Martin Campbell returns...

Good news for rewarding talent...

Martin Campbell, the director who got absolutely no credit for revitalizing James Bond (for the second time) with Casino Royale, has now apparently been attached to two high profile projects:

The first project is an untitled modern day spy vehicle for Tom Cruise. Also involved are Joel Surnow and Michael Loceff, two of the main writer/producers of tv's 24 (hopefully it ends up closer to seasons 1 and 5, as opposed to seasons 2 and 6).

The other project is apparently Mel Gibson's return to acting. Mel Gibson of course, four years of controversies aside, hasn't acted in a mainstream film since Signs, back in 2002. This will be a remake of the 1985 British mini-series Edge Of Darkness (which Campbell helmed back in the day). Also on board is William Monaghan, writer of the remake of The Departed (great dialogue, fun movie, but full of plot holes and illogic) and Kingdom Of Heaven (an underrated masterpiece, whichever version you watch).

Martin Campbell has been one of the very best action directors for the last fifteen years. Goldeneye is still the very best non-Connery Bond film (and Casino Royale is the second), and The Mask Of Zorro is one of the best superhero films ever made. I even enjoyed Campbell's lighter, sloppier sequel (2005's The Legend Of Zorro), which substituted knotty questions of family identity and class for the original's classic hero myth making.

Unlike 90% of action directors, Campbell knows how to shoot wide, cut only when necessary and create a complete sense of geography. And, even in B-level fare like Vertical Limit, the action is character driven and the violence has a sense of sorrow. Oh, and back in 1993, he directed one of the very bests episodes of American television ever, the "Three Men And Adena" episode of Homicide: Life On The Street, so he's got that going for him too. These projects are almost certainly a better use of his talents than his next gig, a remake for Platinum Dunes of The Birds (granted, The Birds is one of Hitch's lesser films, so a remake has interesting possibilities). Either way, it's good to know that he'll be cranking out quality product for the foreseeable future.

Scott Mendelson

Inflated Expectations...

For the record, if a rival executive tells you that someone else's movie is going to break records on its opening weekend, don't believe them. In the same way that politicians inflate the expectations of their rivals in a primary, convention, or general election, studios often use the media to create unrealistic expectations of how someone else's movie will perform.

To wit - anything over $70 million for Iron Man is a huge win, especially as the reviews are positive, so it should have some breathing room before Indy 4 (Speed Racer is a huge question mark and Prince Caspian is chasing a different demo). Anything under $50 million is a disappointment and cause for concern for franchise potential. This is the best slot to open your summer movie - period. Even with bad reviews and bad pre-release buzz, Universal's Van Helsing still pulled in $52 million in this slot back in 2004.

But Marvel comic book movies are not sequels to each other. In the same way that Madagascar was not a sequel to Shrek 2 (if you recall, analysts went crazy because Madagascar opening on Memorial Day Weekend 2005 to 'only $65 million in four days', 'less than half of Shrek 2's opening five day figure!!'), Iron Man is not Spider-Man 4. Anyone who is expecting Iron Man do to over $100 million is either lying or overly optimistic.

Could it do such a number? Of course, it COULD. Despite the 'no girls allowed' nature of the marketing, Downey Jr is the ultimate 'rebel in need of saving' for many women. And, of course, you need both sexes to do anything over $40 million. If the Downey factor is enough to draw in willing females (as opposed to begrudging girlfriends and women who like big metal toys as much as boys), then X2 numbers are not out of question ($85 million on this same weekend in 2003).

For the record, I'm not one who believes that Grand Theft Auto IV is going to make a major dent in the numbers. The game came out yesterday and gamers have to take a break sometime this weekend. Besides, what about the much anticipated release of Mario Kart Wii? Or will that be the alleged cause if Speed Racer under performs next week? But, it could make a small impact, perhaps the difference between doing $75 million and $85 million. There are plenty of adults who bought the game yesterday but will be too busy with jobs and family to play it before the weekend.

Point being, as the summer begins, let us try to keep perspective and be realistic about what movies will open to how much. $100 million+ would be an ungodly triumph for Paramount/Marvel, but don't believe the Monday-morning quarterbacks who snicker at $65 million.

Scott Mendelson

Comparatively Speaking...

Much has been written about a trailer mash of Burton's original 89 Batman, which makes it resemble (superficially) the first full-length Dark Knight trailer that came out back in December . While it's a pretty sloppy job (there is no audio for the Burton trailer because the dialogue is completely different), it does bring up a question of expectations and accolades.

Moviegoers and critics have short memories. So, once July 18th falls upon us, one can likely expect countless articles and reviews discussing Heath Ledger's Joker performance as something groundbreaking and different. Maybe it will be. Truth be told, it'll still likely have an annoying aftertaste, since I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of other actors who could have done something interesting with this iconic character without killing themselves in the process. But Legder is not the first person to play The Joker as a heartless mass murderer. Heck, even if The Dark Knight is the PG-13 bloodbath that some fans are hoping for (keep hoping - Chris Nolan's movies are all relatively restrained in their violence and he has hinted the same in interviews about this one), that in itself won't be groundbreaking either.

For all the hub-bub about how dark and violent The Dark Knight is supposed to be, we all forget how insanely violent the original Burton Batman was in 1989. We have an onscreen or mentioned off-screen body count near the triple digits, mostly all civilians and cops, and three scenes of mass civilian crowds being slaughtered for sport (the machine gun massacre at the city hall steps, the gassing of the museum, and the climactic gassing of the party goers). Throughout the running time, countless people are shot, stabbed, electrocuted, poisoned, and blown up. If we recall, the film caused a minor stir back in 1989 for its darkness, ghoulishness, and violence.

This was the first major comic book film to be rated PG-13 and there was much debate as to whether a film about Batman should be technically inappropriate for kids (remember, the PG-13 had only been around since 1985).

Ironically, short memories struck again, with the release of 1992's Batman Returns. That film caused a MAJOR debate about it's graphic violence, sexual content, and overall gloominess. All of these people had seemed to have forgotten that Burton's original wasn't exactly a remake of the 1960s TV show. That controversy had, in my opinion, earth-shattering repercussions for the film industry, but that's for another day.

Health Ledger is not the first Joker actor to portray him as a heartless mass murderer. Heck, if you count Mark Hamill* (still my favorite onscreen Joker, playing the role perfectly from 1992 to 2003), Ledger is the third. He may be terrific, but he'll have to do something more than kill people and laugh about it to be truly groundbreaking. And, so will the movie itself. Hopefully, both will prove true.

Scott Mendelson

*Pointless trivia - Hamill barely killed anyone on the original Fox Batman: The Animated Series run (1992-1995), but played the character creepily enough for you to presume that he was bumping people off left and right offscreen (he did commit onscreen murder in the terrific 1993 theatrical film: Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm).

When the show went to WB (1997-1999), the gloves came off with the show's violence allotment and Joker and the other rogues started killing people onscreen. Heck, in the Batman/Superman cross-over 'World's Finest', he hijacked a giant Lexcorp plane and blew up about a dozen packed skyscrapers in downtown Metropolis.

And, truth be told, I'd be shocked if Ledger's Joker did anything as horrifyingly cruel as what Mark Hamill's Joker does to Tim Drake in the 2000 direct-to-DVD film Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker (especially in the uncut version, which was released in 2002).

Hidden Gem - The Comebacks (the best ZAZ-type spoof in years)

I can't speak to the 84 minute theatrical cut, but the 107 min unrated cut of The Comebacks is the real deal... a real satire that mocks the conventions of its genre rather than just making its actors play dress-up from this famous movie or this unrelated pop-culture item. The film is basically a spoof of the underdog sports dramas that have popped up in succession in the last several years. And, low-and-behold, it's an actual spoof. There is a real linear plot with actual characters who are allowed to have character-based jokes There are next to no pop-culture references, the film references are actually used to set up punchlines, the script is 'original', and the movie is just plain funny. This is not Airplane! or Top Secret, but it sure as heck isn't Date Movie either. On a specific note, Carl Weathers is every bit as funny here as he was in Arrested Development back in the day. It's well-worth seeking out for a cheap rental.

Scott Mendelson

What Obama should have said about Farrakhan...

More reasonable choices for Obama's response to the whole Farrakhan non-issue:

1) No sir, I do no reject his endorsement. I welcome anyone who wishes to support me and my campaign. I have based my campaign on bringing different-minded people together and I will continue to do so. I cannot and will not choose which opposing viewpoints are acceptable for those who wish to vote for me.

2) In the same way that voters may vote for me despite not agreeing with me on every issue, it is not my duty to vet each and every supporter in order to make sure they agree with my views on every matter of would-be substance. If I reject money or support based on one issue, then it is then my duty to make sure that I don't accidentally accept money or support from someone who has a less-than-insightful position on another issue.

3) If someone who has abhorrent ideas and/or takes part in abhorrent activities, I will still take their money and say thank you. First of all, I can't vet every cent I get. Second of all, I'd rather a group I disagree with spend their money on my campaign then spend that money doing some activity that I don't agree with. That's 'x-dollars' less that they have to spend on whatever activity I didn't support in the first place.

Who's religious endorsement is scarier for the Jews, again?

Let's make this one quick...

Barack Obama has been raked over the coals for the last few weeks because apparently he has received the unwanted endorsement of Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan is, of course, the former Nation of Islam leader who has been quoted many a time saying various anti-Semitic things ('Hitler was a great man' 'Judaism was a gutter religion', etc) in and out of proper context. For this, Obama was forced to renounce, denounce, announce, and pronounce his disavowal of Farrakhan's naughty beliefs in regards to Jews.

John McCain actively sought and publicly rejoiced in the endorsement and support of reverend John Hagee, arguably the most powerful mega-church evangelist in the country. This is a man who did and still does believe that Catholicism is 'the great whore' and 'a false cult system'. As for Jews, he has no issue with the Jews, as long as they are willing to help Israel unite so that the Rapture can occur, at which time all the Jews will either convert to Christianity or be killed. For this, McCain sowed up the primary count in Texas, winning the state last night and clinching the Republican nomination.

One unwanted endorsement of a long-forgotten icon with anti-Semitic leanings caused an immediate media field day. While another sought-after endorsement of one of the most powerful religious leaders in the country, one who happens to be an anti-Catholic bigot and sincerely hopes that all the Jews will either die or be converted, caused barely a peep outside of the liberal blog sphere within the first week.

Might this be a preview of the media treatment to come? After all, the only politician that the media seems to swoon over more than Obama is John McCain. If they have already chosen sides, then Obama, if he is the nominee, may end up with no better press treatment than John Kerry or Al Gore.

Real-Life Imitates Fiction...

Whether by coincidence or by design, the entire 2008 presidential election has felt like a remake of the last season and a half of The West Wing. Playing Jimmy Smits (the minority populist underdog, who shoots straight and doesn't want to be a conventional candidate), we have Barack Obama. As Gary Cole, the slightly more establishment candidate who is the front-runner for much of the primary season, we have Hillary Clinton. As Alan Alda, the elder GOP congressman who seems like a liberals' wet dream of what a Republican would be like, we have John McCain (of course, McCain is for all intents and purposes, conservative Republican, but that's not the narrative at this point).

Like The West Wing, the GOP nominee scored the convention earlier than the Dems. In fact, in the thrilling season finale of season six, the Democratic primary goes all the way up to a brokered convention, where Smits and Cole fend off the surprise entry of Ed O'Neil, a popular dark horse candidate (Al Gore?). Smits wins the nomination, but only because he impresses the current president (Martin Sheen) enough to have Sheen broker a back room endorsement deal with the teachers union.

Here's the scary part... in the original storyline, Alda was supposed to defeat Smits in a general election. This was changed only after actor John Spencer died of a heart attack in December of 2005. The producers felt that the double whammy of the death of Spencer's fictional character (Smits' vice-presidential nominee) as well as the defeat of the populist liberal candidate would be too much for the show's liberal viewership (truth be told, after the stolen 2000 election, the fictional world of the West Wing became, by default, such a liberal fantasy that is was occasional painful to watch). Should Obama secure the nomination, let's hope that the narrative differs from both scenarios.

Horray for Brokered Conventions?

Well, as most of you know by now, another would-be Super Tuesday (Super Tuesday II or mini-Super Tuesday, as pundits called it) has come and gone, with nothing much changed. On the Democratic side anyway, it still seems to be a tie-game. Yes, Clinton 'won' both Ohio and Texas, but due to the proportional representation of delegates, her winning margins aren't significant enough to radically alter the delegate count (for example, Obama more or less thumped Clinton in Vermont, winning 60% to 38%, yet he only wins 8 delegates to her 5). Basically, punditry aside, most of the states have had statistical dead-heats in relation to delegate counts.

Unlike most of my fellow political watchers, I'm excited by the idea of a brokered convention. First of all, it's going to make terrific television. I'm sure the networks are salivating over what will likely be record viewership for any party convention in recent history.

Second of all, as one of many Democrats who were annoyed at how John Kerry was instantly annoyted the nominee as the result of winning on Iowa caucus, I've taken much pleasure in how the campaigns have dragged on a bit, to a point where literally every state will count and every vote matters. Granted, I'm as saddened as the next lefty that Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich barely made it past the starting gate, but the level of high drama and real competition is refreshing. This is democracy in action, folks. It's complicated and it's messy. If having a brokered convention is the cost of every state having their say, then so be it.

What we, as Democrats, must do, is keep the media narrative focused on the idea that we have two exceptional candidates who have passionate followings. We are voting for the one we like, not against the one we don't.

We also must remember that this race is far from over. Clinton and Obama both have solid chances to win this thing. Just like how the media created the narrative that Bush had won in 2000 and that Gore was just being a spoil-sport in demanding that all the Florida votes be counted, the media has created the narrative that Clinton can't win and should drop out now for the good of the party. They are more or less tied at this point, yet no one calls for Obama to drop out at this point, nor should they. This one is going into extra innings, so pass the peanuts and hot dogs.

The Onion Movie lives!!

In the category of never say die, we have a trailer for the long-lost Onion movie. Originally made in early 2005, it has sat on a shelf at 20th Century Fox for almost exactly three years. The reason? It's quite terrible. I actually saw this one at a test screening, way back in March 2005. As a longtime (11 years or so) fan of The Onion newspaper, I was as curious as anybody as to how they would translate the dry, journalistic humor into a feature film. The answer? Poorly.

Of course, I only can speak to the cut I saw, but all of the bits in this trailer are familiar to me. It tries to be a new-fangled Kentucky Fried Movie but lacks the discipline and sharp humor that separates the best Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker spoofs from, well, anyone else's spoofs. It's boring, it's condescending, and it's genuinely bad enough to make you feel ashamed to admit you're a fan of the paper. But, here's the weird thing. The cut I saw was only about 50 minutes, not counting credits. So, unless they are releasing this as a short-feature, there is sure to be new material. As much as I loathed my first viewing, I am curious to see what three years has wrought. That's the bad part about test-screenings... even if the film is terrible, you're still a little curious as to how the final cut turns out.

Nothing to fear but an Obama defeat in November?

Much has been discussed in recent days on whether or not Hillary Clinton is playing on fear, specifically with the infamous '3am' online commercial. Frankly, I think it's a perfectly valid line of attack. The ad is soft, with light music and 'reassuring' images. It's not like the ad suggests that there are scary wolves just out of range, waiting to eat your children if John Kerry is elected. In theory, there will be circumstances, both dire and not-so-dire when the president will have to make important decisions at 3am (apparently, Bush responded yesterday by claiming, to the surprise of about 19-24% of the populace, that he just lets said calls go to voice mail).

The Obama camp quickly responded with a similar ad (basically claiming, not without merit, that the 'red phone' moment came in 2002, and those who voted for Bush's authorization of force against Iraq blew it). Also making the rounds is video of a rousing speech that Bill Clinton gave in 2004, basically stating that if one candidate appeals to your hopes and the other appeals to your fears, vote for the one that appeals to hope. He was right then and his sentiments are right now.
The problem is that neither candidate is really playing on fear. If the 3am ad was intended to frighten, it would have been darker, the voices would have been ominous, and Hillary Clinton herself would not have appeared in the ad (she certain wouldn't have appeared, looking calm, collected, and not the least bit worried about whatever that 3am call was (maybe it was the inside scoop about New Line).

Hillary Clinton's campaign has always been about experience and Barrack Obama's campaign has always been about judgment (ie - being smart versus being wise). To presume that any remotely substantial campaign ad is automatically an act of fear-mongering is naive and hurtful to the process. Granted, Obama's rhetoric has been closer to the classic FDR speeches. But, perhaps Clinton is the one who is truly afraid. Not that she will lose but that Obama will lose the general election.

Much has been made about how cutthroat Clinton has been since South Carolina. She of the alleged dirty tricks, baiting statements, and leave no man alive strategies. Most of the punditry has been focused on the simplistic notion that she is simply power mad, determined to achieve the presidency by any means necessary as some form of manifest destiny. That may be true. She may very well think she's entitled, as if this is her reward for dealing with 12 years of the most misogynistic, savage, wrongheaded attacks one can imagine from the opposition party.

But, what if it's more complicated than that? What if she is being as aggressive as she is because she is afraid for the party? I believe that both candidates are well-placed to take the White House in 2008. But she may not. If she honestly believes that Obama will lose to McCain, then it is her duty to pull every string, to try every trick, and call in every favor to make sure that she is the party's nominee. Because, in her mind, the only we thing have to fear, is a John McCain presidency. On that , we agree.

Scott Mendelson