Indiana Jones blu-ray collection gets a trailer...

Not much to expound upon here, but Paramount will be releasing all four Indiana Jones films on blu-ray sometime this fall (probably in late September/early October, so they can do a secondary discount during the holidays).  All I can say is that the trailer above is unusual in that it outright hides most of the supporting cast of the last two pictures (no Sean Connery, no Shia LeBeouf, etc).  On the plus side, it doesn't skimp on footage from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull out of misplaced embarrassment.  Anyway, enjoy the above teaser. 

The Avengers gets one last trailer and it's... an improvement.

This is an improvement over the prior trailer and Superbowl ad purely because it actually has a few money shots and, for whatever reason, the footage looks more three-dimensional and 'film-like' than the comparatively flat ads thus far.  It's good that Black Widow actually gets stuff to do this time around, and I'm genuinely impressed with the Hulk footage (that close-up at the end of the 360 shot actually looks like Mark Ruffalo).  In terms of action, it still looks like we're looking at three key action sequences: the dick-measuring contest in a forest between Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man, some kind of second-act incident at the Avengers headquarters (invasion or a Hulk freak-out I presume), plus the all-important climax where the Loki's army of robot things (I'm not hardcore enough to know what those flying bugs are) wage war on a single block of New York City.  The third act stuff looks solid, and I have to admit I'm pleased that we still don't know much about the nitty-gritty plot details, which is as it should be.  Yes, I still wish the film felt a big larger in scale, but if the film works as quality entertainment it will be a moot point.  Obviously you don't hire Joss Whedon for large-scale pyrotechnics, but for character development and quality dialogue, so we'll see if one outweighs the apparent lack of the other (I personally would rather have bad action in a good movie than vice-versa).  Point being, despite my comments yesterday about Disney's marketing making a negative impact, this trailer actually makes me more excited than I was yesterday, so that counts as a win.  Anyway, the film drops May 4th (although the UK gets it a week earlier) and as always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson  

I hope Bully gets a XXX! NATO's John Fithian treats Harvey Weinstein like an adult, Weinstein responds like a bullying (and lying) child.

As part of the ongoing 'fall-out' of the documentary Bully getting slapped with an R for its profanity, Harvey Weinstein has threatened to leave the MPAA and/or release the film in theaters as 'unrated'.  In response, John Fithian wrote the following letter:

LETTER FROM NATO PRESIDENT & CEO JOHN FITHIAN

Dear Harvey,

The National Association of Theatre Owners partners with the MPAA in the rules and operations of the Classification and Ratings Administration. Exhibition representatives participated yesterday in the appeal of “Bully.” As you know, the appeals board voted to uphold the ratings board’s decision that the prevalence of harsh language in “Bully” warranted an “R” rating. In response, you released a statement criticizing the decision, and threatening to remove your company’s movies from the ratings process.

As the father of a nine-year-old child, I am personally grateful that TWC has addressed the important issue of bullying in such a powerful documentary. The filmmaker and especially the brave young people who participated in this project deserve our attention and respect. Nonetheless, I believe that your public response to the decision of the appeals board is unwise.

Surveys of America’s parents reflect their very strong concern with the use of harsh language in movies. The vast majority of parents surveyed have indicated that the type of language used in “Bully” should receive an automatic “R” rating. You ask us to ignore the preferences of America’s parents and our own ratings rules because of the merit of this movie. Yet were the MPAA and NATO to waive the ratings rules whenever we believed that a particular movie had merit, or was somehow more important than other movies, we would no longer be neutral parties applying consistent standards, but rather censors of content based on personal mores.

You recently released the award-winning movie “King’s Speech” and must know the language rules very well. You should not have been surprised at the rating for “Bully.”

I have nothing but tremendous respect for you and the work of TWC. Our industry is so much the better for your involvement. But if you decide to withdraw your support and participation in the rating system, and begin to release movies without ratings, I will have no choice but to encourage my theater owner members to treat unrated movies from The Weinstein Company in the same manner as they treat unrated movies from anyone else.

In most cases, that means enforcement as though the movies were rated NC-17 – where no one under the age of 18 can be admitted even with accompanying parents or guardians.

Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts. And the best of luck to you on Sunday.

Sincerely yours,

John Fithian
President & CEO
NATO

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  

Pixar's Brave gets a terrific TV spot, which *should* be the end of their trailer campaign.

It's the music.  A gorgeous hymn set to images that sell the mythical and epic nature of the story, which makes this the best piece of marketing for the film yet.  Here's hoping Pixar just stops right now and doesn't reveal anything else.  They have the teaser, the full trailer, the extended scene, and this TV spot.  They are good to go at this point, so they might as well quit while they are ahead.  Brave opens on June 22nd, 2012.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (02/26/12): Act of Valor scores big, Good Deeds opens low for Tyler Perry, while Wanderlust and Gone tank.

In yet another stupidly crowded weekend at the box office (in such a crowded marketplace where only one new release debuted on more than 2,200 screens), we had yet another solid surprise, as the low-budget Act of Valor topped the box office with a $24.4 million debut.  Relativity bought the $12 million production for  $13 million and then spent another $30-$40 million to market it.  Said marketing campaign highlighted the film's lone quirk - that it starred actual Navy Seals and allegedly presented a more accurate picture of how such soldiers conduct themselves in the battlefield (they also bought a couple Super Bowl ads and screened the crap out of the film all over the country prior to release).  Of course, such lofty attempts at realism didn't prevent a Perils of Pauline subplot (Roselyn Sanchez plays a kidnapped CIA operative who must be rescued by these manly men from torturous bad guys), but the marketing campaign certainly played on the idea that this film was more 'real' than the likes of Navy Seals.  The picture earned an A from Cinemascore, which means that audiences obviously didn't mind the fact that the real life Seals are better at killing people than the whole 'acting' thing.  As somewhat expected, it played best in regions that have military bases and places that certain parties dismissively refer to as 'fly-over country' (don't be that asshole).  

Review: Gone (2012) is a cheerfully absurd thriller that either toys with genre expectations or just makes no sense whatsoever.

Gone

2012
95 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Gone is that strange sort of movie that actually grows in esteem when you look back on it and realize just how preposterous it really is.  The plot technically involves Amanda Seyfried as Jill, a young woman looking for her missing sister.  The twist being that she is absolutely sure that said sister (Emily Wickersham) has been abducted by the same serial murderer who kidnapped poor Jill and tossed her in a pit just over a year ago in a failed attempt to add her to his collection of corpses.  That's all the plot you need, as what follows is a surprisingly relentless and fast-paced investigation thriller that barely stops to take its breath until late in the third act.  While the events don't technically unfold in real time, there is such a propulsive forward momentum that the picture feels like a very low-budget, nothing-but-essentials variation on 24 meshed with Run Lola Run and an extended episode Busy Town Mysteries.  I wouldn't go so far as to cal Gone 'good', but I admired its just-the-facts pacing and, in hindsight, its rather ludicrousness plotting.

Read it and weep! The Phantom Menace is about to out-gross The Dark Knight! Or: What the onslaught on 3D reissues means for the all-time grossers list.

With just $1 million separating the two films, today or tomorrow is likely the day when one of the more reviled films in geek-ville, Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace, will surpass one of the more openly worshipped geek film in recent years, The Dark Knight, at the global box office.  As of Wednesday, Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace crossed $1 billion, becoming the eleventh film to do so and the first Star Wars film to cross said benchmark.  Obviously there is inflation and 3D price-bumps to figure, but just remember that The Phantom Menace's adjusted-for-inflation grosses from 1999 would equal about $664 million in domestic grosses alone (it earned $431 million in the summer of 1999, the second-largest grossing first-run film behind Titanic at that point).  And don't forget that a number of major fantasy films, chiefly the first three Star Wars films, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial, have had several theatrical releases since their initial respective debuts.  In the days before VHS became mainstream, it was not uncommon for popular films to show up repeatedly at a theater near you.  With the apparent consumer appeal of 3D-converted re-releases, we are seeing a return to what may be a revolving door atop the list of all-time box office champions.

"Girl Power" animated films used to be 'no-big deal'. Why Pixar's Brave, and its feminist narrative, is not a step forward, but merely a course-correction.

I don't generally watch clips, let alone post them, for upcoming films.  I somewhat dislike the practice of releasing full-blown scenes of upcoming films, as it's purely spoiler material, plain and simple.  But I will make an exception, as posting the above clip gives me the opportunity to rant about something that came to mind about a month ago while I was on a Disney Cruise with the wife and kids. Point being, there will be any number of essays written over the next few months about how Pixar's Brave is some kind of groundbreaking picture because it has a female lead, a warrior princess no less.  It's story seems to involve a young girl who rebels against her family's expectations regarding his place in life as a girl in 1300s (?) Scotland (see the teaser and the trailer HERE and HERE).  That's fine.  The film looks gorgeous and I'm a sucker for Scottish music (Patrick Doyle is handling the scoring duties). Alas, I think it's frankly downright regressive that we view this film as a feminist breakthrough.  Quite simply, Disney released an animated film back in 1998 starring a female protagonist who rebelled against society's expectations of her.  Mulan was as much a feminist fable as Brave is selling itself as, and there wasn't nearly as much huffing-and-puffing about it at the time.

To hell with 3D, Skyfall becomes the first 007 film to go the IMAX route.

Not much to report beyond the news itself.  IMAX has announced that the Sam Mendes 007 picture Skyfall will debut day-and-day in 35mm and IMAX screens on October 26th, 2012 (in the UK) and November 9th, 2012 (in the US and elsewhere).  Back in the post-Avatar era, there was talk of Skyfall becoming the first 007 film to be released in 3D.  That seems to have been scuttled, which means that James Bond fans will be able to enjoy the next 007 entry in glorious IMAX 2D.  The Hollywood Reporter also notes that the highly successful pre-release IMAX sneak of Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol will indeed lead to more IMAX pre-releases of major titles, although no specific examples were offered (I'm betting Warner Bros. goes that route with Superman: Man of Steel if it's any good).  

There was also a promise of sorts from the company to do more 'fanboy-friendly' films alongside the animated fare, which doesn't seem like news to me, but oh well.  Also of note?  They are expecting big IMAX business for their one-week engagement of The Hunger Games starting March 23rd.  Point being, this is rather good news for 007 fans, as well as further evidence that IMAX, not 3D, is going to be the sign of big-budget prestige in the near future.  And if Sony makes good on their threat to charge theaters for Real-D 3D glasses in May, it could have a ripple effect throughout the 3D business overall.  I've long argued that the only thing stopping IMAX from making further inroads (and thus booking more titles at a time) is the shortage of available screens, but that will slowly become less of a concern over time.  To paraphrase the late Whitney Houston, I believe the IMAX is our cinematic future, the one thing (massive screens plus utterly surround sound) that home theaters cannot replicate. Anyway, share your thoughts below.  Does the IMAX move give you more confidence in Skyfall?  Does it make you want to see the film more?

Scott Mendelson