Ed Helms does Elton John on the MTV Movie Awards.

Watch the 2010 MTV Movie Awards at MTV.com!

This isn't all that funny, and it's especially less funny once it gets interrupted at 1:20. I've generally found Tom Cruise to be good-sport funny for decades, so the sight of him trying so hard here and in Tropic Thunder is painful. But the first minute or so does confirm my (not-that-bold) assumption last year that Ed Helms was in fact doing an Elton John riff during everyone's favorite 'ode of the tiger'. His brief little ditty was one of the highlights of the movie, and my first thoughts were "Wow, Ed Helms can sing." and then "Wow, Ed Helms does a great Elton John impression". As for the show itself, I no longer watch regularly, but how I miss the days when they'd actually mock the film industry in a loving Mad Magazine sort of way. I still think the two best shows were 1994 awards, where they reenacted the Best Movie nominees with chimps, and the 1998 awards show, where Samuel L. Jackson hosted and brought along his character actor buddies (William H. Macy, Gary Busey) to teach the young folk a thing or two about overacting.

Scott Mendelson

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I gets a second teaser.

I guess this MTV Movie Awards spot means that we'll be getting a fuller theatrical trailer in the very near future. The only question is whether Warner Bros. will wait until Inception is released on July 16th or attach the trailer to another studio's genre picture (Toy Story 3, The Last Airbender, or Twilight Saga: Eclipse) over the next few weeks. While I've read the book and it really delivers in the end, the teaser is weak sauce, especially from a franchise that usually goes for broke with their trailers. This one seems to be aimed at (ironically) the Twilight crowd. There is lots of running in the woods, a token amount of angst, but very little razzle/dazzle or spectacle. Frankly, I preferred the creepier, John Hurt-narrated teaser that was on the Half Blood Prince DVD/Blu Ray last year. Of course, much of the book was a somewhat repetitious chase through dark woods and in and out of various safe houses, which again makes me wonder why the very-much padded final chapter was cut into two movies (yes, I know, two blockbusters instead of one). Oh well, the series has been consistently strong this far into the game, I can't imagine David Yates and company dropping the ball this close to the end zone. As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Don't blame the stars, blame the studios? Are Kutcher, Heigl, and/or Seyfried risking their careers by making vehicles with underperforming studios?

We all know that Heigl and Kutcher are going to get ripped in the media because Killers 'only' opened with $16 million. And there are those that believe that Letters to Juliet surely could have pulled in $60 million, and that the failure to do so was a sign of Amanda Seyfried's lacking starpower. Yet both of those films are perfect examples of the weaknesses inherent in the studios that released them. Letters to Juliet and Killers had no chance to opening to $20 million+, because (for whatever reason) the studios that released them don't generally open films at that level of business. If you take away the fluke of Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Tyler Perry pictures, Lionsgate has had three $20 million+ openings in their history (Haunting in Connecticut, The Forbidden Kingdom, and My Bloody Valentine 3D). Same thing with Summit. Take away the Twilight franchise, and they'd have one $20 million+ opener (Knowing) and nothing else above $14 million in the last three or four years.

Shrek 4 three-peats and four new openers (Get Him to the Greek, Killers, Marmaduke, Splice) fail to break out. Weekend box office review (06/05/10).

Owing to lackluster competition, the complete failure of a film aimed at the same demographic, and the high ticket prices associated with 3D and IMAX theaters, Shrek Forever After once again took the top spot over the weekend. While the film opened far below expectations, the fourth picture in the Shrek saga has held off oblivion at least for the moment. With a $25.4 million grossing-third weekend, the film dropped 41% for a current seventeen-day total of $183.3 million. That's well behind the respective end-of-weekend three totals of Shrek the Third ($255 million) and Shrek 2 ($314 million). But both Shrek the Third and Shrek 2 dropped 47% on their third weekends, so the fourth chapter is displaying slightly superior legs. Whether this is do to the consistency and higher prices of the 3D and IMAX screens, or whether audiences just like this Shrek film better than the last, the franchise still seems to have some life left in it after all. It may have opened with 58% of the third film's $121 million opening weekend grosses, but Shrek: The Final Chapter is proving to be more resilient than many, including myself, predicted.

Review: Splice (2010)

Splice
2010
107 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

In a sea of pretenders, Splice is the real thing. It is a genuine thriller, rooted in a small cast of developed characters and thoroughly engaged in its moral quagmire. It is frighteningly plausible and deliciously humorous. It is less concerned with scaring you out of your seat than in slowly creeping you out. It is a true original, a buttoned-down variation of the classic 'science has gone too far' story, but rooted in realism and sympathetic characters. It works because it takes the time to make us give a damn, and we give a damn because it works.

The Expendables gets a second (blatantly misleading) official trailer.

So, Lionsgate has gone from spoiling the 'surprise' cameo appearances by Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger to falsely implying that the two action icons are actually starring in the 1980s homage. This is every bit as dishonest as the trailers for Kangaroo Jack and Snow Dogs which wrongly implied that the animals would be talking and/or rapping for the entire respective movies. Sorry folks, as most of you know, Sylvester Stallone is indeed starring in this ensemble piece, which he wrote and directed, but the real co-stars are B-level action figures (Jason Statham, Jet Li, Steve Austin, Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, etc). On the plus side, the film will indeed be rated R after all.

Scott Mendelson

Blu Ray Review: Undisputed III: Redemption (2010)

Undisputed III: Redemption
2010
96 minutes
rated R
available from Warner Home Video on DVD, Blu Ray, iTunes, and OnDemand.

by Scott Mendelson

Eight brutal prisoners from around the world converge in a Georgian prison to engage in brutal fights to the (almost) death with the promise of freedom for the victor. Wealthy men and corrupt authority figures will wager on the outcome, but one man has decided to fight back. Sound original? Of course not, but I would argue (by default) that Undisputed III is The Godfather of the 'prisoners fight to the death' sub-genre. It's competently acted (its always good to see Robert Costanzo), looks gorgeous thanks to the Red One camera, simply plotted, and contains just enough impressively choreographed fight scenes.

Guest Review: The Karate Kid (2010)

Once again, I'm poaching (with permission) friend and colleague RL Shaffer's review of a movie that he has seen before myself. In this case, it's the remake of The Karate Kid. The film finally screened last night in Cleveland, Ohio. Sony obviously knows it has a winner on its hands, hence the long-lead screening. Anyway, the above video is RL Shaffer of DVD Future giving us his take on The Karate Kid.

Scott Mendelson

Looks pretty cool to me...

Thanks to AICN for snagging these bits of concept art. This is apparently legit, so behold your first look, more or less, at Chris Evens as Steve Rogers/Captain America. It looks fine and dandy, but I'm more curious as to what Hugo Weaving will look like as the Red Skull. Will he look any different than Scott Paulin from the 1990 Albert Pyun disaster-piece? And, with the added publicity of Captain America 2.0, will said original finally get a DVD release? It may be kinda terrible, but it has its goofy charm (it's absurdly violent for the first half and Paulin actually makes a compelling Red Skull).

Scott Mendelson

Review: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
2010
115 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Prince of Persia is a film so desperately chasing the shadows of its predecessors that it fails to be its own product. It feels like a Frankenstein-monster patchwork from the other period adventure franchises of the last decade, but it neglects the key ingredient: quality. Anyone can grill a steak, but having the right cut of meat is 80% of the battle. The film is a wildly expensive, genuinely epic adventure story with an overt political subtext and a couple rousing action scenes. But it is fatally miscast, badly written and it neglects to develop its characters beyond the call sheet. It's not a bad movie, but it fails to be anything approaching a good movie.