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

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.

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

In an era of franchises & tentpoles, Tony Scott made "movies"

As is the case with unexpected 'obituaries', you find yourself writing or saying things that you wish you had said when the person in question was still around to hear it or read it.  I wish I had written this in November 2010.  Tony Scott's film legacy is two-fold.  For the first fifteen years of his career, Tony Scott was among those most responsible for the modern-day macho blockbuster.  His second film, Top Gun, basically paved the way for the modern big-budget big-scale action picture that happened to be set on planet Earth.  I'm no fan of the film, but it was, along with Rambo: First Blood Part II, easily the biggest-scale action picture of its day that didn't involve Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or James Bond. It turned Tom Cruise into an icon and was almost as much of a cinematic game-changer as Star Wars or Batman.  But it was the second half of his career, spanning from 2001 to 2010, that made me a fan.  While we can argue over whether the first fifteen years were superior or inferior to his final nine, his last decade of work cast Mr. Scott in a new, arguably more important light.  In an era dominated by mega-budget fantasy spectacles, Tony Scott was often the last refuge for the old-school 'movie'.  

Who cares and why bother? How national apathy and the 'death of outrage' killed the modern political thriller.

Besides being a terrific thriller, Enemy of the State serves as a touchtone of sorts. No, it wasn't the last adult-skewing, star-driven R-rated thriller released by a major studio, although it seemed that way up until a few years ago. No, the whip-smart Will Smith/Gene Hackman high-tech chase picture was the last time that the classic 'man on the run' template made sense. It was a classic conspiracy thriller, based in the idea that forces in the American government were up to no good, and people who had stumbled upon this information had to be silenced. It was also rooted in the idea that the halls of Congress and the American people would be horrified by the idea that covert forces were up to devious doings, which in turn necessitated murderous cover-ups. I would argue that this now innocently naive idea is yet another victim of a post-9/11 mindset. So as Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) raced around the world with darker factions of the US government on his tail during The Bourne Legacy (review), I couldn't help but wonder "Why bother?". What exactly would be the consequences if America found out that the government had been playing around with science in order to make super-awesome covert killing machines for black-ops missions? Recent evidence suggests that few would do more than feign outrage, share the story on Facebook, and click on the next article.

M. Night Shyamalan's After Earth gets a 'viral video'. Plus, a brief look back at classic M. Night Shyamalan teasers...

Another bit of catch-up from Comic Con weekend, this 75-second alternative history of the Earth presumably provides a bit of background exposition for Sony's summer 2013 sci-fi spectacle After Earth.  The idea of Will Smith teaming with M. Night Shyamalan is incredibly exciting, as I've written before (long story short, they are both mega-star control freaks who will hopefully temper each other's bad impulses while embracing each others' good ideas).  While I won't paste the plot exposition here for those who don't want to know, I will say that Sony has not been shy about revealing the core story-line as if it were just another science-fiction adventure film.  It's a little disheartening frankly, as I fondly remember the days when M. Night Shyamalan's films went into theaters with barely a hint or two as to what it was actually about.  Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, and Lady in the Water all had bare-bones teasers that often hid the true premise of the respective film, leaving much unknown to the ticket-buyer walking in on opening day.  Yes The Happening didn't have any story twists per-se to reveal while The Last Airbender was based on an existing television show, but I do recall a certain thrill at the intentional withholding of information following The Sixth Sense's surprising success.  They were masterclasses for selling a movie without giving away much at all, and they all retain their impact no matter what how we feel about the finished films.  Anyway, M. Night Shyamalan's After Earth opens June 7th, 2013.  Click below the jump some classic N. Night Shyamalan teasers (thanks to Trailer Addict for keeping these around).  Which one is your favorite?  For me, it's a toss-up between Unbreakable and The Village.

Scott Mendelson

As Men In Black 3 crosses $400 million worldwide, some thoughts on preconceived box office notions and the wisdom of double-checking your conclusions.

As of yesterday, Sony's Men In Black 3 has grossed $400 million worldwide after twelve days of theatrical release.  At this rate, $600-$700 million worldwide seems probable.  So even if the budget is $300 million, so large that the film may not be profitable even if it surpasses The Hunger Games's $645 million worldwide take, it is quite clear that Men In Black 3 is a pretty big worldwide box office hit.  It's arguably so big that only The Avengers (already well-ahead of course), The Dark Knight Rises, The Amazing Spider-Man (also a Sony film), and a trio of animated films (Madagascar 3, Ice Age 4, and Brave) stand even a theoretical chance of out-grossing it this summer.  Yet I come not to cheer-lead but to ponder.  At summer's end, will anyone bother to remark at how well the film did over its entire run?  Will the various pundits who wrote the film off as a flop or a disappointment after its 'mere' $200 million four-day global opening weekend over Memorial Day eventually check back at Box Office Mojo and realize the error of their original prognosis?  It's unlikely. The box office pundits of the world are often so dead-set in their preconceived presumptions, sometimes before a film even opens, that it's too much to admit that opening weekend isn't everything and that sometimes a would-be disappointment didn't disappoint in the end.

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 (06/03/12): Snow White and the Huntsman opens strong while Prometheus excels overseas.

Putting a non-existent end to the non-existent box office slump, Snow White and the Huntsman (review/trailer/essay) topped the weekend box office with a pretty strong $56 million.  After the flop that was Battleship, Universal is somewhat relieved that the next of its 'let's make overpriced fantasy tentpoles like every other studio' entry might actually make a small profit in the end.  With about $39 million in overseas grosses, the film has amassed $95 million in its first three days of worldwide play. Alas the film cost $175 million to produce (and who-knows what to market), so this is another situation where a major picture is praying for $400 million worldwide just to break even.  That's obviously not healthy, but the opening is still a darn-good one. It's the second-biggest 2D opening of the year behind The Hunger Games and the fourth-biggest debut of 2012 behind The Avengers ($207 million), The Hunger Games ($153 million), and The Lorax ($70 million).

Review: Men In Black 3 (2012) is the best film in the series.

Men In Black 3 (2D)

2012
103 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

I don't know how much Men In Black 3 actually cost.  I don't know the details of the behind-the-scenes turmoil that shut the film down for a period so the filmmakers could frantically rewrite the screenplay.  I don't know what got removed and what got added or changed along the way.  But the highest compliment that I can pay this third installment in the series is that none of the backstage drama shows.  The story makes sense, there are few real plot holes, and the actors exude confidence and charm in a screenplay that balances trailer-friendly set pieces and gags with genuine storytelling and character growth.  The world may not have needed another Men In Black picture, but director Barry Sonnenfeld and writers Etan Cohen, David Koepp, Jeff Nathanson, and Michael Soccio have crafted a shockingly good one, arguably the best in the series.  This is accomplished and polished popcorn entertainment that is refreshingly light on its feet.  For what it's worth, I thought the first Men In Black was somewhat overrated while Men In Black 2 was *slightly* underrated.  Men In Black 3 is the first in the series that I would call almost-great.

Lionsgate picks Francis Lawrence to helm Hunger Games sequel Catching Fire: When a 'safe', 'cheap' choice is also a good choice.

If you discount his last-minute attempt to salvage Jonah Hex, Francis Lawrence has made three films since 2005 and I have liked all three of them.  As such, while he is not a particularly brave/bold, or outside-the-box choice for Lionsgate to hire to helm the next Hunger Games sequel, Catching Fire, he is a good one.  All three of his films show an emphasis of character and substance over visual razzle-dazzle, and his sure-footed and confident eye will be a relief after sitting through Ross's shakey-cam hysterics.  While I was hoping Lionsgate would pick someone a bit off the beaten path (one of the female directors I mentioned, perhaps?), Francis is a solid choice.  In short, he makes good movies, casts good people in them, and delivers quality mainstream material that entertains without insulting their respective audiences.

A comeback to where? Even at her peak, Lindsay Lohan was not yet a 'movie star' or a box office draw. So don't expect her to become one now.

Come what may, last weekend's Saturday Night Live was memorable if only for the uncommonly creative "Real Housewives of Disney" sketch (embedded above).  The not good/not bad hosting job by Ms. Lohan is beside the point, as the whole gimmick was intended to show off that Ms. Lohan is apparently sober, sane, and ready to work again.  And if for no other reason than I don't want to see the gossip industry 'win', I am certainly hopeful that Lohan is indeed back on the 'straight and narrow' (or at least to whatever extent allows her to work in the profession of her choice, plenty of actors engage in vices while maintaining artistic careers).  But the meme that Lindsay Lohan is trying to 'reclaim her stardom' is a false one.  Lindsay Lohan, at her career peak, was never a movie star.  She was, like a lot of actors and actresses at a given point in their career, on the brink of true stardom.  She was ready to capitalize on a few years of popular films (Freaky Friday, The Parent Trap) and just coming off of a massive critical and commercial success (Mean Girls) which had her poised to truly break out.  But she was not yet a star.

Men in Black 3 gets a surprisingly 'okay' full trailer.

After the somewhat overly cryptic first teaser, this full trailer does a solid job of explaining the premise without overtly spoiling much of the plot.  Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones, now 65 years old) is apparently dead due to a ripple in time, and Agent J (Will Smith, now 43 but still looking not a day older than 28, which is how he was when the first Men In Black came out in 1997) must travel in time to the 1960s to discover some world-changing secret that apparently only K knows.  The weirdness of the ages is fully accounted for, as the post-title joke openly acknowledges the weirdness of 44-year old Josh Brolin playing a 29-year old Tommy Lee Jones.  Kudos to Sony for not revealing much more than that.

Everytime I see a link to a Men In Black 3 behind-the-scenes story, I think I'm about to see this...

"We're leaving!"

Scott Mendelson

Men In Black 3 gets an oddly confusing teaser.

Yes, we've heard about the problematic shooting for this third entry, how the film took a giant recess in order to basically rewrite the script, how the costs are now so high that it will be almost impossible to make any money back for Sony even if the film is a monster hit.  But what strikes me about the trailer are two things - A) Will Smith is well-past this kind of material, even if he doesn't seem to have aged much since 1997.  It's no secret that I think he signed on to this project in a panic after Seven Pounds was wrongly perceived as a flop (if you've seen Seven Pounds, you'd be impressed with its $168 million worldwide total).  To be honest, had Smith not felt that he needed some kind of 'box office comeback', I'm sure he would have tried to get his kids to take over.    B) This trailer is actually quite confusing.  We spend the first half with business as usual, and then after a poorly constructed 'time warp' moment, 'J' arbitrarily can't find 'K' (Tommy Lee Jones) only to be informed that he died in 1969.  I certainly have no objections with teasers that only give away the barest hints of story.  In fact if this were a better constructed trailer I'd tell Sony to stop with this one.  But the teaser is actually somewhat confusing in its narrative, especially to those who don't already know the plot synopsis.  Still, Josh Brolin looks and sounds like a perfect 'young Tommy Lee Jones' and Emma Thompson does shine on the rare occasions she gets to play in the broad comedy sandbox (come what may, Junior was quite good).  Anyway, Sony drops this one on May 25th, 2012.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

It's the basics, stupid: Why Independence Day still holds up 15 years later.

I'm sorry if this makes you feel old.  But it's been fifteen years since Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin blew up the White House with a giant flying saucer.  It's been fifteen years since Will Smith punched out an alien, exclaimed "Welcome to Earth!" and became the biggest movie star in the world.  It's been fifteen years since Bill Pullman gave what still ranks as one of the corniest and most shamelessly uplifting battle speeches in cinematic history.  Yes, tomorrow (July 2nd) marks the fifteenth-anniversary of the theatrical release of Independence Day.  And while many armchair pundits like to hold the film up as an example of when blockbuster filmmaking turned to shit (as they like to do with every single major blockbuster since Jaws), the truth is that it still works as the kind of old-school, character-driven fx-spectacular that seems in painful short supply these days.  The truth is that the film still feels like perhaps the biggest-scale adventure movie ever set on planet Earth.  But, take away the Super Bowl trailer, take away the box office records ($100 million in six days!), take away who did and who didn't become a star as a result of its success.  The fact remains that Independence Day still holds up because it's a damn good movie.

Yesterday's News Today: Will Smith teams with M. Night Shyamalan. How they can help each other...

The news is brief and relatively vague. But Will Smith and Jaden Smith are apparently headlining an original science-fiction adventure film for none-other than M. Night Shyamalan. The Sony picture is untitled and the plot details are sparse ("Set 1,000 years into the future, a young boy navigates an abandoned and sometimes scary Earth to save himself and his estranged father after their ship crashes."), but the idea of the biggest star on Earth teaming with one of the more iconic filmmakers in the modern age remains an interesting one. Point being, it may well be a mutually-beneficial relationship for both of them.