Super Bowl commercial: The Avengers (extended preview) adds money-shots, lacks visual oomph, high-toned polish, and a sense of grand scale.

There are certain a handful of 'money-shots' in this 70-second spot, and the final Hulk action beat is the kind of thing that gets people excited.  Still, there is something missing here, both in the sense of actual action content (it still feels like 80% of the action occurs in the third act) and a certain visual pizzazz.  The first preview was in 1.85:1 and while this one seems to be 2.35:1 (or something close to that), there is a certain flatness to the footage.  I'm as much of a Joss Whedon fan as the next nerd, but he is known more for his dialogue and his character-plotting than any directorial flourish.  Without a certain polished sheen or rich color-scheme, scenes like that final 360-degree pan looks like five people playing dress-up with high-end Halloween costumes (compare the new Captain America costume with any still from Johnston's Captain America).  It's tough to put my finger on it, but the whole film (from what we've seen so far) looks and feels a bit plain, and thus doesn't feel as epic or even as 'big' as it damn-well should.  Of course, if the writing and acting are up-to-par, the visual issues will matter that-much less.  But it is still a bit disheartening to see what is supposed to be 'the mother of all superhero films' that looks significantly less epic and large-scale than even the first Spider-Man picture.  The Avengers of course drops on May 4th.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (02/05/12): Chronicle and The Woman In Black both debut to around $20 million while Big Miracle tanks.

As I wrote yesterday (HERE), I don't care which of the two big releases end up at number one for this weekend.  Chronicle and The Woman In Black are both low-budget over/under $15 million releases that are somewhat abnormal in terms of what's considered a mainstream release, both were exceedingly well-marketed (as opposed to 'saturation marketing'), and both are unqualified hits after their first three days.  But since I have to choose which film to discuss first, I will pick Chronicle (review), which A) I've seen and B) is the unofficial #1 film this weekend with $22 million (as opposed to The Woman In Black, which made 'just' $21 million).  Chronicle announces the arrival of director Josh Trank (and writer Max Landis, son of John).  The quite compelling and thoughtful character study, which is plays with the genre trappings of as super-hero origin story through the 'found footage' format, cost just $12 million and drew a large chunk of young audiences of both genders (it played 45% female).  I have no idea what the legs will be like on this downbeat morality play (it received a B from Cinemascore), but I'd argue its artistic and box office success pretty much kills Warner Bros's planned live-action Akira remake and hurts Sony's The Amazing Spider-Man (which is advertising itself as a more low-key and emotionally-gritty superhero origin story... whoops).  Come what may, a very good and creative little movie just opened very well, and that's a win for everyone.

I don't care whether Chronicle or The Woman In Black tops the box office, and here's why you shouldn't either...

With a neck-and-neck opening Friday, two of the three major wide releases both look like they will end up with around $20 million over the Super Bowl weekend.  Both Chronicle and The Woman In Black had budgets around $15 million and targeted ad campaigns, meaning that a $20 million debut makes both films pretty solid hits right out of the gate.  But many of the box office pundits are of-course obsessing over which film will be #1 for the weekend, offering up-to-the-minute updates as to which of the two films is in the lead over the ongoing weekend.  For example, Exhibitor Relations tossed out a Facebook post stating that "Chronicle is holding off The Woman In Black again today, up by about 500k, but the lead could shrink tomorrow. Still too close to call."  I've written now and then about how the spin and 'campaigning' in mainstream Hollywood is similar to the political scene in Washington DC, and it certainly applies in this case.   Like many of the political primaries being waged all over the country in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, weekend box office is not a winner-take-all proposition.  Just as most states' (38 out of 50) delegates are divided up based on percentage of total votes for a given candidate, the film that takes the number 01 spot does not get all of the ticket sales for the weekend.

Review: Chronicle (2012) is a compelling character drama, a visual dazzler, and a thoughtful deconstruction of the 'chosen hero' myth.

Chronicle
2012
83 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

I've written a lot over the last couple years about how, if superhero films are going to survive, they are going to have to be able to be about something other than the generic tropes of superhero comic book adventures.  Captain America excelled because it was a World War II period action drama, while Green Lantern mostly faltered because it wasn't about anything other than its own conventions.  Chronicle (written by Max Landis and directed by Josh Trank) is a shining example of a powerful emotional tragedy that involves certain comic book conventions without really being about them.  At heart, the picture is a fierce rebuttal of the now-cliche 'with great power comes a superior destiny' motif that has been central to the last ten years of big-budget fantasy pictures, both those based on comics and those based on young-adult fantasy novels.  More than just a deconstruction of fantasy tropes, Chronicle is a thoughtful and empathetic story of  three disparate teens who end up with special powers and how it does or does not change them.

John Carter gets an 'introduce the heroes' new preview.

Ignoring the Disney Channel-esque voice-over (this may very well be intended to air during Shake It Up commercial breaks), the biggest problem in this 61-second preview is the seemingly awful performance from lead Taylor Kitsch.  The American trailer barely lets him speak at all, and getting to hear him toss off a few lines more complicated than 'Ugh' makes me realize why.  Again, it's just a 61-second teaser that spends most of the time introducing the heroic supporting characters (the wise mentor/sidekick, the princess/love interest, and the comic relief pet), but his few moments of actual vocal inflection leave quite a bit to be desired.  Frankly, it sounds like there is something wrong with his voice, as if someone (be it Kitsch or voice-modulators) is trying to make the strapping hero's pitch sound lower than he actually is.  Of course, a bad vocal performance isn't entirely fatal if said actor is expressive enough to somewhat compensate (Hayden Christensen's highly expressive face somewhat compensated for wooden vocal delivery in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith), but having neither positive traits can be quite fatal (think Garrett Hedlund in Tron: Legacy).  I'm assuming that this Sunday's Super Bowl commercial will show off the scale of this Andrew Stanton epic, so here's hoping that the film actually looks like it cost $300 million.

Scott Mendelson    

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is officially Tom Cruise's biggest global hit ever. Why the film's $200 million+ domestic total puts it in rare company...

As of yesterday, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol has earned $594 million worldwide, meaning that it has surpassed the $591 million earned in 2005 by War of the Worlds to become the biggest worldwide grosser in Tom Cruise's career.  Domestically, the film sits at $203 million, or behind the $215 million grossing Mission: Impossible II and the $234 million-grossing War of the Worlds.  On the domestic front, it's still ninth in terms of inflation, but the Tom Cruise films of the 1980s and 1990s didn't have to deal with losing 1,600 screens in two weeks despite strong legs.  It is beyond unfortunate that even a film as 'leggy' as Mission: Impossible IV has to contend with arbitrarily losing screens due to the 2-5 new releases that drop each and every weekend.  The jam-packed schedule of mainstream movie releases, as well as the absence of a viable second-run market, has kneecapped any number of films over the last 5-10 years and resulted in screen-bleed and depressed total grosses even if the films didn't exhibit the usual 'quick-kill blockbuster' behavior.

*This* is confidence: The Hunger Games gets an IMAX upgrade while Lionsgate releases a spoiler-free second trailer.

I have now seen three Hunger Games previews, the teaser, the wonderful full trailer from a few months ago, and now this 69-second second trailer.  And I still know next-to-nothing about how the film plays out.  I know the concept, I know large chunks of the first and second act, and I know some of the actors I can expect to see.  Other than that, nadda.  No mega-money shots from the climax, no thrill-spilling montage, no expository narration or on-screen text.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you market a would-be franchise.  You explain the core story, you tease a character relationship or two, offer a few tantalizing bits and pieces, and you get out.  This final teaser, combined with the news that the film will play in IMAX for the first week of release, is a sign that Lionsgate feels it has the goods and can deliver not just to the fans of the source material but to general audiences as well.  The Hunger Games opens on March 32rd.  As always, we'll see...  Oh, and the IMAX press release is after the jump.

Scott Mendelson      

Super Bowl commercial: G.I. Joe: Retaliation brings the cheese.

I liked G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra more than most people did, so it heartens me to say that this short 30 second spot feels more larger-than-life than the first full trailer.  Point being, I don't want a G.I. Joe movie that is 'dark, gritty, and realistic'.  Obviously having two genuine movie stars leading the pack will probably allow this picture to be taken more seriously than the last one, although it will be interesting to see how much Channing Tatum actually appears in this sequel, since he's obviously being hidden in the marketing thus far.  As I've said before, the most promising element is the fact that they are actually honoring the crazy cliffhanger from the first picture and frankly the fact that they are treating this as a sequel at all, as opposed to a 'reboot'.  Anyway, considering how much ink has been spent of late discussing the costumes for female characters in franchises like this, it is refreshing to see that Elodie Yung (Jinx) and Adrienne Palecki (Lady Jane) will be allowed to wear full outfits during their big moments.  And Faran Tahir (allegedly playing Cobra Commander) once again returns to the Paramount franchise fold, having had small roles in Iron Man and Star Trek (he's apparently a good luck charm).  Point being, this does look like the kind of big-scale fun we want out of a G.I. Joe movie, so here's hoping that Jon Chu pulls it off.  The picture opens on June 29th, 2012.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

The newly announced Before Watchmen is a prime example of what's killing DC Comics - Chasing the converted at the expense of new readers.

The big news this morning (really early this morning, like around 3:04am) is DC Comic's announcement of a seven-book prequel to Alan Moore's groundbreaking Watchmen series.  Titled Before Watchmen (covers) the mini-series will involve the likes of Brian Azzarello, Darwyn Cooke, and  J. Michael Straczynski with each of the seven chapters concerning a specific major character.  I have no idea whether this project will be any good or not.  But it sits as a shining example of the fundamental flaw that exists in the comic industry, especially within DC Comics.  They spend most of their time chasing the readers that grew up with their iconic characters rather than attempting to attract new readers who are growing up right now.

New image of Daniel Craig as James Bond in Skyfall reminds me I need to shave today (plus thoughts on the early Connery 007 films).

Among my various New Year's Resolutions for 2012 is a personal pledge to shave more often.  While I get the peach fuzz pretty much 12-16 hours after a full facial shaving, I still find it occasionally irritating to my skin to shave every day.  But as a result, I will occasionally let it grow for a week.  There are two problems with this.  First, when I finally do shave, I have enough of a beard that it takes me a good twenty minutes to be able to see my cheeks.  Secondly, pretty much everyone in my household, from Wendy to Allison to Ethan, prefers me clean-shaven.  Since I agree with them and I do try to make them happy when possible, I really am trying to make an effort to shave at least every few days.  Fortunately I did plug in my razor today, so I will probably give it a go later today after I get some work done.