Fail after Fail: Thoughts on Skyfall upon a second viewing.

Spoiler Warning is in place, but my non-spoiler review is HERE...

For reasons mostly involving time and other responsibilities, before last night I hadn't seen a film twice in theaters since June 2008.  Even that last occasion was merely a matter of happenstance, as my father was in town and he hadn't seen Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull yet.  I grew up with the Lucasfilm universe, so it seemed only appropriate, and a good time was had.  Anyway, last night I saw Skyfall for a second time, as my wife was unable to attend last month's press screening and we had a free evening (it was also about trying out a new theater, but that's the next essay).  Unfortunately a second viewing only heightened the film's major flaws.  Even my wife, who hadn't read my review yet, whispered to me around thirty-minutes in and said "We get it, Bond is *old*!" after which we proceeded to take a pretend shot every time someone made a reference to age or old vs. new.  By the hour mark, we both had pretend alcohol poisoning.

Skyfall spoiler discussion thread...

If you're among the lucky ones who have a nearby IMAX theater, today is the opening day for Skyfall.  As such, here is the official place for readers who want to gab about the film, spoilers-and-all, to their heart's content.  I may have a spoiler piece on Monday or Tuesday while I'm hoping Brandon Peters gets a chance to see the film this week and deliver a review, but that's depending on his schedule.  But for the meantime, have at it below, folks.  If you've seen it, what did you think?  Did it live up to the hype?  Did it work for you as well if not better than it worked for me?  While you're hopefully gabbing below, check out this well-written piece that serves as somewhat of a rebuttal to my review.  I'm actually going to probably see the film again a week from Friday, as my wife couldn't make the press screening (making it the first film since Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that I've seen twice in a theater).  But I'm rambling and it's your turn to ramble.  I'm off to write my Lincoln review for tomorrow.

Scott Mendelson

When the title of your superhero sequel is a giant spoiler...

There is a reason why Chris Nolan didn't call his last Batman film The Dark Knight Returns in No Man's Land During Knightfall.  The Dark Knight Rises may have felt like a painfully generic title thought up during a 7am brainstorming session, but it kept a certain amount of mystery alive in regards to what the movie was about.  With the next wave of Marvel comic book sequels, we're also seeing something new and arguably interesting.  Instead of numerically-titled sequels (Spider-Man 2) or even somewhat generic subtitles (X-Men: The Last Stand), we're seeing sequels that are explicitly telling you what they are going to be about by virtue of their title.  By which I mean they are being named after specific comic book story arcs.  Now fans may be thrilled about seeing their favorite arcs adapted to the silver screen, but the very title is a giant spoiler.  If you've read the arc in question, you pretty much know exactly what's the movie is going to be about.

The Dark Knight Rises spoiler discussion thread...

So it's midnight on the West Coast, which means the first midnight showings are just letting out on the East Coast.  Okay, you know the drill.  Here's hoping I have more comments here than I did for The Amazing Spider-Man.  Anyway, I'm actually going to be away from my keyboard for a couple days, but I'll *try* to do a weekend box office write-up on Sunday morning.  Until then, it's officially open season for anyone who saw the third and final Chris Nolan Batman film.  You've heard my thoughts, now time to share yours, in as much detail as you desire.

Scott Mendelson

In an age of preordained marketing and spoilers, an ode to an age of not knowing and the thrill of unexpected discovery.

As another annual San Diego Comic Con ends with another week full of preordained previews, announcements, and sizzle reels, this seems as good a time as any to talk about something that has been lost in the saturation-level media coverage that surrounds each and every remotely major studio release these days.  I am talking of course about the element of surprise.  I'm not talking about plot spoilers regarding upcoming films, or even the obsessive need for news outlets to report on every plot detail of an upcoming film so that one has to literally live in a cave to avoid knowing too much.  Those are indeed issues, but I'm talking about something even more basic.  I'm talking about the idea of discovering the very existence of a film the old fashioned way.  Be it through a trailer that you didn't expect, or a poster that you didn't see coming, something very precious has been lost over the last fifteen years as the mainstream entertainment press has turned into a full-time, year-round Comic-Con.  We don't discover films we were hoping we might see via actual pre-movie trailers, or even through movie magazines like Premiere or Starlog.  Now they are preordained, with their posters and trailers given online *premieres* that are treated as actual news by film sites the world over.  Maybe it's the cranky old man in me talking, but there is something very special about discovering these films at the theater.  Which brings me to the question: When was the last time I was truly surprised by a piece of film marketing?  

Spoiler Thread: Open discussion for Prometheus and Madagascar 3...

You know the drill.  It's open season below for anyone to discuss the two big movies opening this weekend, as I imagine a large portion of my readership will have at least seen Prometheus by weekend's end.  One request: Since some people may have seen one film but not the other, please label which film you're going to discuss in your comment so spoiler-phobes know to avoid it if they haven't seen it yet.  Obviously if you want to discuss the limited debuts as well, feel free but please label what film is being discussed.  Thanks and go nuts!

Scott Mendelson

Robert Zemeckis's return to live-action, the Denzel Washington drama Flight, gets a great (spoiler-filled?) trailer.

This may be my wife's most anticipated film of 2012.  She hasn't seen the trailer, but I know her well enough to presume as much.  It's ironic that this picture marks Robert Zemeckis's return to live-action twelve years after the double-wammy of What Lies Beneath and Cast Away, as this Denzel Washington vehicle is arguably just the kind of film that they've mostly stopped making over the last decade.  Yes the film seems like an unofficial remake of Piché: entre ciel et terre and yes it appears that Robert Zemeckis is once again spoiling the living hell out of his movies via the trailers.  But those quibbles aside, this looks like a terrific piece of old-school character-driven entertainment.  It's heartening to see that Washington isn't the only actor of color onscreen, as we also have Don Cheadle, Nadine Velazquez, and Tamara Tunie among others playing seemingly major characters.  And the last time Denzel Washington and John Goodman appeared onscreen together, we got Fallen, one of the best supernatural thrillers of the last fifteen years.  So watch this if you can handle the possible spoilers contained therein.  But otherwise know that Flight debuts on November 2nd, and it frankly looks terrific.

Scott Mendelson

Can't wait until June 22nd, eh? Via books and toys, Disney/Pixar's Brave spoils itself a month before release.

The first round of press screenings for Pixar's Brave start tomorrow night.  I won't be in attendance, and I probably won't be attending any press screenings.  It is a cruel irony that my daughter is now old enough to go to press screenings with me and actually wants to go to press screenings with me, yet 90% of what I would take her to is now shown in 3D for media audiences.  In short, the few times we watched a 3D movie, she took the glasses off 15-minutes in and watched the rest of the film in blurry-vision.  Since she wants to see Brave, it just makes sense for me to wait for a Friday June 22nd late-afternoon 2D matinee.  Alas, the whole 3D hassle also prevents me from taking her to whatever cool stuff the El Capitan is doing this time around, but I digress.  On the plus side, if I just can't wait until June 22nd, I can just read the movie right now.  Wait, what?

In a film-culture seemingly entitled to spoilers, simple concealed narrative become "PLOT TWISTS!"

Under normal circumstances, this post would require a 'Spoiler Warning(!)'.  But what I'm discussing aren't some shocking plot twists or stunning third-act reveals, which is kind of the point.  This Friday finally brings about the US release of Ridley Scott's Prometheus.  A major part of the marketing campaign has centered around its somewhat cryptic beginnings, the idea that Fox wasn't revealing the whole film in the trailer as is often the case.  This in turn led to speculation that there was some plot twist being held in reserve, be it a specific connection to the Alien franchise or some kind of stunning third act reveal.  We've seen this game before, as Paramount successfully sold the idea last summer that Super 8 had some kind of climactic reveal and/or plot twist.  Without going into spoiler-y details, this is not true for either of the above films.  Prometheus certainly has some narrative threads that haven't been revealed in the marketing, while other pretty major details have been blatantly spoiled because they contained 'money shots'.  But at the end of the day, and this is not a criticism per-se, Prometheus unfolds in a somewhat predictable manner, as did Super 8.  What's interesting is that in this day and age merely not revealing the entire narrative arc and/or every money shot in the film qualifies as 'hiding plot twists'.

Thoughts on the big (inevitable) Avengers plot twist...

There is really only one genuine plot twist in The Avengers.  Sure there are visual moments that will shock or delight, clever lines of dialogue that one wouldn't want ruined, and/or certain narrative choices that merit discussion.  But there was only one truly 'shocking' moment in the 140-minute picture.  And now I'm going to discuss it.  Right after this first paragraph, so you've got plenty of warning, folks.  If you haven't seen it yet and don't want to know, don't read any further.  I'm giving you plenty of space between the start of this post and the actual discussion of the matter at hand.  SPOILER WARNING staring in  5...4...3...2...1...

For those who wish to rant: The Avengers spoilers thread...

It's just about 11:00pm, meaning that folks on the east coast will soon be getting out of the midnight screenings of The Avengers.  Anyway, I've never done this before, but I'm officially opening the floor to those who comment regularly.  I'm guessing 90% of my readers will have seen The Avengers by Sunday evening, so this is the spot to discuss the film in all its spoiler-filled glory over what may be a record-setting weekend.  I may come back in the morning and add a few spoiler-y thoughts, but for now, it's your turn.  Obviously if nobody comments I won't do this kind of thing again, so please don't be shy.  What worked, what didn't?  How was the theatrical experience, in terms of projection quality and the crowds?  Anyone in costume?  Any anecdotes?  You get the idea.  And with that, I hope you all had a good time and I'm off to bed...

Scott Mendelson

In a spoiler culture, the biggest offenders are the studios.

If there is one 'trend' in film marketing this year that has raised the ire of pundits and bloggers around the web, it is the practice of studios cutting what amounts to a 'teaser for a trailer'.  Summit has done this for the last couple Twilight films, but the would-be trend reached an apex with two major science-fiction summer tentpoles.  First, Fox has been cutting teasers for nearly all of its 7,000 trailers for Ridley Scott's Prometheus.  Second of all, Sony cut a 30-second teaser for its first trailer of the Total Recall remake which was to debut during a Sunday afternoon basketball game at the beginning of last month.  Everyone complains about it, but pretty much all of the movie news sits post the embeds of these 'trailer-teasers' as quickly as they are released. This week Warner Bros. unleashed an online viral game of some kind which apparently unlocked specific shots of the new Dark Knight Rises trailer.  By mid-day, someone had combined all of the shots into a video file and basically was able to present what amounted to the first half of the trailer.  Thus Warner Bros. ended up releasing the whole thing online Monday night rather than (as I presume was intended) waiting to premiere the 140-second preview in theaters attached to The Avengers on Friday.   We've now reached the point where Lionsgate released this Terry Crews-hosted 'teaser' for the upcoming Expendables 2 trailer where Crews openly admits that 'trailer-teasers' are now a mandatory marketing tool (from JoBlo).

Pet Peeve of the day: Attention movie bloggers/writers - Stop spoiling unreleased films by discussing what does or doesn't happen in the sequel!

I don't mean to keep picking on John Carter, I really don't.  In fact, if nothing else, this article gives me an excuse to embed the above fan-made trailer (that Devin Faraci brought to my attention) which is not only a much better trailer than any of the official ones cut by Disney, but actually makes the movie look somewhat impressive.  But I am again discussing John Carter because I happened to scan the headline for an interview with an actor who stars in the picture.  I'm not going to name the actor/actress, but I will link to the piece out of fairness to the original writers over at the otherwise esteemed The Playlist.  Said headline (and article) contains what would arguably be considered a massive spoiler.  What does said actor reveal in the interview?  Well, merely that said thespian is indeed signed for a sequel or two to John Carter should the film's box office performance merit a sequel.  So, purely from the basis on that statement, we know that at least one of the major characters in John Carter does indeed live to see a sequel.

Won't be SPOILED again... Why I no longer read a Roger Ebert review prior to seeing the movie.

He is arguably the father of modern film criticism and the most recognizable and well-renowned film critic on the planet.  He is the only movie reviewer to be awarded a Pulitzer Prize.  He is the man who introduced countless young readers such as myself to such filmmakers as Martin Scorsese and Sam Peckinpah.  His prose and insights have formed the foundation on which pretty much all of today's critics operate.  Yet I find myself in a position today where I am afraid to read Roger Ebert's film reviews.  It is not due to any downturn in quality or any continual difference of opinion.  It is not due to the notion that Ebert somehow has nothing more to offer the world of film criticism, as anyone who reads his journal will laugh at such an idea.  I no longer read Ebert's reviews (prior to seeing a given movie) out of fear, the fear that he will randomly and arbitrarily reveal plot twists and climactic elements of a given movie without a warning or even a second thought.  While it has always been an occasional issue, Roger Ebert has, in the last few years, turned into a full-blown spoiler.