Review: G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013) fixes what wasn't broken and breaks it possibly beyond repair.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation
2013
100 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

It's no secret that I'm a fan of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (review).  It's big, colorful, and filled with over-the-top action performed by larger-than-life heroes and villains.  The first 90 minutes (I have issues with the finale) is basically, as I said back in 2009, what might happen if someone gave the 7-year old me to go play with my G.I. Joe action figures and gave me $175 million to spend on the resulting play-drama.  But for whatever reason fan-boys and critics carped about the last picture, calling it too ridiculous and too silly for a, um, G.I. Joe movie.  So now four years later, we have a somewhat stripped down and more 'realistic' sequel to Stephen Sommers's outlandish original. Jon Chu was under orders to make it cheaper and basically more 'grounded' than the last picture, and I suppose he has succeeded. G.I. Joe: Retaliation can best be described as G.I. Joe meets Act of Valor.  I don't mean that as a compliment.

Weekend Box Office part II: Stoker scores in limited while three wide newbies tank.

The best film of the weekend also had the best per-screen average of the weekend.  Fox Searchlight's Stoker earned $22,689 on each of its seven screens for a $158,000 opening weekend.  Now any number of films can open strong in limited only to tank as it goes wider, so now it's just a question of whether Fox Searchlight even bothers to expand it and how larger audiences react to what is clearly not a mainstream thriller. But for those in the mood for what it offers, it's delicious.  The other three newbies were, um, The Last Exorcism part II, 21 and Over, and Phantoms.  Let's make this quick.  The Last Exorcism part II was a case of CBS Films picking up a franchise that Lionsgate smartly knew was a one-and-done affair.  The original, which opened to $20 million in late 2010, was actually quite good, arguably among the best found footage horror films of the modern era.  But it wasn't something that demanded a sequel and its $8 million opening weekend should be a giant warning sign to the financial backers of Insidious 2 and Sinister 2, although if both films can keep their budgets similar to the $1-3 million that their respective predecessors cost, then they'll be profitable regardless. Even this new one cost just $5 million, so it will still make money.

Weekend Box Office (02/24/13): Identity Thief tops Oscar weekend, Snitch and Dark Skies open "okay".

I can't confirm this offhand, but I'm pretty sure Snitch has the biggest opening weekend of all time for a film based on a Frontline documentary.  The 'mandatory minimum sentences are evil' action drama debuted with $13 million this weekend.  That's not a huge figure, but it's above the sub-$8 million debuts from Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Jason Statham in the last two months.  Lionsgate/Summit procured the film for just $5 million, so this is a solid win all-around.  The picture played 77% 18-49 and 53% male, earning a B from Cinemascore.  The solid 3.17x weekend multiplier, especially considering the predicted Oscar drop today, means that the film may have legs and an outside shot at $45 million.  It's not a massive success, and it means that Dwayne Johnson needs a viable franchise to be 'box office', but for a film with nothing but The Rock to sell, this isn't a bad debut at all (it's higher than the $8 million debut for 2010's Faster, for example).  Johnson still has G.I. Joe: Retaliation next month and the sure to be *huge* Fast & Furious 6 on tap for May, so this almost qualifies as his "one for me" art film.  It's a good movie that I hope finds an audience and it's clearly a better choice for action junkies than A Good Day to Die Hard.

Review: Snitch (2013) is a potent political diatribe disguised as a solid B-movie action drama.

Snitch

2013
115 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Writer/director Ric Roman Waugh and writer Justin Haythe's Snitch (trailer) operates on two levels.  On one hand, it's a pulpy and satisfying B-movie, a distinctly old-fashioned studio programmer about a normal man thrust into an abnormal situation.  The film is compelling and engaging, keeping its head to the ground in terms of plausibility and authenticity.  Even when the film chooses action, the action beats are small-scale and life-sized, which in turn makes them more suspenseful.  But the film also operates on a second level, that of a somewhat angry political polemic.  While the film doesn't go all-in in condemning the entire 'war on drugs', it sticks to a specific portion of that misguided policy and makes an unimpeachable case for its stupidity.  The film thus earns bonus points for being able to successfully mix social moralizing with its action drama while sacrificing little in the way of story or character.

Fast & Furious 6 teaser wins the Super Bowl. I dare Universal to not cut any more marketing materials until after it opens.

Well, that was worth the wait, but then Universal, like Paramount's Transformers series, has always done well by way of Super Bowl teasers with this long-running franchise.  A few notes.  A) Are the random shots of scantily-clad gyrating women really necessary?  B) I still think Universal is nuts not to open this one in April where it will absolutely dominate the pre-summer season.  Oh sure, it may well win the Memorial Day weekend race, but everybody loses a little by the demo head-to-head match ups.  The Hangover III and Fast & Furious 6 are literally targeting the same demographic and both films will open a bit less than they otherwise would have without direct competition.  Coming off the obscenely good and quite popular Fast Five, an unopposed Fast & Furious 6 would be looking at a $100 million+ Fri-Sun debut.  Heck, The Hangover part III may well have a shot at that too under different circumstances, even if the second film wasn't quite as beloved as the first one.  But going head-to-head?  Now both will be lucky to get past $75 million apiece.  For what?  A dick-measuring contest?  Anyway, last point, this is such a grand and effective teaser that I challenge Universal to stop.

Fast & Furious 6 gets poster and most boring title possible.

They just couldn't wait one more day could they?  Universal is of course debuting the first teaser for the sixth Fast and the Furious film tomorrow during the Super Bowl, and the prime reason for curiosity was discovering what the title was going to be.  Well, wonder no longer, cause Universal had to release the above teaser poster and spoil all the fun.  And really, Universal, Fast & Furious 6?  That was the best you could come up with?  They could have gone with any number of more creative titles for this sixth installment.  And while my personal pick, Faster & Furiousier, is probably never going to happen (followed of course by Fastest and Furiousest), the producers certainly had license to have a bit more fun than they've obviously chosen to do.  Also, boring title aside, we have a synopsis, which takes the story in the most logical next direction (the gang teams up with Dwayne Johnson in exchange for pardons), but it's also a little odd when you consider the last film.  

If you recall, the whole point behind the big $100 million drug money heist was to earn the financial security needed to not live on the lam anymore.  Yet now we learn that they are basically suffering from the same 'this is no way to raise a family' issues they had last time.  Minor issues to be sure, likely more to do with the generic plot synopsis than any real script problems, but I do hope that part 6 is indeed a continuation rather than a rehash.  What made Fast Five more than just hollow action stunts is the attention to continuity from the previous installments that gave the film an emotional kick that it otherwise would not have had.  Anyway, Fast & Furious 6 opens May 24th, against The Hangover part III.  One of those should damn well move since they are both targeting the same demographic, but that's not my problem.  I'll post the Super Bowl teaser sometime tomorrow evening.  So what would be your pick for a better, more creative title for this sixth entry?  Oh, and the official synopsis is below (spoiler warning if you didn't stay for the end credits of Fast Five).

Scott Mendelson

Since Dom (Diesel) and Brian’s (Walker) Rio heist toppled a kingpin’s empire and left their crew with $100 million, our heroes have scattered across the globe. But their inability to return home and living forever on the lam have left their lives incomplete.

Meanwhile, Hobbs (Johnson) has been tracking an organization of lethally skilled mercenary drivers across 12 countries, whose mastermind (Evans) is aided by a ruthless second-in-command revealed to be the love Dom thought was dead, Letty (Rodriguez). The only way to stop the criminal outfit is to outmatch them at street level, so Hobbs asks Dom to assemble his elite team in London. Payment? Full pardons for all of them so they can return home and make their families whole again.

Trailer: Dwayne Johnson vs. the 'War on Drugs' in Snitch.

The best documentary I saw in 2012 is Eugene Jarecki's The House I Live In.  I'll review the film closer to its actual January 15 VOD release date, but it's an all-encompassing detailing on the generational and often racial genocide that is our 'war on drugs'.  But it's also likely to not make one bit of difference in combating the outwardly insane drug policies in this country, if only because most people already know most of the outrages contained within and don't seem to care all that much.  Does a Dwayne Johnson action thriller have more hope of 'making a difference'?  I can't say, but the fact that far more people will surely see this policy discussion disguised as a B-movie action thriller perhaps automatically makes it a more worthwhile piece of proactive art.  The film itself looks pretty solid, most importantly seeming to keep the policies it critiques front-and-center even when the cars start blowing up.  The cast (Nadine Velazquez, Susan Sarandon, Michael Kenneth Williams, Harold Perrineau, Barry Pepper, Benjamin Bratt, and Melina Kanakaredes) looks solid and the film now has my complete attention.  Will it actually live up to its potential as a genuine piece of social examination?  Well, Snitch opens on February 23rd from Summit Entertainment.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

Trailer: GI Joe: Retaliation teases subversive global fantasy of the world's worst fears concerning American military might.

It will be amusing and interesting to see how Paramount was able to rejigger the story in order to put previously DOA 'Duke' (Channing Tatum) back into the movie after he was un-killed following his banner 2012 theatrical year.  But more interesting than that, I'd argue, is the film's weirdly subversive plotline.  Wisely continuing from G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra's terrific cliffhanger, the Jon Chu-helmed sequel runs with the idea of the president of the United States being a literal world-wrecking super-villain.  We've had plenty of stories which toyed with the idea of an absolute monster attaining the highest office in the land, but they are usually defeated prior to election (or, in the case of the fifth season of 24, most of Gregory Yitzin's comparably tempered evildoing was committed prior to his exposure as the season's big bad).  Of course, with the president replaced by Arnold Vosloo's Zartan, the world must deal with an America that the world has arguably always feared.  Here we have a US president who basically uses America's stockpile to rain utter carnage on the world over.  I have to wonder if this plot thread is some kind of way to appeal to foreign markets, just as the film's conversion to 3D was more for overseas grosses than domestic ones (let's just say if you asked foreign audiences back in 2002 about The Two Towers, they probably said it was an Iraq-invasion parable very different from the one stateside audiences presumed).  Yes, the G.I. Joes are basically American, working to save their country from an internal threat.  But the idea of a US President gone mad with genocidal powers is something I don't think we've seen before, so for that reason alone G.I. Joe: Retaliation may end up being more than just a pointless sequel.  We'll know soon enough when it opens on March 29, 2013.   

Scott Mendelson

Money for nothing: A commercial (not artistic) defense of Paramount's decision to convert GI Joe Retaliation to 3D.

As most of you know, Paramount has announced that it is moving one of its three major summer releases, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, from June 29th, 2012 to March 29th, 2013.  The official reason for this date change is not quality issues with the film, the need for reshoots, problems with the marketing, or the desire to 'unkill Channing Tatum due to his increased visibility/profile. but purely because they want to take the extra nine months to convert the film to 3D for theatrical release.  Obviously most of the film punditry world is crying foul over this decision and as someone who was looking forward to the film I sympathize.  But putting aside the "I want to see it *now*!" and the "I hate needless and/or post-converted 3D!" arguments, it's tough in this current box office climate to argue that Paramount didn't make the right call.  Since Avatar kick-started the 3D trend 2.5 years ago, there has been a flurry of would-be tentpole films going the 3D route and an equal number of would-be blockbusters choosing to renounce the gimmick and go out as 2D only.  While we can all appreciate the filmmakers who stuck to their artistic guns in the face of box office pressure, the truth of the matter is that in today's marketplace, where a big-budget film's financial fate is often decided by overseas dollars, it's almost fiscal self-injury not to make the call.  For anywhere from $10 million to $20 million extra, you can add around 15-20% to your opening weekend grosses and around 15% to your total domestic box office, with an un-quantifiable upshot for foreign grosses.  For numbers like that, why *wouldn't* you convert your purely commercial popcorn adventure film to 3D?

GI Joe: Retaliation trailers kill off one of 2012's biggest stars.

Say what you will about hindsight and what-not, but I imagine that Paramount is kicking itself in the ass right now for the decision to kill off Channing Tatum in the opening act (scene?) of this second G.I. Joe film.  No, he wasn't exactly the highlight of The Rise of Cobra, but in the last three years 'that guy from Step Up' has been hacking away at would-be stardom and seems to have hit the jackpot this year.  He's now arguably the king of the romantic drama and scored huzzahs and box office with 21 Jump Street.  Between 21 Jump Street and The Vow (plus Haywire which turned him into Stephen Soderbergh's best buddy), Tatum is easily the 'break-out star of 2012' four months in.  Had Paramount had the good sense to let him stick around, they'd have a film starring Tatum and Dwayne Johnson, whose Journey 2: The Mysterious Island is the second-highest grossing American film at the global box office with $322 million thus far.  Paramount could have had two of the biggest male movie stars around in the same film shooting guns and dodging explosives together, but they (or director Jon Chu) had to listen to fanboy whining.  I wouldn't be the least-bit surprised to see an end-credit cookie showing that Duke really survived after all.

All eight G.I. Joe: Retaliation character posters...

These all went out to different online movie sites during the first part of the morning.  I generally don't do the whole 'cobble together from multiple sites and post them all trick, but I felt like doing so today.  Anyway, Paramount is pretty aggressive with this one as, absent the Marvel movies that dominated their summer last year, this is among their biggest would-be tentpoles.  They only have this film, The Dictator, and the Dreamworks animated sequel, Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (which arguably sells itself until a week or so out, and which my mother-in-law is dying to see).  Anyway, enjoy the character posters after the jump.  Yo Joe and all that, this one drops June 29th.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (03/11/12): John Carter bombs in America but is somewhat saved by overseas grosses... for now.

It was judgment day for the much-debated John Carter (review HERE) as Disney's $250-300 million sci-fi adventure finally was unleashed on paying audiences this weekend.  And the judgment was mostly grim with a possible silver lining.  With a terrible marketing campaign that didn't know what to sell, and mixed word of mouth and reviews that emphasized its convoluted story and mediocre action sequences, the film debuted with just $30.1 million.  For a cheaper picture, this would be a fine debut, but for a massively expensive would-be franchise tentpole with little chance of maintaining legs, this is a pretty disastrous result.  As I've written about from time to time (like HERE), Disney has been dead-set on creating a boy-friendly franchise while all but openly insulting the female-friendly films that have long been its bread-and-butter.  In the last few years, we've seen Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Tron: Legacy, I Am Number Four, Real Steel, and now John Carter.  Only I Am Number Four and Real Steel were remotely profitable, and only because they were both budgeted well-under $100 million. John Carter is the end-result, with a film that was sold as the ultimate generic boys action fantasy to such an extent that it was arguably insulting to boys. With no stars, source material that barely known outside the hardcore geek crowd, stunningly indecisive marketing that teased not a single 'money shot', a budget more suited to the third entry in an established blockbuster franchise, and a release period that had yielded only a single $300 million+ grosser ever (Disney's Tim Burton-helmed/Johnny Depp-starring Alice In Wonderland two years ago), the stage was set for an epic domestic crash-and-burn.

Weekend Box Office (03/04/12): The Lorax opens to $70 million, setting an animation record, while Project X opens to $20 million.

The full weekend chart HERE.  See this is what happens when you have just two major cartoon during the Winter/Spring season instead of six.  Last year, February, March, and April saw an onslaught on high-profile animated features, five of which opened just in March and April.  Gnomeo and Juliet ($25 million opening/$99 million domestic total), Rango ($38 million/$123 million) Hop ($37 million/$103 million), and Rio ($39 million/$143 million) all did well, but were burdened by directly competing with each other.  Mars Needs Moms ($6.9 million/$21 million) was one of the biggest box office bombs in modern history while the never-had-a-chance Hoodwinked: Hood vs. Evil ($4 million/$10 million) was DOA.  This time around, it's The Lorax or nothing (that second cartoon I mentioned doesn't open until April 27th), which coupled with the absolute lack of truly new kid-friendly product and the relative disinterest in domestic audiences in Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked (which was still leggy enough to gross $130 million domestic) and The Adventures of Tintin (which is no flop with $372 million worldwide), left a very large gap in the marketplace.  No you can see how its $70 million opening is not *that* surprising.

Weekend Box Office (02/12/12): Everybody wins as The Vow breaks records, Safe House opens huge, Journey 2 best Journey 1, and Phantom Menace 3D feels the Force.

Wow.  Just wow.  Four major releases debuted this weekend and every single one of them opened with superb numbers.  On one hand, that means that every respective demographic was ably served this weekend.  On the other hand, one can only wonder how much cash was sacrificed by opening these four movies on the same weekend.  Anyway, the top film of the weekend was the Rachel McAdams/Channing Tatum romantic drama The Vow.  The $30 million Screen Gems drama, which by the way is NOT based on a Nicholas Sparks novel (it's a true story), debuted with an eye-popping $41 million, a record for the studio.  That's well-over $10 million more than the $30.4 million debut of Dear John, which was the previous record-holder for an opening weekend for a pure romantic drama.  The film played 55% under-25 years old and 72% female.  Obviously everything clicked on the marketing for this one, and Channing Tatum is now the official king of the romantic drama, having headlined the first one to open with more than $30 million and now the first one to open with over $40 million, while Rachel McAdams is the queen, now holding the first and fourth-biggest opening weekend for an unfiltered romantic drama ($18 million for The Time Traveler's Wife).  Where it goes from here is an open question, as Dear John did not have the strongest legs, topping out at $80 million (or just below the $81 million gross of Rachel McAdam's The Notebook).  On the plus side, The Vow doesn't have the same-demo blockbuster Valentine's Day nipping on its heals like Dear John did.  Plus, even if The Vow has the same quick-kill performance (2.6x weekend-to-final multiplier), it will become the first pure romantic drama (no explosions, no action scenes, no mass-disaster in the third act) to cross $100 million since Jerry McGuire in 1996.

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

Painfully obvious sexism watch: One of these JOURNEY 2 posters is not like the other. Hint, it's the one with giant boobs are more important than giant bees.

 

Here are four character posters for Warner Bros' upcoming Journey 2: The Mysterious Island.  Each poster highlights a lead character and a respective giant animal menace.  As you can clearly see, the focus point of three of the posters is the actual special effects creation that is chasing our heroes.  In three of the posters, the human character is smaller than the monsters, thus making the giant animals themselves the center of our attention.  Of course, the second poster on the left, the one highlighting Vanessa Hudgens is a bit different.  In her poster, the flying bee creature is smaller than Hudgens's profile.  So if the giant bee is not the center of attention isn't the fx monster in this poster, than what is?  Why, Hudgens's boobs of course.  As you can see, the largest thing on the poster, the thing that is clearly intended to be the focus point for Hudgens's poster is the young actress's rack.  The marketing team at Warner Bros. didn't see fit to fetishize Dwayne Johnson's massive muscles or any manly attributes that Josh Hutcherson may possess.  But in her character poster (and the main poster on the left), the young actress's breasts are apparently the main attraction. Because of course when you're a girl in a generic or male-driven mainstream genre film, even when it's a PG-rated adventure aimed at younger kids, the only marketable attributes you have is your 'fuck-ability'.  Stay classy, Warner.

Scott Mendelson

Friday box office (04/29/11): $33.2 million for Fast Five, $79-83 million weekend debut likely. Prom and Hoodwinked Too under-perform.

With an opening day that is bigger than all-but two live-action opening weekends this year (Battle: Los Angeles's $36 million opening and The Green Hornet's $33.5 million debut weekend), Fast Five kicked off the summer movie season in high style. The film pulled in just 11% of its opening day tally in midnight screenings. If the picture performs with the same 2.4x weekend multiplier as Fast and Furious ($30m/$72m), it's got an $80 million opening weekend on tap, bigger than the two largest opening weekends of 2011 (Rio and Rango) combined, nearly $10 million higher than the last picture, the record for an April debut, and the biggest three-day opening in Universal's history (the prior record holder is The Lost World: Jurassic Park with $72.3 million). Obviously we'll know how it plays tomorrow, but I'm personally expecting a less frontloaded picture than the previous entry, if only because it's a much better film (although that may not be a factor until next weekend). There's nothing breathtaking about a well-marketed sequel in a popular franchise performing in line with expectations, but it's still nice when a good genre film opens well. Prom made just $1.8 million while Hoodwinked Too grossed just $1.1 million. I don't know how much Dylan Dog: Dead of Night made on just $270,000 on 875 screens.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Fast Five (2011)

Fast Five
2011
130 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Fast Five is frankly something of a miracle. Here is the fifth entry of a ten-year old franchise that has rarely surpassed mediocrity, but which now offers up a chapter that borders on genuine greatness. Here is a sequel that pays explicit attention to what came before and rewards viewers who actually watched and enjoyed the previous films. Unlike so many later sequels that basically just disregard the prior sequels and try to be a sequel to the original or a stand-alone reboot, Fast Five embraces its character relationships and continuity. I had not seen any of the Fast and the Furious films until the week prior to seeing Fast Five. Having watched the prior entries over a period of a few days, I really didn't care for any of them. As much as I enjoyed Fast Five, I cannot even imagine how rewarding this movie will be for those who have loved this series since the beginning.

Fast Five gets a Faster and Furiouser trailer.

Nothing new here, other than the fact that this latest trailer doesn't even try to justify the random 'see gyrating hotties!' shots that inevitably pop up in these kinds of trailers. I haven't seen a single film in this franchise, so even if I catch up, I'll likely wait until this one hits Blu Ray. Two notes. First, ONCE AGAIN, Universal simply must call the next film Faster and Furiouser. Second of all, the onscreen text left us hanging. It advertises 'past fast' and then 'beyond furious' but then fails to state just what lies beyond fast and beyond furious. So, put on your marketing caps and tell me: just what lies beyond fast and furious? The undiscovered country? The final frontier? World's End? You tell me...

Scott Mendelson

Fast Five gets a Super Bowl ad that makes me nostalgic for a franchise where I have yet to see a single installment.

Universal did a bang-up job two years ago with Fast & Furious, selling the return of the primary cast members as cause for celebration rather than desperation. They are pulling the same trick yet again, and this spot highlight the new player, Dwayne Johnson. Irony of ironies, these teasers are making me nostalgic for the series. I say 'irony of ironies' because I've never actually seen one. Ever. Never saw the first four, may or may not see this one. I do enjoy the ending tag, proclaiming that 'Summer starts April 29th'. That's a pretty bold gambit, and one that Marvel and Paramount might disagree with. Point being, one of Thor's primary trump cards is the idea that it's the summer kick-off film for 2011. If Fast Five steals Thor's thunder (pardon the pun), then Marvel might be in serious trouble a week later. But please, Universal, you simply must title one of these things 'Faster and Furiouser'.

Scott Mendelson