whose character was as bland a male lead as you can ask for, is not a box office draw, period. If Sony sees fit to write out his journalist protagonist, I imagine it won't affect the film's financial fortunes one iota.  Daniel Craig is one of countless actors who do just fine in a marquee role or a popular franchise but flounder elsewhere.  If Daniel Craig wants a raise from Sony, he is welcome to ask for one for the next James Bond film.   But outside of the 007 series, Daniel Craig isn't a box office draw, period.

M. Night Shamalan's After Earth gets a suitably cryptic trailer.

And the pre-Hobbit trailer deluge continues... Yes, this is the second 'people roaming around desolate Earth' trailer we've seen in 72 hours, but this is still a pretty solid looking trailer.  The scale looks appropriately large, and it looks to present naturalistic images that we've never seen before.  As with the golden age of M. Night Shyamalan trailers, this gives away little about the film aside from the very basic plot.  The voice over is arguably trying to hide the fact that Jaden Smith has much more screen time than Will Smith, which makes sense from a marketing standpoint.  Jaden Smith already stood toe-to-toe with Jackie Chan in one of his finest performances, so the question now is whether Jaden Smith has the natural ability to anchor a film all by himself ala Will Smith in I Am Legend.  Of course the secondary question is which M. Night Shyamalan came to work.  If it's the guy who directed Haley Joel Osmont to an Oscar nomination, then Jaden Smith will be just fine.  If it's the guy who directed the various young performers in The Last Airbender, then there is cause to be afraid.  Yes yes, fear is a state of mind, and I still believe that the Shyamalan who directed The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable is still alive.  We'll find out for sure when After Earth opens on June 7th, 2013.  I still haven't given up on him...

Scott Mendelson

Review: Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty (2012) is a powerful tale of the costs of 'justifiable' violence.

Zero Dark Thirty

2012
150 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty (trailer) is a refreshing 'just the facts' procedural drama that maintains an almost allergic aversion to melodrama.  The film is ice-cold throughout, maintaining an even-keeled approach to the decade-long manhunt for Osama Bin Laden, pausing only occasionally to acknowledge the aftermath of violence.  At a glance, the film is basically the Jessica Chastain show, as she quickly becomes the center of the film and dominates the proceedings even when the focus shifts in the final thirty minutes.  Hers is a dynamite movie star performance, one that is not only Oscar-worthy but will likely win her the statute in a few months time.  The film surrounding her is an intense and often fascinating 'inside' look at both the 'dark side' and the mundane side of the would-be War on Terror.  It's a nasty bit of business, and its matter-of-fact presentation of unsavory details could be read as an implicit endorsement, just as its climactic brutality denies you the catharsis you might be expecting.  It merely exists to tell its story, not tell you how to feel about it.

Fail after Fail: Thoughts on Skyfall upon a second viewing.

Spoiler Warning is in place, but my non-spoiler review is HERE...

For reasons mostly involving time and other responsibilities, before last night I hadn't seen a film twice in theaters since June 2008.  Even that last occasion was merely a matter of happenstance, as my father was in town and he hadn't seen Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull yet.  I grew up with the Lucasfilm universe, so it seemed only appropriate, and a good time was had.  Anyway, last night I saw Skyfall for a second time, as my wife was unable to attend last month's press screening and we had a free evening (it was also about trying out a new theater, but that's the next essay).  Unfortunately a second viewing only heightened the film's major flaws.  Even my wife, who hadn't read my review yet, whispered to me around thirty-minutes in and said "We get it, Bond is *old*!" after which we proceeded to take a pretend shot every time someone made a reference to age or old vs. new.  By the hour mark, we both had pretend alcohol poisoning.

Weekend Box Office (11-11-12): Skyfall opens with $90 million while Lincoln earns $900k on 11 screens.

Opening with a flurry of positive buzz and already-cemented megahit status overseas, James Bond finally returned to US theaters this weekend with San Mendes's Skyfall (review 01/review 02).  The film easily crushed the opening weekend record of the 007 series, earning a massive $90 million in its debut.  This also includes $2.2 million earned via its Thursday IMAX-only release, as the film earned $13.1 million in IMAX theaters since Thursday (the large-scale format's biggest non-summer opening ever).  The picture played 60% male and 75% over 25-years old. For comparison, the last six 007 films had the six biggest weekends of the franchise, with Pierce Brosnan's GoldenEye moving 007 into modern-day blockbuster territory back in 1995.  For the record, the numbers are $26 million (GoldenEye), $25 million (Tomorrow Never Dies), $35 million (The World Is Not Enough), $47 million (Die Another Day), $40 million (Casino Royale), and $67 million for Quantum of Solace four Novembers ago. Not only is this the biggest opening weekend for the 007 series by a long shot, it eclipsed the opening weekends of all but the last four series entries by the end of Friday (if you want to play the inflation card, it still eclipsed the openings of all-but the last six entries by the end of Friday). Even though the overall consensus on Quantum of Solace was mediocre, four years of waiting but an ability to market Skyfall using the whole "50 years of Bond" angle made this one just as much of an event, if not more so, than the last few entries.  

Friday Box Office: Skyfall does $33 million on opening day (s).

Oddly enough, despite the four years of hype and anticipation, plus the IMAX sneak-peak and respective price bump, Skyfall earned just a bit more than Quantum of Solace on its first Friday.  With $33 million in the bag (including its $2.2 million Thursday IMAX sneak day), it's just above the $27 million debut for Quantum of Solace.  Adjusted for inflation and the IMAX price bump, it barely sold more tickets.  On the plus side, this new entry is likely to have much better word of mouth and thus insure a larger multiplier both for the weekend and for the long-game.  I don't have much time so I'm going to make this quick.  The weekend multiplier comparisons are the last six 007 films, basically everything since 1995 when Pierce Brosnan kicked the films into the blockbuster age with GoldenEye back in 1995.  GoldenEye debuted with $26 million off a $8 million* opening day (3.25x) while Tomorrow Never Dies earned $8 million* on its first day heading towards a $25 million debut (3.125x).  The World Is Not Enough earned $12 million towards a $35 million opening (2.9x) while Die Another Day opened with $16 million towards a $47 million opening weekend (2.9x).  Casino Royale opened with $14 million and closed Sunday with $40 million (2.85x) while Quantum of Solace debuted with $27 million and closed the weekend with $67 million ($74 million adjusted for inflation and a 2.4x weekend multiplier).  Thus assuming the mostly disliked Quantum of Solace was a fluke (it dropped a bit on Saturday) but acknowledging a more front-loaded marketplace, we're looking at something between 2.6x and 2.9x for the weekend.  Thus Skyfall could open with between $86 million and $95 million for the weekend.  Obviously we'll know for sure tomorrow...

Scott Mendelson

*The opening days for GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies are estimates based on my recollection, as I can't find opening day figures.  Alas ShowbizData doesn't allow you to dig into their daily box office archives.

IMAX and midnight box office: Skyfall has $4.6 million so far. Can 007 top $100 million for the weekend?

While I am all in favor of major films doing advance IMAX-only releases, MGM and Sony's decision to open Skyfall a day early in IMAX makes the numbers a little tougher to analyze.  For the record, the 23rd official James Bond adventure earned $2.2 million on Thursday playing in 463 IMAX engagements.  The only real plausible comparison is Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol which opened five days early on 425 IMAX screens and earned $4.1 million on its first Friday of such play.  In addition, Skyfall earned another $2.4 million in wide-release midnight showings (a large chunk of its 3,500 screens), bringing its gross to $4.6 million before 'regular business hours'.  That extra day of IMAX-only play, along with the fact that Monday is a holiday for most schools and many businesses, makes the math a little more speculative, but no one said this is an exact science, so let's dive in!  

Guest (mini) Review: Brandon Peters reviews Skyfall (2012)

Skyfall

2012

143 minutes

Rated PG-13

By Brandon Peters

Skyfall switches gears for Daniel Craig’s third dabbling in the role of 007.  The film is akin to GoldenEye’s answer to License to Kill if comparing to the series cannon.  While not going too far over the top, Skyfall does jump over the limits set by its two predecessors and enters into more familiar and common Bond territory.  This is going to be rather brief in terms of what I’ve been writing; Scott has covered a lot of ground I may have covered  as I didn’t read his review until after my viewing.  And for the most part I agree with all his points.  I’d rather not cover the same ground twice (editor's note: there's plenty new to chew on here). I don’t seem to mind the borrowing from other films especially when they are actually enhancing the themes and devices and making stronger renditions of them.  One theme not brought up which I felt was more front and center than the revised GoldenEye was trust and learning to deal with trying not to take judgment calls for the greater good personally.

Brad Pitt's World War Z gets a big-scale trailer.

There is some great and terrifying imagery in this extended teaser.  Truth be told, aside from animation and the occasional 'hang out with your friends' Oceans picture, Brad Pitt hasn't done a full-scale commercial blockbuster of this nature since the one-two punch of Troy and Mr. and Mrs. Smith way back in 2004/2005.  We all know that the film has went through hell, from a completely rewritten by Damon Lindelof third act (because he's totally a master of the third act, right?) to rumors that Pitt and director Marc Forster aren't on speaking terms, but what we see here looks perfectly competent and rather grand (it's obvious they are trying to make arguably the first epic zombie picture).  The film seems to be almost hiding the fact that it's a zombie film, although anyone with half a zombie brain will release that the swiftly-moving antagonists are likely very-much undead.  Will it be good?  I have no idea, but viewed in a vacuum  this is a pretty effective, if overly spoiler-ish clip.  Just in terms of spelled-out storytelling, it basically reveals the narrative course of the first act, if not the first two acts, of the movie.  Still, it's heartening to release that the 'Pitt and his family are trapped in a poorly lit, cheap to film in interior location' bit seems to happen pretty early on.  Anyway, the $180 million World War Z opens June 21, 2013.  As always, we'll see, but what are your thoughts?  Obviously if you've read the source material feel free to add to the discussion.

Scott Mendelson        

Skyfall spoiler discussion thread...

If you're among the lucky ones who have a nearby IMAX theater, today is the opening day for Skyfall.  As such, here is the official place for readers who want to gab about the film, spoilers-and-all, to their heart's content.  I may have a spoiler piece on Monday or Tuesday while I'm hoping Brandon Peters gets a chance to see the film this week and deliver a review, but that's depending on his schedule.  But for the meantime, have at it below, folks.  If you've seen it, what did you think?  Did it live up to the hype?  Did it work for you as well if not better than it worked for me?  While you're hopefully gabbing below, check out this well-written piece that serves as somewhat of a rebuttal to my review.  I'm actually going to probably see the film again a week from Friday, as my wife couldn't make the press screening (making it the first film since Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that I've seen twice in a theater).  But I'm rambling and it's your turn to ramble.  I'm off to write my Lincoln review for tomorrow.

Scott Mendelson

James Bond 007: Movie Deathmatch

This a very cool little video pitting Bond against Bond.  I completely admire its extremely unbiased approach (SPOILER: Connery doesn't always win).  Bravo to whoever put this together as it plays rather seamless.  Its short, but I could have enjoyed probably 20 minutes of this.  Skyfall opens Friday November 9th in the states and I'm rather excited for it.  Hopefully I'll be able to catch it in IMAX.  Scott's already seen it and you can find his thoughts here.  

If you've got any cool (well-made) Bond videos like this you'd like to share, feel free to throw them my way.  I'd enjoy seeing them.  Thanks to Ty for bringing this to my attention.

Brandon Peters

Follow me on Twitter – www.twitter.com/@btpeters

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos

Review: Skyfall (2012) delivers the 007 goods (if not greats).

Skyfall

2012
143 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Taken on its own, Skyfall is an exciting and relentlessly entertaining action thriller.  It is strongly acted by a game cast, has sharp dialogue, a stunning visual palette, and several engaging action sequences.  But taken as the twenty-third entry in a long-running franchise, one must acknowledge that it is less an original take on the iconic hero than a mix-and-match from several past films.  But what prevents the film from attaining greatness is the unsure tone and what feels like periodic pandering to the fans.  Seemingly stung by the (grossly unfair) reception to Quantum of Solace, Sam Mendes and company feel pressured to include certain franchise elements that periodically clash with the Bond film they clearly want to make.  More troublesome is the film's theme, which takes a offhand few moments in GoldenEye ("Is Bond still relevant in the modern era?") and attempts to fashion an hamfisted entire narrative out of it, complete with enough on-the-nose monologuing to make Chris Nolan blush.  What hampers the unquestionably engaging and ambitious film is the sense that we're drudging along recycled territory.

Brandon Peters's 007 series retrospective final analysis part 2.

This is the end.  Hold your breath and count to ten.  After three months of extensive and rather superb retrospective reviews of every single 007 film that's been currently released since 1962, it all comes down to this.  What follows below is Brandon Peter's final analysis, split up into two sections. Part one is HERE.  Part two is a critical ranking of every single film, complete with links to his respective essays, so you can all argue in the comments section.  Following that is my actual review of Skyfall, which I saw on Monday night was holding off on reviewing until Brandon had his say on all that had come before.  Expect said review to drop later this afternoon.  And yes, once Brandon sees Skyfall (hopefully in IMAX, as it really should be seen in said format), he will offer his take on this site as well.  But for now, let's all dive in and see how the chips fall.  As always, share your thoughts in the comments section below (for what it's worth, I rather agree with probably 90% of the rankings, at a glance).  At the very least, you should give him a hearty thanks for crafting this rather fantastic ongoing series.  We look forward to whatever Mr. Peters decides to contribute from this point on and look forward to his adventures in the Great Valley.

Brandon Peters's 007 series retrospective final analysis part 1.

This is the end.  Hold your breath and count to ten.  After three months of extensive and rather superb retrospective reviews of every single 007 film that's been currently released since 1962, it all comes down to this.  What follows below is Brandon Peter's final analysis, split up into two sections.  Part one, which deals with favorite characters, favorite villains, and the like, is below.  Part two, which is a critical ranking of every single film, will hopefully follow in the next couple days.  Following that is my actual review of Skyfall, which I saw on Monday night but am holding off writing about until Brandon finishes his series.  And yes, once Brandon sees Skyfall (hopefully in IMAX, as it really should be seen in said format), he will offer his take on this site as well.  But for now, let's start the end game for this epic 007 retrospective.  As always, share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Brandon Peters dissects the 007 series part 22: Quantum of Solace.

With Skyfall dropping in theaters in just a couple weeks, along with the 50th anniversary of the James Bond series, a close friend and fellow film nerd, Brandon Peters, has generously offered to do a comprehensive review of the entire 007 film franchise. Today is the twenty-second entry, with a full review of the inexplicably maligned Quantum of Solace. I hope you've enjoyed what is a pretty massive feature leading up the November 9th release of Skyfall, because, to quote Adele, this is (nearly) the end. Without further ado...

Quantum Of Solace

2008

Director:  Marc Forster

Starring:  Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Gemma Arterton, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright

Rated PG-13

Take a deep breath, you only got one shot, make it count.

                        ~James Bond

STATS

Kills:  17

Bond Girls:  Camille Montes, Strawberry Fields

Car:  Aston Martin DBS V12

Locales:  Siena, Haiti, Austria, Bolivia, Russia

Odd Villain Trait:  Elvis, tall and has a wig that makes him look rather silly

Song:  “Another Way to Die” performed by Jack White & Alicia Keyes

Quantum of Solace (QoS) is considered the first ever direct sequel to a Bond film, starting up moments after the closing events of Casino Royale.  One could argue this untrue as Diamonds Are Forever picks up right where On Her Majesty’s Secret Service left off.  Going further, Dr. No through to Diamonds (minus Goldfinger) all carry along Bond’s battle against SPECTRE.  While calling it a direct sequel is the easiest way to spin it, the two films are more closely tied than any previous two films.

Brandon Peters dissects the 007 series part 21: Casino Royale

With Skyfall dropping in theaters in just a few weeks, along with the 50th anniversary of the James Bond series, a close friend and fellow film nerd, Brandon Peters, has generously offered to do a comprehensive review of the entire 007 film franchise. Today is the twenty-first entry, with a full review of arguably the best film in the franchise, in terms of pure objective quality, Casino Royale. I hope you enjoy what is a pretty massive feature leading up the November 9th release of Skyfall. I'll do my best to leave my two-cents out of it. But just because I'm stepping aside doesn't mean you should. Without further ado...

Casino Royale

2006

Director:  Martin Campbell

Starring:  Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright, Giancarlo Giannini

Rated PG-13

Now the whole world's gonna know that you died scratching my balls!

                        ~James Bond

STATS

Kills: 12

Bond Girls:  Vesper Lynd, Solange Dimitrios

Car:  Bond wins an Aston Martin, but the mission gives him an Aston Martin DBS V12

Locales:  Madagascar, Bahamas, Montenegro, Venice

Odd Villain Trait:  Le Chiffre has a scar on his eye and weeps blood from it

Song:  “You Know My Name” pefromed by Chris Cornell

Casino Royale is an absolute masterpiece in the 007 series.  The film is top notch big budget entertainment and one of the best reboot films ever created.  One could argue that this isn’t the first time the series has been rebooted.  Every time a new 007 take the role, it could essentially serve as a new start to the series (minus On Her Majesty’s Secret Service).  Following the ridiculousness of Die Another Day, Eon decided to rid itself of that era and start anew, grounding James Bond and focusing on physical effects and stunts.  What hasn’t been said about this movie already?