In mainstream films, dead moms don't count...

I had originally planned to do a spoiler-filled discussion of the various things that vexed me about The Amazing Spider-Man, but frankly my heart just isn't in it.  The film is obviously a victim of severe post-production tinkering (Devin Faruci laid it out here) and it just feels petty to further attack a film that A) I've already panned in 1,500 non-spoiler words and B) is more a disappointing mediocrity than an outright travesty.  Instead, I'd like to use the film's release to discuss something that has bothered me for at least the last several months, something I made a brief note about during the run-up to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.  If you've seen The Amazing Spider-Man (and this isn't a spoiler if you haven't), you'll know that Peter Parker's emotional trauma is partially centered around the fact that his parents abandoned him when he was a young child and then died soon after.  But as the film progresses, it's clear that Peter's journey and Peter's discoveries center almost exclusively around his father (Campell Scott).  His mother (Embeth Davidtz) gets barely a line of dialogue and no real character to play.  And that's the pattern, it would seem.  Be they dead at the start or be they dead by act one, dead fathers are often fleshed out characters while dead mothers are, at best, pictures on the bookshelf.

In a film-culture seemingly entitled to spoilers, simple concealed narrative become "PLOT TWISTS!"

Under normal circumstances, this post would require a 'Spoiler Warning(!)'.  But what I'm discussing aren't some shocking plot twists or stunning third-act reveals, which is kind of the point.  This Friday finally brings about the US release of Ridley Scott's Prometheus.  A major part of the marketing campaign has centered around its somewhat cryptic beginnings, the idea that Fox wasn't revealing the whole film in the trailer as is often the case.  This in turn led to speculation that there was some plot twist being held in reserve, be it a specific connection to the Alien franchise or some kind of stunning third act reveal.  We've seen this game before, as Paramount successfully sold the idea last summer that Super 8 had some kind of climactic reveal and/or plot twist.  Without going into spoiler-y details, this is not true for either of the above films.  Prometheus certainly has some narrative threads that haven't been revealed in the marketing, while other pretty major details have been blatantly spoiled because they contained 'money shots'.  But at the end of the day, and this is not a criticism per-se, Prometheus unfolds in a somewhat predictable manner, as did Super 8.  What's interesting is that in this day and age merely not revealing the entire narrative arc and/or every money shot in the film qualifies as 'hiding plot twists'.

Weekend Box Office (06/19/11): Green Lantern pulls a Van Helsing, opens with $53m, endangers entire DC Comics film franchise.

When is a $52 million three-day opening a genuine disappointment?  Well, in the world of box office, all things are relative.  And when it comes to opening weekend, the quality and estimated staying power has to be taken into account.  Green Lantern debuted at number one this weekend with $53.1 million.  On the surface, that's the third-biggest DC Comics opening ever, and the second-biggest non-sequel DC Comics film (behind Watchmen's $55.2 million).  But like Watchmen, a seemingly glorious opening (a $55 million debut for a 2.5 hour R-rated superhero drama based on a cult property) is considered troubling due to fears about its staying power and overspending.  Green Lantern cost about $200 million to produce, with another $150 million going towards marketing efforts.  The film had a poor 2.45x weekend multiplier and earned only a B from Cinemascore.  This does not guarantee that Green Lantern will follow Watchmen's lightning-fast downward trajectory (the film didn't even double its opening weekend, ending with $107 million).  But with mediocre word of mouth, generally poor reviews, and brutal competition coming just down the pike (Cars 2 next weekend, Transformers: Dark of the Moon a few days after that), the best that Warner can hope for domestically is an around 3x multiplier for a $155 million finish.  Warner and DC Comics will have to be counting on overseas numbers to carry the day.

Weekend Box Office (06/12/11): Super 8 opens with $35m, X-Men: First Class performs JUST like X-Men, Midnight In Paris nears $15m.

I've written about this before (here and here), but box office pundits and film bloggers generally seem to want it both ways.  They whine about the onslaught of remakes, reboots, sequels, and kid-centric animated films, yet they also DEMAND that the total weekend box office stay at a level that necessitates such a steady diet.  So when Paramount's Super 8 was tracking in the $25-30 million range over the last couple weeks, the various pundits were up in arms about how this original, star-less, $50 million period-set thriller was somehow an automatic flop because it wasn't going to open to $50 million over its first three days.  But now that it HAS opened to a relatively solid $35 million, the line is that total box office is down from this weekend last year.  Well, last year saw the release of a remake of The Karate Kid and a movie-adaptation of The A-Team, which opened with a combined take of $80 million.  Surprising quality of the Karate Kid remake aside, isn't that the kind of slate we all say we don't want?

Review: Super 8: An IMAX Experience trips over its nostalgia-fueled ambition.

Super 8  
2011
112 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

I have written several times over the last few years about various filmmakers basically spending time, money, and imagination basically recreating film genres of the past.  While they may succeed as technical assignments and/or loving forgeries, they need to have some other reason to exist other than to just remind moviegoers of the films of a long-ago era (at least Machete was an angry pro-immigration polemic).   J.J. Abrams's Super 8 is a technically proficient and superbly-acted homage to the theoretical first-wave (1974-1982) films of Steven Spielberg.  It operates on several different levels of viewer nostalgia but struggles to truly work as an emotionally potent work on its own accord.  It still barely passes for quality entertainment for most of its running time until it absolutely collapses in its third act.  Whatever my issues with the film as an impressionistic copy, Super 8 would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling climax!

Won't be SPOILED again... Why I no longer read a Roger Ebert review prior to seeing the movie.

He is arguably the father of modern film criticism and the most recognizable and well-renowned film critic on the planet.  He is the only movie reviewer to be awarded a Pulitzer Prize.  He is the man who introduced countless young readers such as myself to such filmmakers as Martin Scorsese and Sam Peckinpah.  His prose and insights have formed the foundation on which pretty much all of today's critics operate.  Yet I find myself in a position today where I am afraid to read Roger Ebert's film reviews.  It is not due to any downturn in quality or any continual difference of opinion.  It is not due to the notion that Ebert somehow has nothing more to offer the world of film criticism, as anyone who reads his journal will laugh at such an idea.  I no longer read Ebert's reviews (prior to seeing a given movie) out of fear, the fear that he will randomly and arbitrarily reveal plot twists and climactic elements of a given movie without a warning or even a second thought.  While it has always been an occasional issue, Roger Ebert has, in the last few years, turned into a full-blown spoiler. 

A diamond amongst diamonds: How JJ Abrams's Super 8 got screwed by an uncommonly strong summer movie season.

It's not the 'secretive' marketing campaign that Paramount is waging for J.J. Abrams's Super 8 (which I will see in Friday, having had to decline the available IMAX press screenings) that is affecting the want-to-see factor leading into its opening weekend this Friday.  Paramount has been keeping a pretty tight leash on plot details for the various trailers, posters, and TV spots, and for that they should be commended.  But instead, they are being criticized in certain circles because the film's tracking data is pointing towards an opening weekend in the $25-30 million range, which is a bit below the standard blockbuster opening weekend in this day and age.  For the record, if the film indeed only cost $50 million as Paramount is claiming, then the 70s/80s Spielberg homage will be sitting more than pretty with a $25 million opening.  A $25 million opening would, barring complete collapse, give the film $70 million in domestic grosses and it could be expected to do at least that much overseas. So with those figures, you've got a $140 million worldwide take on a $50 million budget, which is a pretty big win even before the DVD/Blu Ray figures pour in.  So before I go any further, let us acknowledge that Super 8 does not have a blockbuster-level budget attached to it, so it does not necessarily have to open to blockbuster levels.

Another business SHOCKER! IMAX makes less with Green Hornet and Sucker Punch than with Avatar and Alice in Wonderland!!!

Yet another 'no shit, Sherlock!' business story this morning, as IMAX has announced a $1 million quarterly loss for the first chunk of 2011. Yes indeed, The Green Hornet, Mars Needs Moms, and Sucker Punch were just not enough to equal the money-making muscle of Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, and How to Train Your Dragon. And once again, I'm sure this particular company will be just fine as the summer season starts. They have a deluge of major new product over the next three months debuting in IMAX on an almost weekly basis starting tomorrow. They've got Fast Five (April 29th), Thor (May 6th), Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (May 20th), Kung Fu Panda 2 (May 26th), Super 8 (June 10th), Cars 2 (June 24th), Transformers: Dark of the Moon (July 1st), and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II (July 15th). Green Lantern (June 17th) and Captain America (July 22nd) are forgoing IMAX at the moment, but that could change as the summer goes on. Point being, I'm pretty sure IMAX is going to be just fine.

Scott Mendelson

JJ Abrams's Super 8 gets a terrific trailer.

Diamond in the rough... That's what JJ Abrams's homage to 1970s/1980s Steven Spielberg (produced by Mr. Spielberg himself) is selling itself as. In a sea of sequels, comic-book adaptations, spin-offs, reboots, and remakes, Super 8 is selling itself as an old-fashioned piece of character-driven storytelling. This trailer is all about mood, setting, and relationships, with the unseen menace merely being what challenges these particular people. I talk quite a bit about how pure craftsmanship is seemingly so rare in big-budget filmmaking that it is often mistaken for high art. We'll see if Super 8 reaches the level of 'high art', but it has surely piqued everyone's interest as one of the few genuinely exciting releases of summer 2011. This one comes out on June 10th, in IMAX no less (for two weeks until Cars 2 takes over).

Scott Mendelson

JJ Abrams's Super 8 gets the best Super Bowl teaser of the night.

I'm not going to do a rundown of every single Super Bowl movie ad, primarily because there were just too many of them. But the best spot of the night was easily the 30-second teaser for JJ Abrams's Super 8. It's no secret that Abrams is aping the arch-typical late-70s/early-80s Steven Spielberg pictures (Spielberg is a producer), but a great teaser is a great teaser. No need to spoil what little is revealed, but this clip is rich in atmosphere, intensity, and just old-fashioned craftsmanship. This one opens on June 10th, and I have a sneaking suspicion that it's going to be a massive smash-hit, a bit of originality in a sea of sequels and comic book adaptations.

Scott Mendelson