Weekend Box Office (02/03/13): Warm Bodies tops while Bullet to the Head tanks.

Ah, Super Bowl weekend!  Warm Bodies (review) can go from a $9 million Saturday to a $2.9 million Sunday and it's okay!  According to the studio, it earned $8.1 million on Friday, $9 million on Saturday, yet is expected to make just $2.9 million today.  Yes, I know today is the Super Bowl, but I'm always shocked by these mega drops each and every year.  The film, which has an estimated $20 million debut, played 60% female (because girls like horror films too!) and 65% under 25, which means it is doing best outside of the stereotypical older male football fan who is already getting ready for the big game so it may end up with a slightly higher weekend total in the end.  It earned a B+ from Cinemascore, with an A- from those under 25 and an A from those under 18.  Regardless, this is a solid debut for a film that easily could have played to the geek crowd exclusively. This is the kind of film that could have easily opened with $8 million over the weekend, as opposed to $8 million on its first day.

Five Sylvester Stallone films better than Bullet to the Head...

Rather than obsess over how weak and amateurish Stallone's newest action film happens to be, I thought I'd take some time to pick out some better examples of Sly's surprisingly interesting filmography.  These five films aren't so much the best or even the most underrated, but merely five films that merit discussion and are worth digging into just a little bit more than usual.  Agree?  Disagree?  You probably do, because I could have easily done such a piece on ten Stallone films worth briefly dissecting, but I imagine I can only punish my readers for so long at one time.  You'll get your chance below, but for now enjoy these mini-essays of well, uh, let's just call them five Sylvester Stallone movies that are much better than Bullet to the Head.

Review: Bullet to the Head (2013) is awful, but amusingly so.

Bullet to the Head

2013
90 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

I cannot in good conscience recommend Walter Hill's Bullet to the Head (trailer).  It is an amateurish production that looks and feels like a direct-to-DVD film in all of the worst ways.  It is badly acted, terribly written, and lazily plotted.  It is easily one of the worst films Sylvester Stallone has ever made, and it's a huge step down after Rocky Balboa, Rambo, and the silly-but-large scale Expendables films.  Moreover, it lacks any of the subtext or resonance that has occasionally highlighted Stallone's best work and brightened some of his lesser films over the decades (essay HERE).  Yet it is also the kind of movie that can be a genuine good time in the right frame of mind and with the right audience.  If you have a friend or two who is in the right mood and you waltz into a cheap weekend matinee, you'll probably amuse yourself accordingly.  But for anyone actually expecting quality cinema or even something on par with a mid-range Jason Statham vehicle, just know that this makes The Mechanic look like Safe.

Why is Liam Neeson: Action Star more popular than Steven Seagal or Jean-Claude Van Damme? Turns out, he's not.

One of threads of my Taken 2 review the other day was that I was shocked by how small-scale the action sequences were.  Rather than resembling a big-budget action sequel, it felt like a straight-to-video knockoff, the sort that 90s action icons Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagal are currently pumping out.  So what is it that makes a Jean-Claude Van Damme action film go straight to DVD and a Liam Neeson action sequel open with $49 million over its opening weekend?  Well, I was curious about whether or not Neeson really was more popular than the action stars of 'old'.  The answer, using Box Office Mojo's inflation-related calculations, surprised the heck out of me, and hopefully it will prove interesting for you too.  To my surprise, the original Taken was not so much a runaway smash hit on its opening weekend but merely a lucky recipient of inflation and ever-rising ticket prices.  A hit is still a hit, but a comparison of the numbers shows that Liam Neeson really is the Steven Seagal of his day.  

Weekend Box Office (08/19/12) - The Expendables 2 tops while ParaNorman and Sparkle mostly shine.

It's no real surprise that The Expendables 2 (review/trailer) opened with about 18% less this weekend ($28.75 million) than the first Expendables on this weekend in 2010 ($34 million).  The Expendables (review) was a culmination of a good twenty years of 'what-if' anticipation.  And while the final result was a little lacking, in that it was barely a good movie and most of the biggest action icons were either absent or had cameos, it was still enough of a wish-fulfillment fantasy to be a massive worldwide hit ($274 million on a $80 million budget).  Two years later, the sequel delivers on both the action front (lots more of it) and the A-level casting arena (Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger have expanded roles while Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme came to play) but that initial high is somewhat gone.  Still, a $28 million debut, especially from Lionsgate, is nothing to sneeze at. This will still be their largest non-Saw/Tyler Perry opening outside of The Expendables and The Hunger Games and their tenth-biggest debut ever.  Not only have we seen a pattern of lower opening weekends and domestic totals for sequels, but this is easily the kind of property that could have elicited a giant 'no one cares anymore' reaction after the somewhat underwhelming first film (I seem to be among the few who likes it).

Review: The Expendables 2 (2012) - tastes great, less filling.

The Expendables 2

2012
103 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

The good news is that The Expendables 2 is that it gives you more of what you wanted the first time around.  There is a greater volume of action and the film has even more A-list action stars offering their services this time around.  The picture is rarely dull and often amusing, but at what cost?  The film barely tries to pretend that it exists as an actual motion picture, with the various onscreen tough guys openly referencing their iconic roles or real-life biographies in a manner that takes you out of the movie each time.  The first picture may have been light on the A-level firepower, but it attempted to be a real film with an actual story and token attempts at depth.  The original Expendables (barely) worked as a metaphor for a modern America that could still do the right thing for the right reasons in a manner honoring its alleged superior morality.  This new film has 'more of what you came to see' but is paper thin without a hint of substance or even dramatic credibility.  Comparing the two films is a classic example of 'trying and (perhaps) failing' versus 'failing to try'.  

Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Last Stand) vs. Sylvester Stallone (Bullet To the Head): Whose new movie has the worse trailer?

Let's be honest.  Both of these films look pretty terrible.  Both feature over-the-hill action icons who can barely walk at a quick pace let alone engage in all-out fight scenes.  The films look just a big better than substandard direct-to-DVD action fare, and that's not even counting the *good* DTV stuff like Universal Soldier: Regeneration and Undisputed 3.   Both Stallone and Schwarzenegger seem to be acting as badly as possible.  Schwarzenegger is obviously out of practice, but Stallone has little excuse, having delivered perfectly fine turns in Rocky Balboa, Rambo, and The Expendables (I'm hopefully seeing The Expendables 2 tomorrow night).  So, The Last Stand (from Jee-woon Kim, helmer of I Saw the Devil) opens from Lionsgate on January 13th, 2013. Walter Hill's Bullet To the Head (following oodles of reshoots) debuts via Warner Bros. on February 1st, 2013.  They both look pretty terrible.  But as a longtime fan of Homicide: Life on the Street, Bullet To the Head gets bonus points for viciously murdering Jon Seda (who very nearly killed the show during season six) in the opening reel.  Which one looks less awful to you?  Are you surprised that 20th Century Fox didn't have a A Good Day To Die Hard trailer ready for this weekend?  Please share below...

Scott Mendelson    

John Gosling previews the weekend's new releases (08-17-12).

Something for everyone this week, with four major releases and a potentially interesting limited one. 

The first Expendables movie was like an action-fanboy's dream, with a special nod to the 1980s. From a story by David Callaham, Sylvester Stallone wrote, directed and starred in the feature, with action stars Dolph Lundgren, Jet Li and Jason Statham, being joined by MMA fighter Randy Couture, former wrestler Steve Austin and Mickey Rourke. The film also managed the scoop of featuring a short scene with Stallone, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The ensemble flick followed Stallone's team of expendables on a mission to take out a military leader and a corrupt CIA official (played by another 80s veteran, Eric Roberts). While not quite delivering on the wall to wall action some were hoping for, it was a global smash, making $107M domestically, with a further $174M overseas, on a budget pegged at $80M. Before the film was even in theatres, Stallone was already talking a sequel, and his plan to bring back even more action icons next time around. The follow-up was greenlit a few months later with the star adapting a story by Ken Kaufman, David Agosto and Richard Wenk. By April 2011 things were shaping up but Stallone announced he would not return to direct, instead, Con-Air's Simon West, who had worked with Statham on the remake of The Mechanic, would be at the helm. He hired story co-creator Richard Wenk to pen a new draft of the script, after which casting commenced. 

Once again, Garrison Dean fashions a terrific fanmade Expendables trailer, this time with a 'Made in the USA' Expendables II preview.

I happen to think that the New York Times article that is used as the basis for this wonderful fan trailer is full of crap (cough-Fast Five, Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol-cough), but I still laughed my ass off at this pretty much the entire running time.  And yes, just like two years ago, this Garrison Dean trailer is superior to the official Lionsgate one, although the official Expendables II trailer is indeed a better piece of work than the official Expendables trailer from summer 2010.  Just enjoy this thing and wonder why Mr. Dean hasn't gotten a job from any of the trailer houses yet.  I'm sure he would have had some choice words about the John Carter campaign.

Scott Mendelson

The Expendables 2 trailer looks fun, but will a slumming Schwarzenegger sink the movie?

This looks like more of the same, which is just fine by me.  The first film was just a little better than I expected, offering a fantasy of American warriors who could save the day with no collateral damage and with their morality intact by the time the credits rolled.  This one of course brings a bunch of new cast members, although my biggest fear is that Arnold Schwarzenegger may sink the whole thing.  His cameo in the first film was the worst scene of the picture, as he was basically refusing to take it seriously while Stallone and Willis respectively played it straight.  His performance here seems to be approaching Batman & Robin-level camp, which could prove fatal depending on how much screentime he has.  The rest of the gang looks fine, and considering Jean-Claude Van Damme's best pure-action film over the last 15 years involved him playing a villain (and that villain's clone... rent Replicant), it's so surprise that he seems to be having fun playing the super-villain this time around.  Anyway, this won't reinvent the wheel, but that's kind of the point.  The Expendables 2 looks like pretty solid B-movie action trash, and that's more-than-enough for me.  It drops August 17th.  As always, we'll see.  Thanks to IGN for the 'get'.

Scott Mendelson  

Please enjoy these 12 character posters from The Expendables 2.

Lionsgate sent these straight to me, a day late per usual.  Actually, I'm not complaining because it means I don't have to track down where each poster debuted yesterday and give each site credit.  That it's the right thing to do doesn't make it less of a pain.  Anyway, enjoy these twelve character posters from The Expendables 2 after the jump.  Coming this August from Lionsgate, featuring as much R-rated violence and gore as post-production CGI can bring you.  Can you guess which of the twelve distinctly looks like he could most-certainly *not* kick your ass?  Well, no besides Chuck Norris...

Scott Mendelson

Chuck Norris is not the cause, merely an alibi. The irony of a PG-13 Expendables II.

This story broke yesterday (I first read it yesterday morning at Collider), but since it was based on a translation of an interview that actor Chuck Norris gave to a Polish magazine, I thought I'd wait to make sure it wasn't a mistranslation.  But Sylvester Stallone has confirmed to Ain't It Cool News that The Expendables II will indeed be PG-13, although his explanation doesn't specifically blame Mr. Norris.  To wit, here, translated into English, is the 'offending' portion of Chuck Norris's interview:

"In Expendables 2, there was a lot of vulgar dialogue in the screenplay. For this reason, many young people wouldn’t be able to watch this. But I don’t play in movies like this,” Norris explained. “Due to that I said I won’t be a part of that if the hardcore language is not erased. Producers accepted my conditions and the movie will be classified in the category of PG-13."

And here is Sly Stallone's confirmation:

"Harry (Knowles), the film is fantastic with Van Damme turning in an inspired performance... Our final battle is one for the ages. The PG13 rumor is true, but before your readers pass judgement, trust me when I say this film is LARGE in every way and delivers on every level. This movie touches on many emotions which we want to share with the broadest audience possible, BUT, fear not, this Barbeque of Grand scale Ass Bashing will not leave anyone hungry..."

What is strange about this is not that Stallone and his band of 80s and 2000s action stars are catering to the whims of one very over-the-hill action icon, or that Norris thinks that hearing profanity is more harmful to youngsters than watching over-the-top violence (in a pre-Sopranos/24 era, Walker: Texas Ranger was once considered the most violent show on television).  No what's strange is that the first Expendables, judging on the theatrical cut, was clearly intended to be a PG-13 in the first place.  Watching the film back in August 2010, I distinctly remember thinking that this was an awfully soft R, and that up until a certain third-act action sequence involving Stallone with a knife, it appeared that there wasn't going to be all that much R-rated violence at all.  Stallone and company waffled back and forth prior to the film's release about its rating, and I am still convinced to this day that it was always intended to be a PG-13 movie.

The Expendables II gets a teaser, which indeed teases.

This is obviously a teaser, and once again I'm almost tempted to say that Lionsgate should just stop there, since anyone who doesn't want to see this picture probably won't be persuaded by seeing various samples of the various action sequences. Anyway, the important glimpses are of course right at the end, when we get to see Schwarzenegger and Willis engaged in actual combat. The Expendables II opens August 12th. As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

The Expendables 2 gets the most Expendables 2-ish poster possible.

Aside from the fact that a few of the top-billed stars aren't on the poster (where's Jet Li?), this looks like the best possible poster you could craft for The Expendables 2.  I expect we'll see a teaser before the year is out, perhaps attached to Sherlock Holmes 2 or Mission: Impossible IV.  It's a shame that Lionsgate didn't have the sense of humor to attach it to Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I, but oh well.  Thanks to JoBlo for the poster.

Scott Mendelson

Thanks to the glory of time travel, enjoy this Real Steel trailer from 1987!

It's a frankly amusing coincidence that there are two remakes (official or not) of 1980s films coming out over the next two weeks; both films remade from originals that featured theme songs by Kenny Loggins.

Scott Mendelson

The Expendables II gets generic poster, hilarious plot synopsis which reveals just who is 'expendable'.

The film doesn't even have a director (I hear Sophia Coppola is available), but it does have a release date: August 17th, 2012.  It now also has a poster and plot synopsis courtesy of Nu Image.  The poster pretty much speaks for itself.  But the plot synopsis is a spoiler-filled hoot.

“The Expendables are back and this time it’s personal! After Tool (Mickey Rourke), the heart and soul of the Expendables, is brutally murdered on a mission, his comrades swear to avenge him. They’re not the only ones who want blood. Tool’s beautiful young and wild daughter Fiona embarks on her own revenge mission, complicating matters when she is captured and ransomed by a ruthless dictator plotting to destroy a resistance movement. Now Barney and the Expendables must risk everything to save her and humanity.”

It does seem that Mr. Can't-Play-Well-With-Others is indeed being written out of the series, and it's the least surprising choice all-things considered.  It also works as a rebuttal to those who justifiably complained that a film called The Expendables didn't actually 'expend' any of its heroic mercenaries, even absurdly keeping Lundgren alive despite his apparent second-act demise (not saying I'm not glad that Dolph won't be around in part II, but...).  So, poor Rourke bites it in the opening act, but that's okay, because he's got a daughter who of course is "young",  "beautiful", and "wild".  But that doesn't mean  Fiona is "competent", as she also ends up spending (at least) the third act as a hostage.  The first film played into the whole 'macho he-men save helpless babe-in-peril' cliche, and alas the sequel seeks to play the same game.  But my favorite part of this plot summary is the final sentence, where we're told that the Expendables are not only trying to save 'insert hostage-babe here', but HUMANITY!  The first film merely concerned a fictional Latin American country that was being oppressed by a dictator (who in turn was being manipulated by a corporate villain), but the sequel puts the entire planet in peril.  Which leads me to ask, just who is this despot that threatens the entire world?  Will this be The Expendables versus. Darkseid?  The Expendables versus Cobra (no, not Stallone's Corba, the OTHER Cobra)?  Which world-threatening foes do you want to see our 80s/90s heroes facing off against in the sequel?  Oh wait... I got it!  The Expendables versus Dr. Claw!        

Scott Mendelson

Bill O'Reilly's straw-man argument: Of course The Expendables is (slightly) patriotic, but it's not 'NATIONALISTIC'. Altough he has one good point...

It's a common tactic brandished on the Right, and occasionally used by the Left, to create a straw-man argument and then bring on someone to validate or combat said viewpoint. Bill O'Reilly himself has been famous for his annual 'War on Christmas' series that seems to crop up every December. I know of no one who has discussed The Expendables in anything but the broadest social terms (it has no real agenda other than to entertain and make money), and certainly not a single critic has vilified Stallone for the film's content aside from its worth as an action drama. The film is subtly patriotic, but it's not NATIONALISTIC, which is what O'Reilly is defending it against. For what it's worth, the film's villain is an American imperialist tycoon, and the bad guys use water-boarding to torture a damsel in distress, and righteous Americans do battle to put a stop to it. In other words, heroic Americans do battle with evil Americans and save an indigenous populace for outside invaders because they basically want to do a 'mitzvah' for once in their greedy, soulless lives (yes, it's the same broad idea as The Wild Bunch).