Brandon Peters returns! Brandon Peters dissects the Dirty Harry franchise V: The Dead Pool (1988)

The Dead Pool

1988

Director:  Buddy Van Horn

Starring:  Clint Eastwood, Patricia Clarkson, Liam Neeson, Jim Carrey, Evan C. Kim

Rated R

Fuck with me, buddy, I'll kick your ass so hard you'll have to unbutton your collar to shit.

                        ~Harry Callahan

Dirty Harry returns to the screen one last time in 1988’s The Dead Pool.  Director by another Eastwood “Yes, man”, longtime Eastwood stunt coordinator Buddy Van Horn delivers an adventure that finds the perfect medium between a film like Magnum Force and Sudden Impact. The film boasts likely the most familiar, big name cast of the series.  However, in 1988, this cast was much a bunch of nobodies.  Liam Neeson and Patricia Clarkson had minimalist film experience and were bouncing around television guest spots prior to The Dead Pool.  Jim Carrey (then going by James), was much of nothing then.  He was up and coming in a few films, but this was likely his first major and dramatic venture.  And its not like these were star making or star turning roles for them either.  Most were still years off from making a splash.

Why is Liam Neeson: Action Star more popular than Steven Seagal or Jean-Claude Van Damme? Turns out, he's not.

One of threads of my Taken 2 review the other day was that I was shocked by how small-scale the action sequences were.  Rather than resembling a big-budget action sequel, it felt like a straight-to-video knockoff, the sort that 90s action icons Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagal are currently pumping out.  So what is it that makes a Jean-Claude Van Damme action film go straight to DVD and a Liam Neeson action sequel open with $49 million over its opening weekend?  Well, I was curious about whether or not Neeson really was more popular than the action stars of 'old'.  The answer, using Box Office Mojo's inflation-related calculations, surprised the heck out of me, and hopefully it will prove interesting for you too.  To my surprise, the original Taken was not so much a runaway smash hit on its opening weekend but merely a lucky recipient of inflation and ever-rising ticket prices.  A hit is still a hit, but a comparison of the numbers shows that Liam Neeson really is the Steven Seagal of his day.  

Weekend Box Office (10-14-12): Taken 2 repeats at top while Argo and Sinister impress.

With five new wide releases, it was a traffic jam at the box office this weekend, but the surprisingly robust Taken 2 still held court at the top.  Despite being a watered-down rehash of the first film, audiences only somewhat deserted the action sequel.  It's down 55% for a $22 million weekend, which is horrible compared to the first film's 16% second weekend drop, which ironically ended with a $20 million second weekend.  The first film had $53 million after ten days while Taken 2 has $87 million, or a bit above what Taken had after its third weekend ($87 million).  The second film will surely match the first film's $145 million domestic total and it's already flying far higher overseas this time around.  So yes, we'll likely see a Taken 3: The Takenest in 2-3 years time.  The top debut film was Ben Affleck's Argo.  The picture earned a rock-solid $20 million, or just below the $26 million opening of Affleck's The Town just over two years ago (the earlier film had a sexier cops/robbers plot and tabloid-friendly movie stars).  The $44 million R-rated political drama is a perfect example of 'what can grownups see at the theater these days?' and it's good to see they turned up.  Most importantly, the film had a stunning 3.38x weekend multiplier, all-but unheard of these days for a live-action film.  It (correctly) earned an A+ from Cinemascore and played 74% over 35 years old.  Long-story short, it's going to have huge legs regardless of its Oscar hopes.

Review: Taken 2 (2012) cuts its nose to spite its face.

Taken 2

2012

92 minutes

rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Despite my best efforts, I actually saw Taken 2 last night.  Long-story short, I had time to see a film late last night and everything else I wanted to see either had inconvenient showtimes (The Perks of Being A Wallflower), was something my wife wanted to see (Sinister, Pitch Perfect), or was something that my daughter may eventually decide she wants to see after all (Frankenweenie).  And yes, as expected, Taken 2 was indeed a bad movie.  But it was bad in a rather surprising way.  First of all, unlike the lean, mean, and rather cold-hearted original, this sequel not only was edited to achieve a PG-13 in a way the first film was not (the differences in the first film's international R-rated cut and the PG-13 version were minimal), but it was pitched to a younger audience.  Gone were the moments of cruelty or out-and-out brutality.  Gone was the unrelenting determination of Liam Neeson's bad-ass, willing to shoot innocent bystanders and threaten the family of a crooked cop, replaced by a painfully generic "I have to save my wife from bad guys and mostly attack in pure self-defense or defense of others".  With a subplot involving Maggie Grace's driving test, which arguably harkens back to the much-loathed "Jeff Goldblum's daughter proves she shouldn't have been cut from the gymnastic team' gag in The Lost World, and an emphasis on reconciling a dysfunctional nuclear family, the film feels pitched to a weirdly conformist and/or younger audience.

Weekend Box Office (10-07-12): Taken 2 scores $50m while Frankenweenie stumbles and Pitch Perfect stays on-note.

As always, check out John Gosling's insanely informative 'preview' of this weekend's new releases HERE.

Taken 2 basically pulled a Bourne this weekend, as a prime example where a well-liked and leggy original film capitalized on said goodwill with a massive opening weekend for the second installment.  Taken 2: The Takening earned a massive $50 million this weekend, which is more than double the $24 million debut of the first Taken over Super Bowl weekend 2009.  If the numbers hold, it will be the third-biggest opening in October, behind only last year's $52 million debut of Paranormal Activity 3 and $50.4 million debut of Jackass 3D.  The trajectory is most similar to the Bourne series and yes the last two 007 films.  The Bourne Identity had a $27 million debut in June 2002, which was followed by a leggy run to $121 million and a sterling performance on DVD as a top-rented title.  Two summers later, The Bourne Supremacy debuted to $52 million and ended its US run with $176 million.  While Casino Royale was technically the 22nd 007 film, it played like a reboot/fresh start to the franchise and it too parlayed a solid $40 million opening into a leggy $167 million run and massive critical and audience approval.  Two years later, Quantum of Solace opened with $67 million and quick-killed its way to a $168 million domestic gross.

It's Frankenweenie versus Taken 2 as John Gosling previews the week's new releases (10-05-12)

Along with Tim Burton's Frankweenie and the return of Liam Neeson in Taken 2, last weekend's surprise chart entry, Pitch Perfect expands into wide release. Frankenweenie's origins stretch right back to 1984, when Tim Burton worked at Disney. The young director got his first break thanks to a short film he made while at college, entitled Stalk of the Celery Monster. The short drew Disney's attention, who offered him an animation apprenticeship, where he would work on The Black Cauldron and The Fox and The Hound, amongst others. In 1982, he made his first stop-motion short for Disney, an ode to his childhood hero, Vincent Price. 'Vincent' played the Chicago film festival and was followed up by the director's first foray into live action in the guise of Hansel and Gretel. Burton gave the Grimm fairy-tale a Japanese spin, culminating with the titular heroes in a kung fu battle against the evil witch. The film aired just once and prints have since become so scarce that for a number of years many thought the project was a myth. By 1984, the young director/animator was ready for his next live action short, a tale of a boy whose dog is killed by a car and his attempts to bring it back to life. A homage to Frankenstein, Frankenweenie ended up getting Burton fired from his job at Disney, who felt he had squandered time and money on a film that was too scary for children (It had been set to debut with the re-release of Pinocchio).  

Review: Battleship (2012) is 'Battlesh*t', representing the culmination of corporate-minded test-tube filmmaking.

Battleship

2012
130 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Maybe it's all led up to this.  Ten years of big-budget spectacle film-making that seemed ever-more geared toward the theoretical fourteen-year old boy who doesn't necessarily know how to read his native language have brought us Peter Berg's Battleship. This is the very definition of empty spectacle, devoid of a single interesting character and (with one token exception) any interesting plot turns.  It is not so much a film as a prepackaged product, so intent on appealing to as many people as possible that it is completely devoid of any real appeal.  Battleship is the kind of movie that makes it so hard to defend the industry, and so hard to actually praise mainstream films when they do get it right.  If you're the kind of person who presumes that all movies stink and that the films being made today are by-nature inferior than the ones that were made in some by-gone era, Battleship is exactly the kind of alleged popcorn entertainment that you're probably thinking of.  If we often discuss big-budget franchise pictures in terms of food (The Dark Knight is a filet minion, Transformers 2 is a Big Mac, etc), then Battleship is basically a jar of baby food.  There is technically food inside the jar, but it is stripped of all sugar, all salt, and all taste beyond whatever natural flavors the jar might possess.

Review: Wrath of the Titans (2012) mostly delivers the big-scale, cheesy matinee goods, in genuinely glorious 3D to boot.

Wrath of the Titans

2012
99 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Jonathan Liebesman's Wrath of the Titans is arguably about as 'good' as a movie called Wrath of the Titans can be expected to be.  It is convincingly acted by its principals, has a story that mostly makes sense, and has at least a few scenes of genuine visual enchantment.  I could complain that I wish it had more of what it does right (epic battles of humans versus gods, some wonderful set designs, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes having a full-blown 'camp-out') and less of what it does wrong (an almost beside-the-point narrative, a relatively blank-slate supporting cast, generally useless attempts at character development), and clever readers will notice that I just did in an offhand fashion.  But the picture delivers the goods in ways that the Louis Leterrier original did not two years ago.  It is also clear that Warner Bros learned its lesson regarding cheap 3D-conversions.  While Clash of the Titans became the poster child for the evils of 3D-cash ins, Wrath of the Titans features some of the most impressive live-action 3D seen to date.  If you're actually going to spend money on something called Wrath of the Titans, it is honestly worth seeing in its 3D glory.  Of course, there is irony in me recommending something that works best as a cheap Saturday matinee in a format that makes it noticeably less cheap, but that's your conundrum.

Third Battleship trailer sells scale and non-stop explosions, but leaves me bored.

I made a comment the other day on a radio podcast I guested on, basically stating that there are at least a few 'big summer movies' that I'm not only not very excited about. I basically feel like if I end up seeing films like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Men in Black 3, or Battleship, it will be out of some kind of obligation or because there is something specific about them I may want to write about (for example, how well Snow White and the Huntsmen plays as a feminist adventure).  As for Battleship, I can see no societal value or social relevance that would merit an essay (I've already said my peace regarding the casting of Rihanna) and my only real curiosity involves whether or not the climax involves Liam Neeson muttering "You sunk my battleship!" right before he dies.  I will say that unlike a certain insanely expensive movie that came out last weekend, you can clearly see the money onscreen this time around.  The film looks pretty huge, perhaps the 'biggest' movie of summer 2012 in terms of large-scale action and worldwide scope.  But yeah, this film looks like a perfectly-blended hybrid of Transformers, Armageddon, and The Guardian.  But since the action is going to be personality-free robots attacking personality-free ships, I can't imagine any emotional investment will be found.  Maybe I'm too old for this kind of thing, or maybe Battleship really is the definitive personality-free/humanity-free blockbuster that we've been leading up to all these decades.  Maybe I'll see it, maybe I won't, but I don't expect to have too much to say about it.  This one opens on May 18th in the US but April 11th elsewhere, so we'll see...

Scott Mendelson      

Weekend Box Office (01/29/11): The Grey tops, while One For the Money and Man On a Ledge somewhat stumble.

In a somewhat refreshing turn of events, this weekend had three wide releases, all budgeted below $45 million and all technically geared towards adults.  And for the fourth straight weekend this month, an R-rated new release topped the box office yet again.  The top film of the weekend was Joe Carnahan's wilderness survival drama, The Grey.  The Liam Neeson vehicle, concerning plane crash survivors struggling to fend off death by various forms of nature (including wolves), opened with a solid $20 million.  Yes, that's slightly below the $21 million debut of Unknown and the $24 million debut of Taken around this time in 2011 and 2009, but those films were PG-13 while The Grey was rated R.  The picture scored a B- from Cinemascore, which is not surprising.  On one hand, it's a good movie, a thoughtful and introspective mediation on several men coming to terms with their forthcoming demise.  On the other hand, the film was sold as an action picture featuring Liam Neeson fighting wolves with his bare hands.  Without going into spoilers, that's not entirely accurate.  Still the film obviously has fans, as the picture scored a relatively rare 3x weekend multiplier.  Anyway, the film cost Open Road Films just $35 million, so this should be a solid moneymaker for the mini distributor even if the somewhat false advertising causes it to drop hard next weekend.

Battleship gets a teaser, feels very Armageddon-ish.

I could go on and on about how this represents the pinnacle of what is wrong with the 'tentpole' portion of the film industry at the moment.  But truth be told, I'm more depressed that Peter Berg chose THIS as his follow up to Hancock (arguably one of the best original superhero pictures of the modern superhero era) and chose not to fill the cast with quirky character actors (think The Core).  But no matter, the finished product basically feels like an original (though contrived) invading aliens vs. the US Navy film that slapped the name 'Battleship' on its marquee purely for brand name recognition.  Which, frankly, if you're going to adapt a board game (or a theme park ride for that matter), that's how you do it.  I'm less annoyed at the whole 'let's make a movie out of Battleship' concept that I am at how contrived and generic the picture feels.  Peter Berg (who showed real action chops with The Kingdom) seems to be mimicking Michael Bay.  The alien threat feels like something out of Transformers (the red and yellow peg-shaped missiles are a nice touch), while the core storyline is pure Armageddon.  The only question is not whether Liam Neeson will die at the end (after giving Taylor Kitsch approval to wed his daughter, Brooklyn Decker), but whether Neeson's last words will be "You sunk my battleship!"  This one comes out May 18th, 2012, which is actually prime summer real estate, in apparently glorious 2D.

Scott Mendelson    

Actual Batman 3 news! James Pence cast as... (spoilers). Will The Dark Knight Rises even acknowledge The Dark Knight?

According to The Hollywood Reporter, James Pence has been apparently been cast as a young Ra's Al Ghul in Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. Spence, currently best known as the unlucky soul who had his face digitally replaced by Arnie Hammer in The Social Network, will apparently play a young Liam Neeson in a flashback sequence taking place thirty years before the events of Batman Begins. The only thing I have to offer about this is the following: Marion Cotillard is allegedly playing Talia Al Ghul (Ra's Al Ghul's daughter in the comics). Gary Oldman and others have claimed that it ties-in pretty directly to Batman Begins, with the League of Shadows returning and the trilogy wrapping up in a 'full circle' kind of way. So, the question is, will this be yet another part 3 that more-or-less ignores the events of the second film? Will The Dark Knight Rises be another second sequel that operates purely as a sequel to the first film rather than a third part in a continuing story?

Weekend Box Office (02/27/11): Hall Pass edges out Gnomeo and Juliet while Drive Angry crashes.

Hall Pass opened with a modest $13.5 million on its debut weekend, giving the Farrelly Brothers their first chart-topper since Me, Myself, and Irene back in June of 2000. The critically-mixed comedy starring Owen Wilson, Jason Sudeikis, Jenna Fischer, Christina Applegate, and Richard Jenkins was their sixth-largest debut, coming in just at the $13.5 million (fourth-place) opening of There's Something About Mary back in July of 1998. The picture was heralded as a return to form for the once-kings of their genre who had seen their audience move on to the likes of Will Farrell and Judd Apatow. Alas, it was not quite to be. The Farrelly Brothers were the arguable kings of comedy in the mid-to-late 1990s, with crowd-pleasing smashes like Dumb and Dumber ($116 million) and There's Something About Mary, which spent months in the top ten and actually topped the box office in its eighth week of release. The latter ended up with $175 million, a huge number for a comedy, let alone an R-rated one. It's still the twelve biggest-grossing R-rated film of all time, and the fifth-biggest R-rated comedy ever.

Review: Unknown (2011)

Unknown
2011
110 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Jaume Collet-Serra's Unknown is an honest-to-goodness Hitchcockian thriller, a variation on the classic 'innocent man on the run' template. Like William Shakespeare, we discuss Alfred Hitchcock in hushed and overly reverent tones, forgetting that the man made pulpy entertainment for the masses. Hitchcock films, by-and-large, were crowd-pleasing pot-boilers that were intended to thrill, startle, and often amuse. In lesser hands, the filmography of Hitchcock could easily be discounted as a bunch of B-movies. I don't think even Jaume Collet-Serra would argue that his are comparably lesser hands, but the awkward and uneven picture shines brightest when he's willing to engage the audience as a merry prankster.

Weekend Box Office (02/21/11): Unknown leads jam-packed President's Day holiday

It was a crowded weekend at the box office for the second weekend in a row, as three major openers squared off against a surprisingly resilient animated feature from the week before. The top flick of the weekend was the Liam Neeson thriller Unknown (review). The film opened with $21.7 million over three-days and $25.6 million over four days, which is about on par with the $24 million debut of Taken (review) two-years ago over Super Bowl weekend. From a marketing point of view, Taken did have some advantages over this new thriller. The concept of Unknown ("I got into a car wreck and when I woke up someone had replaced me and no one knows who I am") isn't quite as relatible or compelling as Taken ("bad guys kidnapped my kid overseas, and I have to get her back"). While Warner Bros tried to sell Unknown as Taken 2, complete with the ridiculous 'take back your life' tagline and a trailer that climaxed with what little ass-kicking the film has to offer, anyone with a brain could tell that this was more of a goofy Hitchcockian thriller from the guy who directed the cheeky Orphan (review) than a hard action picture (there is a climactic moment of violence that is laugh-out-loud hilarious). Still, the film cost just $30 million, and this again proves Liam Neeson's worth as an action lead. He, Jason Statham, Denzel Washington, and Angelina Jolie really need to make a movie together.

Bad Marketing 101: movie posters that tell me what to do.

You're a movie poster. Your job is to advertise a film and make that film look enticing to me, the ticket buyer. You are not a parent, teacher, advisor, or self-help guru. Therefore, it is not your job to tell me how to live my life. It is not your job to offer theoretically empowering suggestions about how I choose to lead my existence. A moment of scorn for obnoxious movie posters of the last decade or so that saw themselves fit to tell me (and you) what to do. You're a movie poster. You are not the boss of me and I don't need your advice. Your only advice/order should be 'buy a ticket for this movie' and/or 'buy some popcorn and a soda'. Period. Enjoy some examples after the jump.