A look back at Harry Potter part II: The Chamber of Secrets stumbles with far too much time to do far too little.

This will be a six-part retrospective on the Harry Potter film series, covering films 1-6 (I think most Potter fans can remember the one that came out eight months ago...).  This essay will be covering Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is not one of the best films in the series.  It is arguably one of the lesser books as well, although I enjoyed that book more than most.  But both the book and the movie accomplished the same feat: they made me feel right at home upon arriving back at this world, and reaffirmed that I would be returning again and again.  But looking objectively at the second film, there is a distinct lack of an emotional core.  It lacks the thrill of introduction and it lacks the highly personal stakes that start to reveal themselves in the next installment.  As a result of these comparative deficiencies, it is far-too long a film considering how little ground it has to cover (to be fair, I watched the extended cut, which runs nearly 3 hours long).  Of all the films in the series, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets most closely resembles 'just another episode' for Harry and his pals.  In X-Files terms, it was a 'standalone', as opposed to a 'mythology' episode.  But it remains an entertaining romp in good company, and it represents a genuine leap in terms of visual effects and intensity of action.

A look back at Harry Potter part I: The Sorcerer's Stone starts things off right.

This will be a six-part retrospective on the Harry Potter film series, covering films 1-6 (I think most Potter fans can remember the one that came out eight months ago...).  The first essay will be covering Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

I have long defended the Chris Columbus Harry Potter films.  Despite their kid-friendly nature and exposition-heavy narratives, they had to do the heavy lifting right from the get-go.  And in hindsight, with the series about to end, it is apparent that Chris Columbus's first two pictures had two major jobs to do: nail the casting and introduce the world at-large.  And in that respect, Christopher Columbus's films are triumphant successes.  I have said countless times over the years just what a miracle it was that the gigantic cast of youngsters and British character actors stayed intact over the course of eight films.  Aside from the death of Richard Harris in 2002, there was not a single cast change from the first film to the last.  And while few would expect anything but the best from the likes of Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, and Robbie Coltrane, the kids were where Columbus and company really hit pay-dirt.  That Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson all grew up to be capable actors and (it must be said) physically attractive young adults is a gift, that's even discounting the sheer luck that so many of the smaller supporting players (Bonnie Wright, Matthew Lewis, Tom Felton, etc) turned out to have the relative chops when they were needed (and yes, puberty was quite kind to them as well).  So before I get into the strengths and minuses of the first two pictures, let us acknowledge how much of a bloody miracle this cast was from the very beginning, a cast that Columbus deserves much credit for assembling.

Pixar can survive Cars 2. Some free advice to Pixar as they take a critical and (relative) commercial beating over an unasked-for sequel.

Cars 2 is indeed terrible.  It's sophomoric, needlessly convoluted, senselessly violent, and pretty much negates everything that people liked about the first Cars.  But even with all of those things being true, Pixar will be fine.  It's one movie, something that John Lasseter really wanted to do.  And while no one will call it a bomb, it will likely be one of Pixar's lowest grossers ever and a rare critical whiff.  But Pixar will be fine.  They will have three sequels nearly in a row between 2010 and 2013.  That's partially due to the original Disney contract, which demanded five original films (hence they held off on sequels until they took over Disney animation).  But Pixar will be fine.  And so will you, moviegoer and fan.  They just have to keep moving forward...

Scott Mendelson

In a pop-culture based on recycling, will our children have icons for their own?

My wife is currently excited because my 3.75 year old daughter has just discovered She-Ra: Princess of Power (otherwise known in our house as He-Man's incestuously-inclined sister).  We happened to play an episode on Netflix Instant and said daughter was relatively entertained.  It's never been a major sticking point, but pretty much from the time Allison was old enough to periodically watch television, it's been a constant debate of 'when will she be ready for (insert show or movie that my wife and/or I enjoyed as a kid)?'  Should we show her Star Wars when the Blu Rays come out in September, or should we wait and take her to see The Phantom Menace in 3D next February?  Or should we just wait a couple years until we know she can 'handle' them and merely allow her to like them or dislike them on their own merits?  We've mellowed out considerably in that regard, basically realizing that she can watch Star Wars or Harry Potter or The Muppets when she damn-well wants to.  I know we're not the only parents who do this.  For those who were raised in the 1980s and came of age in the 1990s, there seems to be an unwillingness to let go of our childhood entertainments.  Combined with a need to expose our children to the same things that we loved as soon as possible, this begs a question.  In an era when the biggest movie of the summer is a live-action variation on a 1980s cartoon and most of the major films are based on comic books that stretch back to the 1940s, in a time when studio executives are trying to 'bring back the Looney Tunes' and 'revive The Muppets', in a place where everything from the 1980s and 1990s seems to be being groomed for a remake or reboot (Teen Wolf? Another Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie?  One more Thundercats cartoon?), will our children actually have entertainment icons of their very own?      

Weekend Box Office (07/04/11): Transformers 3 crushes July 4th records, Larry Crowne underwhelms, Cars 2 crashes, Bridesmaids and Pirates 4 hit milestones.

As expected, Transformers: Dark of the Moon (review) dominated the long Fourth-of-July holiday frame this weekend.  The film had a Fri-Sun debut of $97 million and thus far sits with $161 million since opening late Tuesday night.  It netted a 6.25-day opening of $180 million, with a worldwide six-day opening weekend of $418 million.  There are those who will scream "DISAPPOINTMENT!" because Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen opened with $200 million in its first five days two years ago.  If $180 million in six days is disappointment, sign me up for failure anytime.  The film played 62% male and 55% under-25.  Oddly enough, the picture scored an A- from males and an A from females in Cinemascore polling.  I'm sure pundits will find sexist explanations for that finding ("Oh, the girls just LOVED that LeBeouf goes into a war-torn Chicago to save his girlfriend."), but I'll just chalk it up to the fact that any woman who walks into a Transformers movie likes robot-smashing and explosions as much as the stereotypical guy.  The picture sold 60% of its tickets in 3D, which is an uptick from the usual 45/55 2D advantage over the last few months.  Point being, if you give teens and older audiences something worth seeing in 3D (as opposed to families with really young kids), they will make the choice to plunk down the extra $3.

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.

Horrors! Michael Bay borrows stock footage from The Island for Transformers 3! Surely Walt Disney and company would never do such a thing!

Yes, Michael Bay borrowed a scene from The Island and used it in Transformers: Dark of the Moon.  Horror of horrors!  Yes, Mr. Bay borrowed a bit of highway mayhem in order to avoid re-shooting a stunt where a stunt woman was seriously injured and/or actually putting the take where she got injured into the movie.  The fiend!  Obviously a true artist, say someone like Walt Disney and the Disney animation department would never do such a thing right?  Right?  Oh... right.

 

Scott Mendelson

Box Office (07/01/11): Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up the pace ($32.9m), while Larry Crowne underwhelms and Cars 2 crashes.

First, the good news... Transformers: Dark of the Moon grossed a massive $32.9 million on Friday.  That's $11 more than the first Transformers film grossed on its first Friday and just $4 million less than Revenge of the Fallen (despite the first sequel having a $20 million-bigger opening day than this latest installment).  It went up about 50% from Thursday to Friday, the biggest such jump in the franchise.  It's also the third-biggest non-opening Friday in history, behind Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($36 million) and Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith ($33.5 million).  Point being, it's clear that many fans (and general moviegoers) were just waiting for the regular weekend to check out the latest installment.  The film has grossed $97 million since Wednesday, making it technically the biggest three-day gross of 2011.  It has an outside shot at becoming the first $100 million Fri-Sun debut, especially as Monday is a holiday (hence Sunday acts like Saturday).  But whether it ends up with $165 million by Monday or $185 million by Monday, the film is also doing gangbusters business overseas.  The total worldwide six-day debut looks to be in the neighborhood of $400 million.

Hoping for yesterday: why Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, and the big movie stars of our generation are not going to magically reclaim their past stardom.

This is a slightly updated version of an essay I wrote back in late May.

This Fourth of July holiday, we have seen the release of Larry Crowne, a poorly reviewed romantic comedy starring Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks.  The film will not top $20 million over the four-day weekend (on just a $30 million budget, natch), which will countless pundits to wonder why Hanks and Roberts aren't mega stars anymore.  Two months ago, we saw the wide release of Jodie Foster's flawed-but-interesting drama The Beaver, which failed to even gross $1 million for a variety of factors (mixed reviews, weird premise, a terrible trailer, etc).  But the film is being held to the perhaps unfair standard of determining whether or not Mel Gibson can return to his former box office glory.  Never mind that the film should no more be expected to perform like Lethal Weapon 4 than The Man Without A Face, the media has been abuzz with articles along the lines of 'Can The Beaver save Mel Gibson?"  This year will see much hand-wringing about the sustainable stardom of some of the very biggest 1980s/1990s stars.  Over 2011, we have seen or will see the alleged box office comebacks of Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Harrison Ford, Jim Carrey, and Tom Cruise, plus the continuing saga of Arnold Schwarzenegger's post-'governator' movie plans.  Without obsessing too much on certain offscreen behaviors that jeopardize the popularity of a few of those names, the question is: Why should we be expecting these former mega-stars to still be at the peak of their stardom?

It's official! Bridesmaids is the highest-grossing film in the Judd Apatow cannon! Let's keep up the Kristen Wiig Oscar buzz (tag, you're it)!

It took a day or two longer than predicted, but Bridesmaids currently sits at $149 million at the domestic box office.  That means it is now the biggest-grossing film that Judd Apatow has been involved with in any capacity.  In this case, he was the producer (Paul Feig was the director), and the film just passed the respective $148 million+ totals of Knocked Up (which he directed) and Talladega Nights: The Story of Ricky Bobby (which he wrote).  It has started to lose screens over the last few weeks, so how high it can claim is an open question.  As of sometime this weekend, it will pass $152.6 million, to overtake Sex and the City as the biggest-grossing female-led comedy of all time.  As of now, it's the 27th-biggest R-rated film ever.  Amongst R-rated comedies, it currently ranks 11th, and it will surely crack the top ten before the holiday weekend is over.  With a debut of $26 million back in mid-May, it has already amassed a dynamite 5.7x multiplier with gas still left in the proverbial engine.  It's also Universal's biggest-grossing completely original live-action film in eight years (Bruce Almighty earned $242 million back in summer 2003).  It is the 23rd-biggest grossing film in Universal history.