There are surprises and there they are surprises... Defying even the most optimistic predictions, Warner Bros' R-rated comedy The Hangover opened at number 01 with a stunning $16.5 million. Riding a wave of positive reviews and countless pre-release word of mouth screenings (allegedly over 300), the Todd Phillips comeback project is on track to gross between $42 million (2.5x weekend multiplier) and $53 million (3.25x multiplier). Obviously the total is going to be somewhere in between, but I fully expect Warner Bros to brag about a $50 million weekend estimate (3x) on Sunday before releasing a slightly lower final number on Monday. Either way, this will likely be the second highest R-rated comedy opening weekend of all-time, behind the $56 million Sex & The City opening a little over a year ago. This is a near-miraculous achievement that will likely turn Bradley Cooper into a full-fledged leading man (his chances of being cast as Hal Jordon in Warner Bros' Green Lantern just went way up). Even if it doesn't end up number one for the weekend, this will be the story that everyone is talking about on Monday.
For some perspective, this creamed the $10 million opening day of The Wedding Crashers and made almost as much in one day as the last several Judd Apatow or Paul Rudd vehicles made in their opening weekends (I'm thinking the $18 million-ish debuts of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I Love You Man, and Role Models). It is the 11th biggest R-rated opening day of all time, and will likely find itself at least in the top twenty for R-rated openings. We'll know more tomorrow, where we see if it played like a general audiences hit or a young-kid-skewed front loader. Either way, this has to be wonderful news for the beleaguered Warner Bros, which has seen middling results from major investments (Watchmen and Terminator: Salvation) and outright flops from more low budget efforts (Observe and Report). Pardon the speculation at this early stage, but with the rest of June being relatively light on major projects until June 24th, The Hangover has a good shot at being the second-highest-grossing film of June, behind Transformers 2.
Ironically, despite all the huzzahs, the film may have to settle for number two this weekend. After all, Pixar's Up dropped just 38% from last Friday, so we'll have a pretty tight race for the top spot. Grossing $13.5 million and crossing the $100 million mark on its eighth day, the Pixar masterpiece is playing more like Finding Nemo than Ratatouille, Cars, or Wall-E. It's $106 million total is just $3 million behind the fish fable at a similar juncture, and its $13.5 million second Friday is actually about $1 million ahead of Finding Nemo, despite opening to $2 million less last weekend. A second-weekend total of at least $42 million should come about (Finding Nemo had $46 million in weekend two), so regardless of which film is number one, both are smashing success stories.
And that's where the good news more or less ends. Land of the Lost came in at third place, with $7.7 million. This will fall right into the general realm of Will Ferrell comedies, which is just fine except the film cost $100 million to make. The problems for this one were numerous. It was sold as a family-friendly adaptation of a family friendly TV series that just happened to star Will Ferrell. But, in reality, it was a hard PG-13 Will Ferrell comedy that just happened to be an adaptation of a kid-friendly TV show. Fair enough, but Will Ferrell comedies aren't expected to be blockbusters, and they aren't budgeted as such. The budget on this one was so large that is basically HAD to play like Talladega Nights ($147 million) or Elf ($173 million) to make any money. Will Ferrell's last three comedies, Blades of Glory, Semi-Pro, and Step-Brothers, grossed $118 million, $33 million, and $100 million respectively. What exactly made Universal think that this was going to vastly exceed those numbers, especially when they had nothing to sell EXCEPT Will Ferrell and a pissed-off T-rex?
Next in the 'Universal is stupid' category is Sam Raimi's Drag Me to Hell. Despite rapturous reviews, this seemingly audience-pleasing horror flick dropped 61% from Friday to Friday. There is absolutely no excuse for a horror film this entertaining to not even approach the numbers of the various Screen Gem crap fests. Last week's soft opening weekend was likely due to Universal's ad campaign, which spent its money selling the film to the geeks that had already bought tickets. But there would be no recovery this weekend as The Hangover stole all of the teen/college audience that would have theoretically sampled the horror film that they missed last weekend. Even if word of mouth isn't as hot as I would have presumed, the sad fact is that this one will likely earn less overall than the audience-loathed Friday the 13th earned in its opening weekend. And we wonder why today's horror is nothing but Asian remakes and 80s slasher reboots.
This is not a full on review. And it comes from someone who has no first-hand knowledge about the original TV show.
Land of the Lost isn't nearly as bad as many of the critics say, but it's not all that good either. It's easily the weakest of the major Will Ferrell comedies, and it's Brad Silberling's least compelling film since Casper. An unbilled James Lipton gets solid laughs purely for being a good sport. The use of the music from A Chorus Line is a solid running gag, and an impromptu rendition of Cher's "Do You Believe In Love?" gets a solid chuckle. The third act is ten-minutes too long. Anna Friel isn't allowed to be funny. She gets exactly two laughs, plus some giggles as she is forced to translate the ramblings of a the monkey-like Cha Ka (although to the film's credit she is not overly sexualized). Danny McBride basically plays his usual anti-social nutcase, but in a gentler fashion. To the film's credit, the cheesy special effects are convincing when they needed to be and completely fake at all other times. The monsters are actually occasionally menacing, and there's a jump scare about twenty minutes in that actually surprised me. Parents be warned, this isn't a family-friendly comedy that happens to be rated PG-13. This is a full-on PG-13 comedy, complete with the usual Will Ferrell bawdiness and irreverent and often trippy humor, that Universal is selling as a family film. In short, I liked it more than Marshall Fine but less than Roger Ebert. And, frankly, I would have enjoyed it a little more had the theater not been 50 below zero, but I digress.
You know the drill... WB PR sends these interviews out, I post them for you. Previous interviews are with Victor Garber, director Lauren Montgomery, Juliet Landau, and screenwriter Alan Burnett. This new one is with actor Michael Madsen, who will be playing Kilowog. Green Lantern: First Flight will be released in a single disc DVD, two-disc DVD set, and a Blu Ray (plus OnDemand) from Warner Home Video on July 28th. This is a pretty lengthy interview, but it's also a pretty entertaining read, delving into his early life and career in general. Enjoy.
QUESTION:
What did you see in Kilowog and how did you try to portray those characteristics?
MICHAEL MADSEN:
I liked the idea that Kilowog was forceful, yet has a gentle nature. I’m often thought of as playing villainous characters in movies.Everyone forgets that I was the father in Free Willy – they only like to remember that I cut off a policeman’s ear in Reservoir Dogs. There’s me in the middle somewhere and I think that’s kind of like Kilowog, He’s dangerous, yet he has a heart. That’s what attracted me to the part.Also, I was quite humbled by being asked to play Kilowog in the first place. I don’t often get asked to voice animated characters, and I’ve always wanted to do something like that – it’s great fun for me.
QUESTION:
Do you have a real-life human character that you possibly inspired your portrayal of Kilowog?
MICHAEL MADSEN:
I guess, perhaps, I thought of my father.My father a very forceful man, a bit of a brute, and stubborn. Yet I remember when my first son was born and my father met me at the airport, and I let him hold the boy. I saw a little tear come down from his eye. It was one of the only times I ever saw him break emotionally – and I knew there was something in there.
QUESTION:
Kilowog uses the word “poozer” frequently in describing other individuals in a variety of situations. Can you define that word by Kilowog’s standards?
MICHAEL MADSEN:
I’ve heard that it’s closely associated with somewhat of a bungler or a misfit or someone who’s annoying … to put it mildly (laughs).
QUESTION:
Was there anything particularly special or enticing about playing Kilowog?
MICHAEL MADSEN:
I don’t want to go off here into another planet, but when I was younger, I read a biography of James Cagney and he said that if you ever play a dark character, you need to find something noble within that guy; and if you ever play someone who’s very noble, you need to find something dark within him. Otherwise, your character’s going to be one-dimensional.I knew exactly what he was talking about, even though I was probably about 14, and it’s always stuck with me. Having a character with duality always appeals to me – I never like to do something straight down the road.
QUESTION:
You do bounce between playing the hero and the villain – is there a common thread between those two sides of the coin?
MICHAEL MADSEN:
For a long time, I was pretty much pigeonholed into playing the bad guy. Recently, I did a couple of movies that kind of changed that dynamic. We shot “Strength and Honor” in Ireland and I played an Irish-American prizefighter who unintentionally kills someone in the ring and promises his family that he will never box again.Then he finds out that his son is dying of a terrible illness and the only way to get the money they need is to get back in the ring. I really think it’s one of the best things that I’ve ever been involved in and it gave me a chance to completely go the other way. The guy really has a very deep conscience and an incredible set of values.
Then I did a cop picture with Darryl Hannah called “Vice,” where I played a pretty disturbed guy whose wife is killed and he’s a drunk – he’s a vice cop and he’s just really not in a good mood. And again, it’s one of the best pictures I’ve ever made.So when you take “Strength and Honor” and you take “Vice,” it’s kind of the bookends of Michael Madsen – as a person and, in a lot of ways, of my career. And it’s an interesting kind of a place to be.I don’t know why it took so long, but, little by little, I’m starting to get to play some really interesting parts. Coming in and doing something like Kilowog is part of my moving into a place where I’ve wanted to be for a long time.
QUESTION:
Your sister Virginia Madsen has played in the Warner Bros. animated world several times, including on the last DCU animated original movie, Wonder Woman. Did she offer any tips about recording for the DC Universe?
MICHAEL MADSEN:
Virginia mentioned that she had been around and had a really good time with you guys.My sister was doing singing telegrams when I was stealing cars, so we had a bit of a different upbringing.She had a little head start on me in the business – taking a lot of voice classes and voice lessons and she’s very well studied and did a lot of theater and things I was never able to do. I’m very enamored of her and her talents. I hope she behaved herself and I hope you guys were nice to her. I’m sure you were, or I would have heard about it. Gotta be the big brother, you know.
QUESTION:
Virginia told us that the first time she felt sibling rivalry was when you got a role before she did. Your thoughts?
MICHAEL MADSEN:
That’s true. I went to New York for a while, but ended up in LA. I had 400 bucks and I checked into the Saharan motel. I looked in the newspaper and I got a job at the Union 76 gas station at Crescent Heights and Little Santa Monica, right in the middle of Beverly Hills. I’d watched “The Beverly Hillbillies” on TV, and that’s all I knew about it. I was pumping gas and changing flat tires and driving the wrecker, and everybody came in there – good lord, it was Jack Lemmon and Cicely Tyson, Peter Falk and Warren Beatty. These people would just come in there for gas, and I’d be squeegying their windows, looking in and thinking, “Oh, my God, it’s him.” Fred Astaire came in there on Christmas Eve in a Mercedes with a flat tire. He just got out – he was only about this big (holding his hand chest high) – and he gave me a hundred dollar bill and then just walked away. I was making $2.50 an hour.
What I’m trying to say is, I got thrown into Hollywood without really knowing it. So I finally went for an audition for “St. Elsewhere” and, as I was going to go to work afterwards, I had my Union 76 outfit on – with “Mike” on the chest.I went in and read for the part, and then I went to work. When I got there, my boss says, “Mike, you got a phone call from an agent or something like that – why didn’t you tell us you were an actor?” I’d been there for about nine months, and I was thinking it was none of his business.And then he says, “Listen kid, let me tell you something: you better make up your mind what you want to do, because we need you around here. You know what the chances are of you becoming an actor and being a success in Hollywood?”And I’m like, “Well, I hadn’t really thought of it.”And he says, “About 10 million to 1.” And I said, “Well, thanks for the encouragement.” (he laughs)Anyway, I needed a couple days off to go do the show, so he let me do it.
I do remember that Virginia was not very happy about that, but that was a long time ago and I’ve made about 124 pictures now. I don’t know how many she’s made, but I think being nominated for an Academy Award, well, she’s kind of bumped me off.I mean, she used to be my sister – now I’m Virginia Madsen’s brother.It ain’t over yet though, Virginia (he laughs).
QUESTION:
How did this voice acting experience differ from your past voice over jobs?
MICHAEL MADSEN:
I used to think when you came in to do a voice, you had to make up something with your voice. For this film, I was just myself. I brought my Michael into it.It was a lot easier and it made more sense, and that made the entire experience more natural and I was a little bit more comfortable than I have been in past sessions. For the video game recordings, they always want the tough guy, and there’s nothing fun about it. It’s just one-dimensional. This was work, and I appreciate that. I take acting seriously, and I had a good time working on this film.
QUESTION:
You’re a busy actor working in every genre, but with films like Sin City, Species and Kill Bill, you’ve got a pretty noteworthy cult following within the fanboy arena. What’s your reaction to that devout legion of fans?
MICHAEL MADSEN:
I’ve got a pretty eclectic group of fans.It’s funny, I can walk down the street in New York City or through a shopping mall and if I don’t make eye contact with anybody, I can go anywhere. I stand in line at Subway, and if I’m casual nobody even knows I’m there, nobody bothers me at all.But if I go into a room and look at people or in anyway appear aware of myself, suddenly I’m surrounded by people who want to either take a picture with me with their cell phone or sign an autograph.
I don’t mind that at all, because I consider myself lucky. If I’ve done something on this planet that’s decent enough that someone cares or would want to pay any attention to me at all, that’s great.But it isn’t the reason I got into the business. I read an interview Robert Mitchum did toward the end of his life where he said that acting was an embarrassing and humiliating profession that they pay you to do nothing and, in the end, it all means nothing. I guess it also embodies who he actually was as a person, because he never really took it all very seriously.I do take it seriously and I do think it means something because I’ve had some moments and times in my life that I know the average guy doesn’t have.And I feel very blessed and fortunate for that.
It’s a tricky business and it can be a very weird existence. I’ve had people hesitate to get on elevators with me.I know that if I can walk in a room, there will be people very fearful of me sometimes – just because of the parts I play. I am not a pussycat, but let’s just take a family where the father knows me from “Reservoir Dogs,” and he’s thinking, “Oh, crap, there’s that guy.”And the kid knows me from “Free Willy,” and he says, “Dad, it’s Glen!”And, suddenly, there’s a family dilemma. It’s freaky. I had a guy come up to me in the airport in New Orleans, and he says, “My girlfriend says you’re Michael Madsen, I say you’re not.” Like I said, it can be kind of weird some times.
QUESTION:
A lot of folks don’t realize that you’ve been an active writer of poetry. What’s the essence of your writing?
MICHAEL MADSEN:
I wouldn’t necessarily call what I write poetry.I would say that it’s a social observance.I’ve seen a lot of things and I’ve been a lot of places, and I’ve done a lot of things, I’ve seen certain people do certain things and I’ve been in certain situations and circumstances and I wrote it down.I wrote things on matchbooks, I wrote things on paper bags. I wrote a poem on my leg one time in the back of a taxi in New York City, because I didn’t have paper. When you get a thought, you’ve got to write it down.Funny thing about writing is that, if you’re a film actor and you have to play a role, you get in front of the camera and that’s what you’ve got to do, whether you like it or not. But you can’t just sit down and start writing, you have to have a thought first and it doesn’t always come. But when it does, you’ve got to take advantage of it. You’ve got to write it down. I didn’t intend on writing any books, but I would write about certain things I saw or certain things I remember growing up. Then it all eventually ended up being published in one book, “The Complete Poetic Works” – which is on Amazon, by the way. Gotta pay the rent.
It's hopeless. No matter how I protest, now matter how much I bargain, I will likely be seeing this one on opening night. As most of you know, my wife (Wendy) devours horror trash like this as if it were crack. In an ideal world, a nearly two-year old Allison would be sitting next to us, exclaiming 'uh-oh!' and cackling maniacally whenever anyone dies. As for the spouse, our first date was Saw II (her choice). Ironically, one of the reasons I decided to go out with her is that I had a token desire to see the second Saw film (despite hating the first), so I figured I would use this first date as an excuse. Had I not seen The Legend of Zorro months earlier at a test screening, my life might have turned out very differently.
Scott Mendelson
Note - the trailer claims that 'ten years ago, it began'. But the first film came out March 17th, 2000. That makes it nine-years ago, math geeks.
While I won't be seeing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen until June 22nd (IE - the first press screening in IMAX), I am oddly excited about the would-be summer box office champion. I say 'oddly' because I rather didn't care for the first picture. I didn't like the constantly campy comedy bits, I didn't like the cartoonish human characters, and I was shocked by the lack of robot-on-robot smack downs. The film lacked tension, menace, and regulated the transformers to almost comic relief sidekicks. Those reasons, aside from a few other token issues (for example, Shia Labeouf falls for Megan Fox purely because she's hot, then is outraged when he discovers that she has the gall to come from a lower-class, petty criminal household... and SHE has to apologize!) had me scratching my head in July, 2007 as the film seemed to win over not just audiences but quite a few major critics as well. But the previews seem to indicate that Michael Bay may have tinkered with some of these issues, with more epic action and a darker tone. So I'm feeling a little more optimistic than I probably should.
At the moment, I'm feeling like Charlie Brown as he prepares to kick a football. Just what are the chances that this inferior first film will produce a decent sequel that actually works where the original did not? While there are plenty of good or terrific first films that produced superior sequels, there aren't that many mediocre or underwhelming chapter ones that produced stellar or vastly improved second chapters. For one thing, usually if the first film is lousy, it won't make enough money to justify a sequel (although that's less of an issue in this quick-kill blockbuster age). However, there are a few worth noting. To wit...
Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life (2003) The original Tomb Raider was a colossal bore and a complete waste of potential. As one of the few video game franchises that actually made sense as a film, the Angelina Jolie vehicle none the less featured a stunning lack of action and a complete absence of adventure. You had a weak villain, a convoluted storyline that existed mainly to cram Jolie's estranged father Jon Voight in the narrative, and a picture where the majority of the action scenes were comprised of Lara Croft emptying her twin handguns into robots, statues, and CGI monsters. While no masterpiece, Jan de Bont's would-be comeback vehicle was a marked improvement. For one thing, the story actually made just a touch more sense. Plus Jolie had far more chemistry with the male lead (Gerald Butler) than she did with the boring 'insert a dude' in the first film (played by, shockingly, Daniel Craig). Most importantly, the film was an actual action film. It had real chases, real fight scenes, and real shoot outs and stunt work with actual stuntmen being beaten, shot, and falling off cliffs. While the original was an example of everything wrong with tent pole film making, the sequel (which was actually $20 million cheaper to make) was a pleasant B-movie throwback that worked as a rough and tumble action adventure movie. Alas, its relative box office failure ($66 million vs. $132 million for the first Tomb Raider) led to what I call the 'Tomb Raider trap' rule, which states that a sequel to an unloved but successful film will bomb even if it's better, because audiences won't risk getting burned again.
Saw II (2004) I was in the minority in that I rather loathed the first Saw picture. Aside from its grotesque moral compass ('oh no, he's actually helping people... and he's not really killing anyone'), the film was terribly acted, ridiculously plotted, and inanely staged. Just why was Dr. Gordon forced to listen as Amanda told her story of terror in the head cage? Because that scene was what got the film made, and it was the prime attraction of the marketing campaign, so they needed to stick it in there somehow, right? The whole film feels like an interesting first draft that never got polished after it was sold. Since one of the costars was one of the writers, you had the unique pleasure of watching a lousy writer/bad actor deliver his bad dialogue poorly. And Danny Glover delivers one of the worst performances of his career to boot (at least, unlike Shooter, you don't need hearing aids to understand him).
But Saw II? It's no great masterpiece and certainly not that scary, but it traded in wrongheaded morality plays and narrative incompetence for B-movie fun house jolts. It's violent and brutal, but not drawn out or grotesque. Plus, you have the wonderful interplay between two first rate character actors, as Tobin Bell faces off against Donnie Wahlberg. This second chapter allowed Tobin Bell to progress from twist-spilling cameo player (gee... that's noted screen menace Tobin Bell in the hospital bed... I wonder if he's involved somehow?) to full-fledged franchise movie star. And this is the only film that has explicitly called foul on Jigsaw's warped philosophy. It's good nasty fun that forgoes the pretentiousness of the later sequels and it's a far more polished, professional picture than the rough draft original in every way. Plus, it was the first date for my eventual wife/mother of my child, so it's got that going for it. Every year we celebrate the anniversary of our first meeting by seeing yet another Saw sequel and swearing each year that we'll find a better way to celebrate next year.
Addams Family Values (1993) Despite opening to $24 million and staying above $20 million in weekend two way back in November 1991 (a second-weekend feat surpassed only by Batman, Home Alone, andTerminator 2 at the time), the original Addams Family film earned the scorn of critics and the passive acceptance of audiences (despite the two massive weekends, it quickly flamed out after Thanksgiving and ended with $113 million). While perfectly cast and gamely performed, the first picture and its 'fake Uncle Fester tries to con the family' plot did little to endear the franchise and the film just wasn't all that funny. But the sequel that followed just two years later was a genuine comedy classic. Everyone in the cast felt at home, Raul Julia and Angelica Houston were obviously having the time of their lives, and Christina Ricci was rewarded for her scene-stealing turn as Wednesday Adams in the first film by massively increased presence in the sequel (in terms of screen time, she's actually the star).
All this, plus the film contains not one warmed over suspense plot line, but three broadly comic storylines all mixed in, each of which would have sufficed on its own. Whether it's the birth of Pubert Addams and the older childrens' quest to murder said infant (priceless sight gags galore), the marriage of Uncle Fester to a would-be black widow (played by Joan Cusack, who is rarely allowed to be this attractive onscreen), or the brilliant gambit of sending Wednesday and Pugsley Addams to a cheerfully happy song-and-dance summer camp, this second picture is superior in every way and is one of the funnier mainstream entertainments of the 1990s. Alas, the lukewarm reception of the first film prevented this sequel from attaining similar box office heights, and it reached only $48 million in the US.
Scream 2 (1997) The original Scream is not a bad movie, but it is a slightly overrated one. Yes, it's gamely acted and contains a knockout of a curtain raiser. But, once you get past the 'wink-wink, we're openly discussing the very cliches we're indulging in', it's a pretty generic 80-style slasher picture. But the sequel umped the ante in a number of ways. For one thing, the picture feels huge in scope, as if it's the first 'epic' slasher film. The cast feels more comfortable in their characters' skin, and they are all suffering from various forms of post-traumatic stress disorder, which lends a gloom over the whole show. Leiv Shreiber gives a star-making performance, while the picture finds time for two completely appropriate musical interludes amidst the carnage (plus, David Warner is an upgrade from Henry Wrinkler). Most importantly, the violence in this one really stings, as Wes Craven boldly kills the most popular character in the series at the halfway point, and then allows the characters ample time to grieve his murder. If for no other reason than the scene where Dewey and Sydney try to determine who gets to call Randy's mother after he is killed, Scream 2 is a more potent piece of pop entertainment.
A few popular sequels that will not be on this list:
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) - Yes, this second film is better than the first, but I enjoy the maiden voyage more than most. While it's overlong and more of a tone poem, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is perhaps the only Star Trek picture that's actually about space exploration and discovering new worlds, as opposed to foiling evil villains and their evil plots.
Superman II (1981) - It's not a bad movie at all, but this critically overpraised sequel is still inferior to the grand myth making in Richard Donner's original picture. The climactic throw down with the Kryptonian super villains is still fun and there is still some drama in the fortress of solitude moments with Superman and his respective parent (his mother or his father, depending on which version you watch), but the film has never been as engaging as the epic gold standard of superhero origin stories. Neither film is perfect, and both have issues with villainy (Gene Hackman's Lex Luther is a little too campy, while General Zod and company are all bark and little bite due to the family friendly nature of the franchise), but the first Superman picture is still the very best one yet made.
Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Shagged Me - The original film is one of the very best comedies of the 1990s. The sequel, despite popularity and critical raves, was one of the most heartbreaking theatrical experiences of my life. Mike Myers apparently didn't realize that Dr. Evil and Austin Powers were not inherently funny characters, but that the comedy emanated from fish out of water situations. By putting a swinging 60s bachelor back into the 1960s, Jay Roach and company took all of the satirical fun out of the film, and the constant poop and dick jokes were not enough to compensate. Plus a prologue plot twist took a giant dump on whatever emotional investment we placed in the original picture.
Spider-Man 2 (2004) - As confused as I was by the critical pass that Transformers received, I was flabbergasted by the critical orgasm that greeted this vastly overrated Spidey sequel. The film follows the idiot plot through and through (IE - most of Peter's problems would be solved in five minutes if he wasn't an idiot), and Alfred Molina's cartoonish Dr. Octopus can't touch the multi-layered performance of Willem Dafoe. Once Octavius becomes Doc Ock, all humanity and subtlety goes out the window until the very end. Like Superman II (to which it owes much of its plot), stellar action scenes allow the picture to escape narrative scrutiny. It fails for the same reason Superman Returns failed - it's 2+ hours of self pity because the girl who he cruelly and selfishly abandoned won't take him back.
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian - While this under performing sequel corrects many of the flaws of the The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, it's still not a perfect film (it drags after an admittedly shocking third-act twist). Regardless, The first film wasn't that bad, and the sequel is good but not great.
Angels & Demons - Yes, it's a much more fun than The Da Vinci Code, but neither are 'good'. One is terrible and dull. One is terrible, but stupidly fun and entertaining. I'll take dumb over dull anytime.
And now, just so I don't leave anything out, a random smattering of terrific sequels to very good or terrific originals - The Bride of Frankenstein, The Road Warrior, X2: X-Men United, Batman Returns, The Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, The Bourne Supremacy, Toy Story 2, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (it's OK, you can admit that the action scenes are astounding and the romantic subplot takes up only about 1/4 of the film), Terminator 2: Judgment Day, From Russia With Love, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Matrix Reloaded (sorry, it's true), and The Godfather part II (although I still prefer the original).
Any I missed or any you disagree with (I'm sure there are plenty of both)? Feel free to share.
Random thought as I noticed this pic grabbed from an AICN spy from a recent licensing show. First of all, perusing over to Box Office Mojo's film release schedule page, it's already apparent that summer 2011 will be an absolute monster of a season. Already on tap are such surefire heavyweights as Spider-Man 4, Thor, Kung Fu Panda: The Kaboom of Doom, Green Lantern, Cars 2, Transformers 3, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows part II, and The First Avenger: Captain America (that's just between May 4th and July 22nd). Assuming none of these films change release dates, I can spot three surefire $100 million openers (Spider-Man 4, Transformers 3, Harry Potter 7.2) with a few others as strong possibilities.
Second of all, I can almost guarantee that Warner Bros. will eventually move Harry Potter 7.2 from its Friday 7/15/11 date to a Wednesday 7/13/11 release, if only to give it a full week and a half to breathe before Captain America. Third of all, wouldn't you think that Captain America would drastically benefit from a July 4th weekend release date? It seems like an obvious choice, yet as of this moment, it is Transformers 3 that has the July 1st release date. Since both films are distributed by Paramount (although Paramount only gets a distribution fee from the Marvel pictures), let me offer some seemingly-plausible advice: Transformers 3 will open like gangbusters regardless of when it chooses to be released (especially if Revenge of the Fallen is as well received as the first film). But opening Captain America over the July 4th holiday weekend may make the difference between a $75 million opening weekend and a $125 million holiday weekend. Regardless of my last bit of advice to Paramount (I still think Star Trek would have had as good or better legs in the holiday season), letting Americans ring in the most patriotic of holidays with Steve Rogers' maiden voyage seems like a no-brainer.
The Lego series has produced some of the most obnoxiously addicting and obscenely fun video games over the last few years (Lego Star Wars, Lego Indiana Jones, and Lego Batman). After much speculation, Lego has announced that the next Lego adaptation will not be (as some thought) Star Trek or X-Men, but the Harry Potter series. The first game will apparently span 'Sorcerer's Stone' to 'Goblet of Fire'. I'm assuming a sequel will eventually wrap up books 5, 6 and 7. Sounds like loads of block-building and block smashing fun.
That forty-two second clip from the other day was merely a preview of the preview, if you will. The full 105 second clip premiered at the MTV Movie Awards and it's just as Earth-shakingly bad. Aside from the terrible acting, ridiculously dumb power suits, and mediocre action beats, nothing advertises the 'awesomeness' of GI Joe like watching them utterly fail to stop Cobra's scheme. "Real American heroes, indeed". I'm starting to wonder if this won't be 'Ghost Rider terrible'.
There is something inescapably terrifying about witnessing something horrible from a completely plausible point of view. Most films, especially horror films, give the audiences a sort of 'eyes-of-God' point of view, giving us the full picture of what's occurring onscreen even when the characters do not have such benefits. However, in recent years, we have seen a sub-genre of sorts that one might call the 'information withheld' horror picture. In these variations on tried and true stories, we only get as much information as the main characters, and we generally only see and hear what they see and hear.
Whether it's an apparent alien invasion seen only from news reports on a tiny television set (Signs), or a monster attack seen only from the camcorder owned by one of the random city dwellers (Cloverfield), these pictures put a premium on information, so that the slightest image of horror or nugget of knowledge is theoretically that much more frightening. Some of these films (Signs) are better than others (The Blair Witch Project), but they all are attempting to capitalize on the two hoariest cliches in cinema - what you don't see is scarier than what you do see, and there's nothing more terrifying than the unknown.
Pontypool is a low-budget study in claustrophobia and creeping realization. The picture concerns a once big-time radio DJ who has taken a last-chance hosting job for a small-time news station in a very small town. Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie) quickly attempts to drum up 'controversy', much to the chagrin of his producer (Sydney Briar). But almost immediately into his first shift, news breaks of an apparent riot or mass panic outside a doctor's office. As small bits of information drip in, it quickly becomes clear that something has gripped the town in a state of madness or confusion. As eye-witness reports become conflicted and increasingly confusing, the DJ, the producer, and the engineer must figure out what is going on before it is too late.
Apologies for the vagueness, but the less you know going into this the more potent the experience will be. Needless to say, the situation is soon revealed to be something far more complicated than a routine horror movie experience, and the picture becomes a sort of mediation on the power of words and the inherent influence of the English language itself. Holding this together is a dynamic lead performance by noted character actor Stephen McHattie. Looking like a cross between Don Imus, Lance Henricksen, and Dr. Gregory House, McHattie does little more than sit in a radio booth and speak for the duration of the 95-minute running time. But his richly detailed face and crackling voice dominates the proceedings in a fashion that might have earned Oscar buzz in a more high-profile picture.
The story never really leaves that tiny church-basement radio station, so the picture becomes increasingly tense as our three main characters realize that they may be 'witnessing' some kind of world-changing event without the ability to actually see any of it. For the first half, the film has a spellbinding hold on the audience, as we ourselves become desperate for any nugget of insight into just what is going on outside in the snow. Alas, at about the halfway point, Pontypool shows its hand. And while the more complicated explanation does add pathos and a subtext to the horror film narrative, said explanation is so convoluted that the picture has to spend much of the remainder of its running time explaining just what is going on. An additional character is introduced at about the hour mark for the sole purpose of expository monologue. While the film does conclude on a potent note of earned dread, this is the rare horror movie that almost tries too hard to be more than what it is.
Like many horror films that base their terror on what we don't know or don't understand, Pontypool loses much of its power once we fully understand (or think we understand) what the game is all about. It has a terrifically compelling first half, and an Oscar-worthy performance by McHattie. But the second half collapses under the weight of its own over ambition. Yes, director Bruce McDonald and writer Tony Burgess have much to say about the power of the spoken language, but they commit the cardinal sin of putting the message ahead of the medium.
Consider it felt.
Ironically, despite all the huzzahs, the film may have to settle for number two this weekend. After all, Pixar's Up dropped just 38% from last Friday, so we'll have a pretty tight race for the top spot. Grossing $13.5 million and crossing the $100 million mark on its eighth day, the Pixar masterpiece is playing more like Finding Nemo than Ratatouille, Cars, or Wall-E. It's $106 million total is just $3 million behind the fish fable at a similar juncture, and its $13.5 million second Friday is actually about $1 million ahead of Finding Nemo, despite opening to $2 million less last weekend. A second-weekend total of at least $42 million should come about (Finding Nemo had $46 million in weekend two), so regardless of which film is number one, both are smashing success stories.
And that's where the good news more or less ends. Land of the Lost came in at third place, with $7.7 million. This will fall right into the general realm of Will Ferrell comedies, which is just fine except the film cost $100 million to make. The problems for this one were numerous. It was sold as a family-friendly adaptation of a family friendly TV series that just happened to star Will Ferrell. But, in reality, it was a hard PG-13 Will Ferrell comedy that just happened to be an adaptation of a kid-friendly TV show. Fair enough, but Will Ferrell comedies aren't expected to be blockbusters, and they aren't budgeted as such. The budget on this one was so large that is basically HAD to play like Talladega Nights ($147 million) or Elf ($173 million) to make any money. Will Ferrell's last three comedies, Blades of Glory, Semi-Pro, and Step-Brothers, grossed $118 million, $33 million, and $100 million respectively. What exactly made Universal think that this was going to vastly exceed those numbers, especially when they had nothing to sell EXCEPT Will Ferrell and a pissed-off T-rex?
Next in the 'Universal is stupid' category is Sam Raimi's Drag Me to Hell. Despite rapturous reviews, this seemingly audience-pleasing horror flick dropped 61% from Friday to Friday. There is absolutely no excuse for a horror film this entertaining to not even approach the numbers of the various Screen Gem crap fests. Last week's soft opening weekend was likely due to Universal's ad campaign, which spent its money selling the film to the geeks that had already bought tickets. But there would be no recovery this weekend as The Hangover stole all of the teen/college audience that would have theoretically sampled the horror film that they missed last weekend. Even if word of mouth isn't as hot as I would have presumed, the sad fact is that this one will likely earn less overall than the audience-loathed Friday the 13th earned in its opening weekend. And we wonder why today's horror is nothing but Asian remakes and 80s slasher reboots.
