Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Last word on Sucker Punch, as the director's cut comes to Blu Ray. It's what we claim we want, but we couldn't see past the surface.

Zach Snyder made perhaps the ultimate thesis project on the wholesale objectification of women in popular culture, especially in modern geek culture, and how women feel the need to use those tools of objectification in order to achieve some semblance of would-be independence.  Sucker Punch smashed open the absurd notions that girls wearing short-shorts and arbitrarily doing violence is somehow empowering, when in fact those images are almost designed to be titillating to the male gaze.  It was (and is even more so in the longer, more fluid director's cut which restores the original Jon Hamm finale) a sad, mournful, borderline hopeless saga of five young girls who are imprisoned against their will, exploited for their sexuality, and then forced to use the tools of that exploitation in a feeble attempt to escape the clutches of male oppression.  It is about exploitation and it is about titillation.  Yet our nation's critics and audience members couldn't see past the very tools that Snyder was mocking (the mini-skirts, the pigtails, the larger-than-life CGI-infused action) to see what was a borderline art film.

Trailer: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy showcases old-school thrills with character actors (Gary Oldman! John Hurt!) galore!

I have not read the John le Carre novel that this film is based on.  But just the cast (Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Thomas Hardy, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, etc!), the director (Tomas Alfredson, who helmed the original Let the Right One In), and genre (old-school spy thriller!) puts this one near the top of the must-see list.  We can all decry the unending parade of remakes, sequels, and fantasy films, especially in the summer time.  But as long as stuff like this is still being made and being given a wide release, then the game is not lost.  Let us hope that John Hurt provides the exposition, while Gary Oldman again plays with low-key anguish, which has become his strength of late.  And since I have not read the novel or seen the 1979 miniseries, I do not know if the film continues the classic Gary Oldman tradition.  Ironically, Focus Features is putting it out on November 18th, against Happy Feet 2 and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I.  So while it won't win its opening weekend, it will likely far outpace its rivals on the Tomato-Meter.  

Scott Mendelson

Is Richard Lester available? Disney and Marvel press ahead with Thor 2 for summer 2013, without director Kenneth Branagh.

Well, it looks like summer 2013 is the one where we find out how much the Marvel franchises truly depend on their would-be auteurs.  The summer will kick off with Iron Man 3 (directed not by Jon Favreau but by Shane Black) opens on the same first-weekend in May slot the previous two have debuted in.  And Disney announced today that Thor 2 is scheduled for July 26th, 2013.  The big news is that while star Chris Hemsworth will be back, original helmer Kenneth Branagh will not (Natalie Portman is contracted for a sequel, but we'll see if she makes the choice to return).  This is a surprise to say the least.  This is not a case like the Iron Man franchise, where Jon Favreau butted heads with Marvel throughout the sequel and decided to quit at two.  This isn't a case like Green Lantern, where Martin Campbell found himself a bit over his head with the whole green-screen/CGI action department and will probably fall on the sword for the movie's poor box office (Warner Bros' new habit of micromanaging didn't help either).  Thor withstood a weak marketing campaign and ended up with a rock-solid $437 million worldwide, earning relatively solid reviews in the process.  I don't wish to speculate and will only say that I hope that Branagh's choice to move on was merely a case of not wanting to get tied to the franchise, and not another case of penny-pinching by Marvel or some kind of corporate decision by Disney (which takes over the previously-Paramount owned Marvel films after Captain America).  Anyone want to offer suggestions or guess the release date?  As for replacement directors, it's the same list I always have: Sophia Coppola, Werner Herzog, and Terrence Malick.

Scott Mendelson      

New (and slightly silly) international Captain America poster again sells Steve Rogers unmasked, highlights supporting ensemble.

This time around, it's the supporting cast that merits notice.  They are (roll call!): J.J. Feild as James Montgomery Farnsworth, Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes, Tommy Lee Jones as Col. Chester Phillips, Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter, and Neal McDonough as Dum Dum Dugan. I didn't even realize McDonough was in this picture.  Obviously that big red head watching them is Hugo Weaving as The Red Skull.  And oddly missing from this ensemble is Stanley Tucci.  As for the art itself, it's a bit goofy, but A) it captures the gee-wiz adventure that's been a cornerstone of the ad campaign thus far and B) it's still better than the awful Batman-centric Dark Knight posters from three years back (where the main poster art had a giant wheel as its center of attention).  Anyway, Captain America drops on July 22nd, so expect to start seeing long-lead screenings sometime towards the end of next week, with resulting reviews to start leaking just in time to try to steal geek press away from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II.  I'm sure I'll see it at the All-Media on the Monday or Tuesday before opening, like all the other 'regular critics'.

Scott Mendelson

Cheap but funny: Ben Churchill mashes up No Strings Attached, Friends With Benefits into a single trailer.

This may be cheap (I'm sure you can do this with any number of movies that happen to have a similar premise), but the result is a genuine hoot.  No Strings Attached was relatively okay, a C+ picture that merits a DVD rental and at least tried to have something worthwhile on its mind.  Here's hoping the seemingly bawdier Friends With Benefits at least reaches those heights.  The latter comes out July 22nd.

Scott Mendelson

Box Office (06/29/11): With 60% sold in 3D, Transformers: Dark of the Moon nets $42.7m first day (including Tues-sneaks). It's looks like a $180m 6-day weekend.

Okay, so my arbitrary predictions stemming from yesterday's $13.5 million worth of advance-night and midnight screenings was off by about $10 million.  The third Transformers picture grossed $37.2 million on its first full day, which accounts for $8 million worth of midnight shows but not $5.5 million worth of 9pm advance screenings the evening before.  So the official 'first day' total for Transformers: Dark of the Moon is $42.7 million.  By itself, the $37.2 million number is the sixth-biggest Wednesday of all-time, and the biggest single day of 2011 so far.  That is about $24 million behind the $62 million opening day (with $16 million worth of midnight grosses) for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.  And it is about $6 million ahead of the first day ($27.8 million opening Tuesday plus $8.8 million worth of advance-night sneaks) of the first Transformers back over this same long holiday in 2007.  The first Transformers had a six day opening weekend of sorts, opening on Monday at 8pm and plowing through the whole Fourth of July week with about $155 million in the can by the time Sunday night rolled around.  Dark of the Moon has a similar situation, opening on a Wednesday, but having that holiday Monday that Transformers apparently did not have (I say apparently because the Monday gross plummeted 55% from Sunday, which is unusual for a holiday Monday).  The film scored an A from Cinemascore, with 55% of the audience being under 25. It also played 62% male.  With audience satisfaction higher this time around (Revenge of the Fallen had a B+) and those IMAX (more in number than for Revenge of the Fallen) and 3D screens (which made up a whopping 60% of the tickets yesterday) factored in, we should see a similar long-weekend multiplier to the first Transformers (4.3x its opening 1.25 days).  So offhand, we're looking like a six-day weekend total of about $180 million.  Although Paramount would love to get it over the $183.6 million six-day mark, so as to become the third-biggest six-day total ever (behind Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with $214 million and The Dark Knight with $224 million).

Scott Mendelson

Transformers: Dark of the Moon scores $13.5 million in Tuesday night and midnight sneaks. What does it mean for the long weekend?

Oh boy, it's time for more midnight math! The Frances McDormand/John Malkovich/John Turturro epic  Transformers: Dark of the Moon grossed $13.5 million last night.  That includes $5.5 million worth of advance-night (9pm) screenings and $8 million worth of midnight showings.  That number is just a bit under the $16 million that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen grossed in pure midnight screenings two years ago.  And it's about 50% larger than the $8.8 million that the original Transformers earned with its advance night + midnight screenings over this same uber-long weekend back in 2007.  There is actually quite a bit of comparison calculations possible, since both prior films opened over a six day weekend of sorts (the second film did the normal Wed-Sun non-holiday weekend, but with massive midnight totals that basically are equal to the third film's advance-night performance).  So, the first film opened with $8.8 million in Monday-night sneaks, then made $27 million on its first full day and ended its official Tuesday-to-Sunday six-day weekend with $155.4 million (5.6% of that came from advance-night screenings).  The sequel earned $62 million on its first full day, with $16 million of that coming from midnight showings, and went on to earn $200 million over its Wednesday-to-Monday five-day sprint (8% of that came from midnight screenings).  So where does this leave Transformers: Dark of the Moon?

First look at Anne Hathaway as Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises? No, but this 2004 pic offers a preview of an Ed Brubaker/Darwyn Cooke-inspired design.

If the interview over at Hollywood Life is to be believed, it looks like Christopher Nolan is once again taking his cues from Ed Brubaker, at least visually.  Batman Begins took a healthy mix of Ed Brubaker (the overriding decency of Bruce Wayne), Greg Rucka (the police procedural viewpoint), and Frank Miller (the Batman/Gordon relationship from Batman: Year One), while The Dark Knight borrowed from pretty much the same sources, but more overtly using the work of Ed Brubaker (The Man Who Laughs) and the Ed Brubaker/Greg Rucka story "Soft Targets" from the Gotham Central book back in 2003.  Since Chris Nolan is including Selina Kyle this time around, it is only natural that he again use the template instigated by Ed Brubaker's relaunch of the character back in 2001.  The costume itself was designed by Darwyn Cooke.  As I've stated many times before, Brubaker's 37-issue run on Catwoman remains some of the best stuff DC Comics published over the last decade.  That Nolan may agree with this sentiment makes me that much more excited about whatever Nolan has in store for the series finale.

Scott Mendelson

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol trailer looks visually dynamite, but desperately needs that classic M:I theme music.

The visuals are dynamite, the action looks terrific (and mostly practical), and everyone looks glad to be there (Tom Cruise looks positively charged being back in familiar territory).  But oh goodness, that Eminem song has no business being in a Mission: Impossible trailer.  If anyone has the time to remix the trailer with the old-school music, I'll post it in a heartbeat.  I do wonder how the plot will tie in with Ethan Hunt's status as a married retiree at the end of Mission: Impossible III, but for now the plot (the team goes into action after the head of IMF is accused of raping a... oh wait, wrong IMF) seems compelling and the stunts feel relatively old-school.  There's a bit more fisticuffs than we're used to from this series, but then the reason I like the franchise is that they get a new and distinctive director every time out of the gate.  This time, it's Brad Bird.  He gave us the best non-Disney cartoon of the 1990s (The Iron Giant), the best superhero action picture of the 2000s (The Incredibles) and one of the best Pixar films of the 2000s (Ratatouille) to boot.  So yeah, he has our trust.  This one comes out December 16th, 2011, although I sincerely expect it to move to summer 2012 as Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is opening on the exact same day.  But whenever this one is released, mission is most definitely accepted.

Scott Mendelson    

REVIEW: Transformers: Dark of the Moon (3D) is the Transformers movie you've always wanted (for better or worse), complete with political subtext.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon
2011
154 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

On a relative scale, the third time is the charm for the Michael Bay robot-smashing series.  This second sequel  basically gives us the apocalyptic Transformers epic we've been waiting for since 2007.  That which was annoying about the previous two films is still present here, but in more sensible doses.  We still have needlessly campy humor.  We still have Shia LeBeouf trying to wring sympathy from a genuinely obnoxiously-written lead character.  We still have a needless female lead who exists purely to be ogled.  But this time we get a story that takes itself seriously.  We get a narrative that makes a token amount of sense and shows something almost resembling discipline.  And when the action comes, it does deliver the goods.  At long last, Michael Bay gives us a healthy helping of robot-on-robot smackdowns.  The problems with the previous two films are still there, but they are that much easier to forgive because we finally get what we actually came for in a Transformers movie.