Bigger isn't always better. Why Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters may represent the future of big-scale studio movies.

I wrote a few weeks ago about how something released this year or perhaps last year might be a signal for the future of the would-be blockbuster, a film whose respective success would spawn a decade or so of like-minded would-be tentpoles. What if I were to tell you that a possible template for future would-be blockbusters had already arrived this very year?  What if I were to tell you that the future of big-scale filmmaking may be none-other than Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters?  Laugh if you wish, but let's take a look at what the film represents.

Weekend Box Office (01-27-13): Hansel and Gretel slightly overperforms while Parker and Movie 43 underwhelm.

This weekend's lesson is "all the marketing prowess in the world doesn't matter if you don't have the movie". Paramount has been batting 1.000 in terms of launching major fantasy-skewed franchise pictures.  From at least summer 2007 with Transformers, they have been the most consistent performers in terms of grabbing those blockbuster debuts, launching not-quite sure things like Iron Man, Star Trek, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, and Thor to blockbuster numbers while also turning a glorified home movie (Paranormal Activity) into a massive horror franchise in their spare time.  They were a little off their game in 2012, with several high profile delays into 2013 (Star Trek Into Darkness, GI Joe: Retaliation) and with the few films Paramount did release in 2012 somewhat under-performing (Jack Reacher, Katy Perry: Part of Me, The Dictator, Rise of the Guardians).  But I would argue the fact that Paramount got what looked to be an utter shit-storm like Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters to nearly $20 million, or $19 million in this case, is a sign of their sheer marketing will.  They hit all the sweet spots (in theater infomercials, an unexpected R-rating, IMAX engagements, an exclusive sneak peak at a future Paramount movie, saturated coverage in various demographics, etc.) but the movie is the movie.

Why they hate us: Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters gets a lousy trailer that feels no better than a SyFy Channel premiere.

Well this looks amusingly terrible.  This is frankly why so many people claim that movies stink nowadays.  It's the kind of 'take an old tale and turn it into an action picture' shtick that was tired the minute Van Helsing debut nearly nine summers ago.  Starring a flavor of the month actor (Jeremy Renner) and a random 'she's a movie star because we tell you she is' would-be starlet (Gemma Arterton), this can't even muster a decent trailer.  It looks dull, it looks cheap, and it looks like the kind of thing that would perhaps justify itself as a guilty pleasure as a Saturday night SyFy movie.  But this would-be franchise-starter is the kind of film that would-be audiences and critics are talking about when they decry the death of Hollywood.  Just as obnoxious, the film pertains to be about a brother-and-sister witch killers yet establishes what appears to be a stock 'rescue the damsel in distress' third act which sidelines Arterton for large chunks of the picture (notice how little she appears in the last third of the trailer).  I'm happy to see Famke Janssen in a high-profile project, but she seems to be the only source of entertainment, even with a somewhat surprising R-rating.  Although I will gladly eat crow if the film finds some way to incorporate IKEA into the narrative, perhaps making Mr. Ikea the would-be Q who builds all of their snap-together weapons ("There's an extra screw that doesn't go anywhere!  We're doomed sister!").  Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters debuts on January 11th. 2013.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson   

Weekend Box Office: Bourne Legacy tops while The Campaign and Hope Springs debut well and The Dark Knight Rises presses upward.

To the surprise of no one, the top film of the weekend was The Bourne Legacy.  With $38 million, the fourth entry in the ten-year old franchise opened well above the $27 million debut of The Bourne Identity during June 2002, but that's mostly due to ten years of inflation as The Bourne Identity's opening would equal $38 million today.  It's below the $52 million debut of The Bourne Supremacy back in July 2004, and understandably well below the $69 million opening weekend of The Bourne Ultimatum back in August 2007.  This spin-off/reboot of the Matt Damon-led Bourne series showcased Jeremy Renner as a totally different government assassin in the same world as the three prior Bourne films.  Helmed by Tony Gilroy (who had a hand in writing all three prior adaptations), Universal sadly spent $125 million on this quasi-sequel.  So if the film 'merely' approaches the $121 million gross of the first film and earns about that much overseas ($92 million for a $214 million total), it won't be profitable.  The endless loop on USA starting in 2015 won't hurt. The second and third films grossed $176 million and $227 million in the US respectively while earning $288 million and $422 million worldwide respectively (Bourne Ultimatum basically doubled Bourne Supremacy's overseas take).  If the film excels overseas, which it now must, matching the $288 million gross of Bourne Supremacy isn't out of the question (it opened in a few markets this weekend and earned $7.8 million overseas).

Who cares and why bother? How national apathy and the 'death of outrage' killed the modern political thriller.

Besides being a terrific thriller, Enemy of the State serves as a touchtone of sorts. No, it wasn't the last adult-skewing, star-driven R-rated thriller released by a major studio, although it seemed that way up until a few years ago. No, the whip-smart Will Smith/Gene Hackman high-tech chase picture was the last time that the classic 'man on the run' template made sense. It was a classic conspiracy thriller, based in the idea that forces in the American government were up to no good, and people who had stumbled upon this information had to be silenced. It was also rooted in the idea that the halls of Congress and the American people would be horrified by the idea that covert forces were up to devious doings, which in turn necessitated murderous cover-ups. I would argue that this now innocently naive idea is yet another victim of a post-9/11 mindset. So as Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) raced around the world with darker factions of the US government on his tail during The Bourne Legacy (review), I couldn't help but wonder "Why bother?". What exactly would be the consequences if America found out that the government had been playing around with science in order to make super-awesome covert killing machines for black-ops missions? Recent evidence suggests that few would do more than feign outrage, share the story on Facebook, and click on the next article.

Review: The Bourne Legacy (2012) not only fails to reboot the franchise but retroactively poisons what came before.

The Bourne Legacy

2012
130 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson
While Tony Gilroy's The Bourne Legacy is being touted as a spin-off from the Matt Damon-starring spy franchise, it actually functions more as a retroactive prequel.  Rather than expanding the story or going off in a different direction, it spends an unholy amount of its screen time explicitly explaining the history and science behind a completely different 'super assassin' program from the one that once bred Jason Bourne (imagine if The Phantom Menace was primarily *about* midichlorians).  Instead of telling a story of relevance or creating interesting characters that happen to exist in the world established by Doug Liman and Paul Greengrass (and of course stemming from Robert Ludlam's original novels), Tony Gilroy takes a proverbial pick-axe to the series, undoing much of the prior narrative while retroactively turning Jason Bourne (of course played by Matt Damon and occasionally seen here in still photographs) into not a conflicted anti-hero but a force of chaos.  All of this would be forgivable and possibly intriguing if the resulting film weren't so bloody dull and unengaging.  But The Bourne Legacy makes me want to apologize for every mean thing I ever said about The Bourne Ultimatum.  The third film may have been a dumbed-down and amped-up remake of the superb Bourne Supremacy, but it at least had a pulse and sheer entertainment value.  The Bourne Legacy makes one yearn for the comparatively high-quality thrills and chills of Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker. 

John Gosling previews the week's new releases (08/10/12)

This week brings us three major releases, one opening Wednesday, the other two on Friday.

The character of Jason Bourne made his debut in the 1980 Robert Ludlum book, The Bourne Identity. The story opens with Bourne being found with bullet wounds and no memory of who he is or why he has been shot. As the tale unfolds he soon discovers that he is a highly trained individual, possibly a spy or assassin, and begins to piece together the reasons why he was left for dead. Since his debut, Jason Bourne has gone on to feature in two further Ludlum penned stories, along with six written by Eric Van Lustbader (a seventh is due at the end of 2012). The character actually made his screen debut in an extended TV movie in 1988, which featured Richard Chamberlain as Bourne, and Charlie's Angels's Jaclyn Smith as Marie. While there were differences between this version and the novel, it would be a closer adaptation than the next version to reach the screen. Director Doug Liman, a fan of the book since reading it in high school, decided he wanted to adapt it for the screen while finishing up work on his breakthrough movie, Swingers. It would take two years before he could wrangle the rights from Warner Brothers and a further year of writing with Tony Gilroy before a workable script emerged. Liman discarded all but the central premise for his version, contemporising the themes and politics in the process. He also added elements garnered from his father's memoirs, a former NSA operative, who had had dealings with Oliver North - traits of whom would be the basis for the character of Alexander Conklin.

Watch/Discuss: The Bourne Legacy depressingly casts Rachel Weisz as neither hero or villain, but 'the girl'.

The most annoying thing about noticing gender issues in films and television is that you can't *not* notice them when its inconvenient.  So while this second trailer for The Bourne Redundancy, err The Bourne Legacy, has a crap-load of great actors, some solid stunt-work, and a time-twisty narrative that seemingly takes place at the same time as The Bourne Ultimatum.  But couldn't the screenwriters think of something more original than "Jeremy Renner rescues his hot doctor from bad guys and takes her on the run with him"?  Rachel Weisz is an Oscar winner and one of the better actresses of her generation, but whenever she treads into big-studio productions she almost always finds herself as the 'tag-along girl'.  Whether in Chain Reaction (one of her first films back in 1996), Constantine (ironically both with Keanu Reeves), and now in this production, she's the pretty face who gets caught up in the hero's peril and gets dragged along and periodically rescued from scary bad guys.  Yes the first film had a 'drag-along girl' (Franka Potente), but the film went out of its way to emphasize just how much danger Jason Bourne was putting her and her family in by virtue of his intrusion.  It's a big difference: potential menace versus lily-white savior.

Weekend Box Office (05/06/12): The Avengers does the impossible, scoring $207 million in a single weekend. Why the numbers are even more impressive than you think...

Ten years ago, Spider-Man shocked the industry by grossing more than $100 million in a single weekend.  Five years ago, Spider-Man 3 broke the $150 million weekend barrier.  This weekend, The Avengers has blown through the $200 million barrier, delivering a record opening weekend of $207.1 million in high style.  Yes, the number is beyond huge, besting Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II by $38 million.  But the total weekend number only tells part of the story.  Arguably as important as the massive three-day figure is the manner in which it was earned.  First of all, The Avengers is the first film in modern times (going back to Batman 23 years ago) to break the opening weekend record without shattering the opening day record.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II still holds the record for the biggest single day, biggest opening day, and biggest Friday with $91 million.  The Avengers earned a massive $80 million on its first Friday, good for the second-highest single day of all time.  But for the last several years, massive opening weekends of this nature have been predicated on overly front-loaded opening days, in turn predicated on frontloaded midnight showings.  Harry Potter 7.2 made $43 million at midnight alone, or 25% of its $169 weekend total.  The Hunger Games did 12% of its $152 million debut at midnight.  Twilight Saga: New Moon did 18% of its $142 million debut at midnight alone.  The Avengers did just 9% of its gross, or $18.7 million, at midnight. This means that the film played obscenely well all weekend, not just on opening day for frenzied fans.

The Avengers gets a hilariously bad new poster, but provides marketing insights...

First and foremost, the photo-shopping on this poster is pretty terrible.  The proportions are off, Downey Jr's head is affixed on his body as poorly as the various male leads in that infamous Takers poster 2.5 years ago, and no one seems to be in the same scene (here's a great look at the various light-source issues).  And, just to annoy me, they went out of their way to make sure the lone female of the group is much shorter than anyone else in the poster.  Anyway, this one-sheet again sells the notion that the entire climactic battle scene (which seems to represent most of the film's action judging by the marketing thus far) takes place on a single street in downtown New York City.  More importantly, while director Joss Whedon has confirmed that the story will be somewhat Steve Rogers-centric, the marketing is (wisely or by decree) focusing on Tony Stark.  Not only is Robert Downey Jr. front-and-center on the poster, not only does he get top billing on the cast roll-call, but he actually gets his name BEFORE the title.  Anyway, Marvel/Disney is dropping a new trailer tomorrow.  I'm not sure why they aren't waiting nine days and attaching said trailer to prints of John Carter. That film will need what little help an Avengers trailer can provide on opening weekend.  But no matter, what are your thoughts on this particular piece of marketing?  Oh, and what are your thoughts on the news that the film will be titled The Avengers Assembled in the UK to avoid 'confusion' with The Avengers television series from the 1960s (edit - yeah, probably the infamous 1998 Avengers movie too)?

Scott Mendelson  

The Bourne Desperation gets a teaser trailer...

The most striking thing about this teaser (which premiered late last week) is that it's in fact a variation on an old joke my wife and I used to do back when The Bourne Ultimatum came out five years ago.  It's no secret that I kinda hate The Bourne Ultimatum, finding it to be a dumbed-down, streamlined, crowd-pleasing remake of The Bourne Supremacy.  But the goofiest part of the picture is the revelation that Jason Bourne wasn't just a patient in the Treadstone program, no, he was also involved in an even more secret and devious organization: Blackbriar (which, to be fair, was I believe referenced offhand at the finale of The Bourne Identity)!  So if the fourth film ever came to fruition, we'd inevitably see the reveal of yet another uber-secret government-sanctioned wet-ops program.  "If you were horrified by Treadstone... if you were mortified by Blackbriar... then you will shit your pants when you learn about Bald Eagle!!"  Bourne: "Oh my god... you turned us into half-human/half-robot killing machines!"  Reanimated Clive Owen: "Look... what... they (loading-loading)... make (Error!  Error!) you give!"  Sadly that absurdest bit seems perilously close to fruition with this new teaser for The Bourne Redundancy.  

Review: Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol (2011) is a new action film classic.

Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol: the IMAX Experience

2011
133 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Brad Bird's Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol is an outstanding action thriller that happens to be the fourth entry in a long-running franchise (essay).  Like the three previous entries, this is a mostly stand-alone picture that feels absolutely like the work of its director.  And if this entry feels a bit more like 'just another day at the office' than the prior entries, it makes up for it with uncommonly impressive big-screen splendor.  There is beautiful location work and obscenely impressive stunt-work that reminds us how wonderful action films can be when we are seeing something astounding while still being able to believe our eyes.  It is easily the best entry since Brian DePalma's initial installment way back in 1996 and a top-notch piece of genre filmmaking.  It is easily the best espionage action-picture since Martin Campbell's Casino Royale and it is simply relentlessly engaging entertainment.  It is also a glorious return to form for Tom Cruise, as the film operates as a 133-minute rebuttal to those who would declare Cruise's career to be dead and buried.

Brad Bird's Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol gets a second trailer, this time with proper music (but a lot more spoilers regarding the plot)!

This is a bit too spoilery for my tastes (Tom Wilkinsen IS Donald Sutherland!), but this second trailer for the Brad Bird-directed adventure is a solid bit of marketing none-the-less.  The violence does seem jolting and brutal while the familiar theme music (thank you...) gets an effective remixing.  Considering how much emphasis Paramount is putting on the IMAX version of this picture, it makes sense that they are selling the sheer scale and scope of the action sequences.  One caveat - the bit at 2:15 shows Tom Cruise apparently making out with female lead Paula Patton.  Fair enough, except isn't Ethan Hunt supposed to be married to Michelle Monaghan's Julia, whom we met in J.J. Abrams's prior installment?  This series has been one of the chief offenders of the whole 'revolving door of female leads' meme that often infects male-driven franchises (IE - each installment brings a new random babe and forgets about the prior romantic interest), but weren't we supposed to believe that Monoghan was basically the Tracy Di Vicenzo of the franchise?  Anyway, I don't want to obsess over a random moment that may be out of proper context.  The trailer itself looks snazzy and exciting.  This one debuts on December 16th in IMAX (yes, apparently with a six-minute Dark Knight Rises trailer attached) and December 21st everywhere.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson         

Begun, these IMAX wars have? Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol in IMAX will go head-to-head with Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows after all.

In the category of 'here's an interesting idea', Paramount and director Brad Bird announced today that Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol (see trailer) will be opening five days early in select IMAX theaters.  So while the film's wide release will stay occur on Wednesday, December 21st, the film will have its IMAX debut on Friday December 16th, 2011.  This is more-or-less a first of its kind.  Paramount did hold sneak previews the day before the wide release of Super 8 which occurred in most of its IMAX locations, but this selective sneak opening basically gives the fourth Mission: Impossible film a pre-release opening weekend of sorts.  Point being, it looks like M:I4 will be going head-to-head against Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (see trailer) after all, as December 16th is the wide-release opening day for the Robert Downey Jr/Jude Law sequel.

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    

Dumb idea of the week: Pairing Tom Cruise with an unknown to boost box office? Fourth Mission: Impossible film to not be titled 'Mission: Impossible'?

Long story short, Paramount is doing all kinds of tinkering with the fourth Mission: Impossible picture, in a bid to cut down costs (yes, Randy, I know...), and/or 'reboot the series'. As Variety reported the other day, the two big change is that co-star Jeremy Renner will now be a co-lead with Tom Cruise, in a theoretical passing of the torch should Paramount or Tom Cruise decide to continue the series without Tom Cruise. Also of note is that the studio is considering calling the film something other than 'Mission: Impossible'. Brad Bird is (thankfully) still directing and the film is still set for December 2011.