And there shall be peace in our time...

Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz have been removed as co-hosts of At the Movies (which was once Siskel and Ebert at the Movies), about one year after they were infamously given reign to one of the few television programs focused on film criticism. In further good news, they will be replaced by frequent guest-hosts Michael Phillips (Chicago Tribune) and A.O. Scott (New York Times); two actual grown ups. To be fair, Mankiewicz always seemed far less out of his element than the infamously inarticulate and blurb-happy Lyons. This also just in... come September 5th, I'll actually start watching At the Movies for the first time in over a year.

Scott Mendelson

Shocker! Netflix requires members to plan their rentals!!!

It took Time Magazine's Richard Corliss 8-10 years to notice that Netflix doesn't work for spur of the moment movie rentals? HORROR! Yes, that's true, but that's basic logic behind a mail-through service. One can plan to acquire a given release within a few days or placing it in their queue, but they can't just toss a random film into their queue and expect instant gratification. That's why I use Blockbuster online, because I can also rent spur of the moment for free from their actual stores to supplement the mail-order requests. But if I were using Netflix, I sure wouldn't have the right to complain about spur of the moment movie choices. I can't vouch for Netflix aside from the couple times I've used them on a trial basis, but I've never ever gotten a wrong movie via mail from Blockbuster. And if Corliss misses the human interaction of video stores, then he can walk/drive to a local video store any darn time he wants. Corliss complains that Netflix "you surrender those basic American rights: impulse choice and instant gratification". Yet the Time Magazine critic's big complaint seems to be that he actually has to make the choice for himself as to whether to order a film from Netflix and wait a couple days, or venture out to a video store or a movie theater on his own whim. God forbid that he actually just do both. Use Netflix for convenient rentals that are not time-sensitive or spur-of-the moment, AND use standard video stores to feed the need for a random movie or human interaction for a Friday night. It seems that some people want Netflix to do it all. That's called laziness.

Scott Mendelson

The Big Bang Theory cast needles Jim Parsons over his Emmy nomination.

This is just a taste of the obvious chemistry and comfort that the cast showed at this year's Paley Festival Q&A session that my wife and I attended in April. They obviously enjoy working together and all five of them are just genuinely witty people. Yes Jim Parsons' anal, obsessive, and brilliant Sheldon ("one lab accident away from becoming a super villain") is the 'break-out' character, and the showier characters usually get the Emmy nominations, but the writers have been smart enough to avoid letting him completely dominate the show. Kaley Cuoco (Penny) summed it up best, basically stating that the show works because all five characters are so genuinely entertaining that you can place any two of them in a scene and guarantee high amusement. I'd raise that statement and say that the characters are so sharply defined that one laughs in anticipation of the interaction before said scene even begins. Heading into its third season, The Big Bang Theory may very well be my favorite show currently on the air.

Scott Mendelson

DVD review: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 25th anniversary collector's edition

Really, Warner Bros, why did you even bother?

Why do people buy special edition DVDs or Blu Rays? Let's see... vastly improved picture quality? Yup. Superior sound mixes that often utilize extra channels? Of course. More and better extras? That's often the main attraction! How about slim, space-saving packaging that looks cool on the book shelf? Well, maybe, but since I had a kid I'm all about saving space.

So what was the point of the Warner Bros/New Line 25th anniversary Blu Ray and DVD box set for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles again? Yes, it's great that they included all three live-action films as well as the CGI cartoon from 2007. But the audio/video quality on the three live action films are barely an upgrade (especially on standard-definition). And the extras for the original live-action films are non-existent (the CGI Blu Ray is a duplicate of the feature-laden original release). The box advertises 'radical extras' like four turtle eye masks and tubular tattoos. Want to know what isn't advertised? Commentaries, deleted scenes, documentaries, or any other kind of bonus feature that fans might actually want from such a set. This makes me thank the heavens that the current Warner Home Video regime wasn't in place when those feature-packed Superman and Batman special editions were released back in 2005 and 2006.

And the packing... dear god, please Warner Bros. stop doing this! I don't want a fold-out map of San Fransisco with my Dirty Harry series box set. I don't want lobby cards with my Casablanca blu ray. And I sure as hell don't need four eye masks and/or a set of tubular tattoos with my Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles box set. And, believe it or not, these four discs are actually housed in the same way that you and I house CDs for a long car trip. See that circular thing that looks like a sewer gate? Yeah, that's a zipper package that houses several flimsy plastic disc-holding sheets, just like the portable CD cases you'd buy at Pepboys. I know that boxes similar to 20th Century Fox's Die Hard series or Paramount's The Godfather trilogy are a little too much to hope for (one blu-ray keep case with four discs housed comfortably inside), but would it kill you guys to make packaging that actually looks like it belongs on a DVD/Blu Ray shelf? The Blu Ray set apparently resembles an actual cardboard pizza box, which will look snazzy when the cardboard rots and/or fails to protect the discs. Cowabunga!

As for the movies, same as it was always. The first film is a stunningly good comic book adaptation, which is almost too faithful to the not-always kid-friendly source material. A friend of mine has often commented that he finds the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to be darker than Tim Burton's Batman, since this one is based in real-world New York City and not an art-deco, somewhat fairy-tale-ish Gotham City. I'm not sure I'd disagree with him, but regardless this remains a surprisingly potent action-adventure picture. Since many parents and critics were outraged by the grim tone and often brutal violence of the PG-rated original (there are five onscreen deaths, a supporting hero commits murder, and a teenager is beaten to death onscreen) the two sequels are more in line with the no-harm, no foul slapstick of the long-running animated series. The first sequel is silly, but bright, colorful fun with a terrific opening action scene. The third is just a dumbed-down bore. As for the CGI animated film, the less said about that one, the better (yawn is the word).

So we're left with ho-hum transfers with no extras concerning the very films that fans are looking to own. But, hey, at least we get new inelegant packaging and tattoos!

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - B+
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze - C+
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: Turtles in Time - C-
TMNT - C-

Scott Mendelson

Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones gets a trailer...

Yes, this is one of those trailers that appears to reveal the entire film in just a few short minutes, so spoiler-phobes may want to avoid it. While this movie looks visually gorgeous, the apparent scenes of heaven seem a bit too close to What Dreams May Come (an exceptionally underrated fable that's much darker than it's given credit for). Furthermore, the narrative being told seems surprisingly conventional. Judging purely from this trailer, the picture would seem to be a prestige-picture variation of The Invisible. I have not read the acclaimed book that this is based on, so I don't know if there is more underneath the surface beyond the seemingly paint-by-numbers storytelling. Nor can I know for sure if the final Rear Window-ish moments of the trailer read as conventionally bland as they appear. If not for my faith in Peter Jackson and his sterling batting average up to now (the Lord of the Rings trilogy, King Kong), I'm not sure I would be all that interested in this picture.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Funny People (2009)

Funny People
2009
145 minutes
Rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Spoilers contained within...

The critical consensus on Funny People (a strong first 90 minutes followed by an overlong, labored, drawn-out 40 minute finale) is half right. Alas, the entire film is an overlong, drawn-out, and completely undisciplined affair. The funniest thing about the movie is the irony contained within - despite being an allegedly more mature and serious motion picture than the stereotypical Judd Apatow product, it is actually far less honest and realistic about human behavior and relationships than either Knocked Up or The Forty-Year-Old Virgin. That in itself wouldn't be a big problem if the film were funny. But it's not. It's really not all that amusing. The stand-up comedy routines are generally not terribly funny. The female characters (especially Aubrey Plaza) are basically prizes to be won. We get absolutely no sense of what it's like to make your living trying to make people laugh in small-time dinky clubs, no sense of the nervousness, self-doubt, and excitement of doing live stand-up. As far as comedy writing, we get a more realistic picture of what it's like to write comedy for a living on 30 Rock. That show may be the ultimate reality check, as it shows that sketch comedy writers are every bit as uncool as anyone else.

We get no sense of why Adam Sandler's George Timmons chose to turn his back on humanity in general. Yes, he had issues with his father, but the movie states many times that all stand-up comedians are inherently exorcising demons and dealing with self-loathing. That's probably somewhat true, but then what separates the loners like Timmons from people like Judd Apatow or Ray Ramano, the ones who made their fortune in comedy but still were able to raise a family? The movie never deals with this obvious contradiction. The film eventually turns into a variation on The Family Man ('oh, he's rich and powerful beyond his dreams, but he really just wants a wife and kids'), before doubling back at the last minute to try to appear more profound than that.

Speaking of that justifiably maligned final act, once again this 'more serious' picture contains a less realistic view of family life than Knocked Up. Unlike the earlier picture, the kids are always well-behaved, they are always polite and funny, and they never give their parents any grief. It's almost as if Apatow couldn't bear to cast his two daughters as anything other than angels. And on what planet would two young children not be seriously disturbed/weirded out over their mom more or less flaunting her love for another guy, a famous stranger that they've never met no less? This rubbed me the same way as the climax of Kill Bill, where Uma Thurman's daughter didn't seem to mind a strange woman coming into her house, killing her father, and then telling her that she was her mother and whisking her away to places unknown.

Yes the film is unbearably long, but only because it is often unbearably dull and uninsightful. Oddly enough, the only mediocre performance comes from Leslie Mann, but that may come from a script that has her make major life decisions on a dime and never judges her for that (ie - no one could sell what she has to sell). Seth Rogen is shockingly good, and Sandler doesn't wink his way out of playing a rather loutish cad. And Eric Bana, a famous funny man in his native Australia, has a ball with his first comic role in America. But the core story feels false, many of the supporting characters are wasted, and the telling of that story is dragged out beyond logic. Come what may, Funny People is Judd Apatow's Elizabethtown. Like that infamous miss, this often feels like someone else 'doing Apatow', and the subject matter is arguably so close to the vest that perhaps objectivity was impossible. Despite grand intentions and noble ideals, the film just doesn't work in any conceivable way. It's a tragic failure from a truly gifted comic mind.

Grade: C-

My One and Only trailer.

Wow... this is one of the most off-putting trailers I have seen in a long, long time. Aside from the fact that it tells the whole story AND explicitly reveals the moral of the film twice (once in voice over, then moments later in almost identical dialogue), the whole trailer has a shockingly flippant/ 'hurrah for you' attitude towards the idea of a scorned mother taking her sons on a whirlwind adventure for the primary purpose of finding a rich guy to support them. The movie, based on the life of George Hamilton's mother, was apparently well-received at the Berlin Film Festival. Perhaps the movie is better than this trailer, but if that's the case than the filmmakers or distributing studio should demand a refund from the trailer house. This is the rare god-awful trailer that actually needs to be seen to be believed. My One and Only looks bad enough to make New In Town look like Two Lovers. This comes out August 21st.

Scott Mendelson

The Other Man trailer.

Great cast (Liam Neeson, Antonio Bandaras, and Laura Linney), but this looks a bit melodramatic, with an uncharacteristically over-the-top performance by Liam Neeson. Of course, this looks like a classic false-sell, with a drama being sold as a suspense thriller. We'll see.

Scott Mendelson

Funny People opens just fine, thank you.

There is really only one story at the box office this weekend. Pearl Harbor was never going to open to $100 million in four days over Memorial Day, 2001. Blair Witch 2 was never going to open to $30 million in October, 2000. King Kong was never going threaten Titanic's box office crown in December, 2005. Watchmen was never going to open to $85 million last March.

It happens over and over again. Rival studios and/or clueless film pundits toss out over-the-top predictions for a given movie. Then, when the given movie doesn't open to their preconceived or out-and-out false figure, the film is labeled a failure by the press. I've always said that many of these 'pie in the sky' numbers are tossed out by rival studios as a form of preemptive character assassination. Politics works the same way. Democrats and the GOP always trade numbers about just how much their national convention should affect poll numbers ("What, they only went up 10 points, not the expected 15? I guess their message isn't connecting with the American people!"). Never give credence to what rival studios project a given movie will gross on opening weekend or any other weekend. It is in their complete best interest to raise expectations, often to a level that the film cannot realistically meet. And even if a movie should meet those raised expectations, the rival studios still win as said box office victory is now 'as expected' rather than a big surprise.

Point being, Funny People was never, ever going to open at $40 million. But you had various pundits tossing out the $40 million figure (from rival studios of course) and then chortling about the under performance based on her own delusions. So a perfectly reasonable $23.4 million opening weekend is at risk of being considered a failure. Yes, 2.5 hour, R-rated dramedy (with an emphasis on drama, according to every article written about it) about a comedian dying of leukemia only opened to nearly $24 million. It opened about $10 million better than Duplicity, State of Play, My Sister's Keeper, and any other drama this year. It opened about $6 million below Knocked Up, which was sold as a pure comedy with an obvious marketing hook (slacker/loser accidentally impregnates professional hottie and they try to make it work). Put aside all the drooling articles about Judd Apatow ruling the world, this film opened exactly where it needed to, give or take a million. This was marketed and viewed as a slightly more serious variation on the usual Judd Apatow staple, so it should never have been expected to open at the top realms of his work. Nor should anyone have expected a more serious Adam Sandler film to open anywhere near the likes of Don't Mess With the Zohan, The Waterboy, or Anger Management.

So what we have is a pretty decent opening for a challenging movie (which cost too much at $75 million) that is likely to be turned into a would-be disaster story. Because the world loves taking down their would-be idols as quickly as they placed them on a pedestal. Because it's a far sexier story to proclaim the collapse of the Apatow comedy empire than just admit that the picture opened slightly below realistic expectations. Because the narrative of the year is that Universal can do no right. Bruno (a disliked movie that again should never have been expected to do Borat numbers) opens to $30 million, but ends up with just $60 million domestic and $120 million worldwide on a $45 million investment... HORROR! Public Enemies at $93 million edges close to Michael Mann's highest-grossing film (Collateral's $101 million) and is by far Johnny Depp's highest grossing film not involving Jack Sparrow or Tim Burton... FAILURE! Land of the Lost... well, you've kinda got me on that one (although the whacked-out humor will make it a college favorite for years).

So while Universal's slate is lacking a gazillion-dollar blockbuster this summer, there are two big variables. First of all, the insanely successful Fast & Furious ($72 million opening weekend and $155 million finish) was moved from summer to spring, which likely earned it an extra $30-$50 million by making it the only event film in town after Watchmen flamed out. Secondly, it's the only major studio whose summer output is lacking in sequels, toy-adaptations, comic-book films, and remakes. Aside from the above, Funny People is an honest-to-goodness mainstream dramedy, and Drag Me To Hell (a domestic underperformer in relation to quality) is a terrifically engaging old-school horror show. I didn't even like Land of Lost or Pubic Enemies, but I'll take their flawed ambition over the autopilot junk like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen or X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

So what went kinda-sort wrong with Funny People? First of all, the advertising campaign was surprisingly honest. It was not sold as a laugh-a-minute yuck-fest with a few serious spots. It was a mournful story that happened to involve people who where humorous by trade. Second of all, and this is a common thread, pundits have got to stop expecting every film by a given star or director to open at the absolute peak of their prior records. Not every Adam Sandler film is going to open to $40 million. Not every Judd Apatow film is going to open to $30 million. As for the much-discussed running time, it was only about ten-minutes longer than Knocked Up. Yes the running time may have been an impediment to casual viewers. It was something that prevented me from seeing the film this weekend. But I didn't see Knocked Up in theaters either. Third of all, quite a few articles went into the weekend comparing the film to the works of James L. Brooks. Well, Mr. Brooks has never had a movie over $13 million... ever.

I'm not pretending that the film doesn't have an uphill battle. The Cinemascore grade was a mere "B-", meaning that word of mouth is not so hot and that legs will be an issue. And the likely stories of failure will not help the film, especially with the wave of 'it's surprisingly not terrible' reviews for GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra likely to flood in during the week. A word of warning though... the usual pattern for Adam Sandler films is for them to drop like rocks in the second weekend (around 50%), only to have them rebound and have healthy runs for the next month as they become the 'second choice' for casual moviegoers. So don't take a heavy second-weekend plunge as a sign of anything at all. The third weekend will tell the tale as summer will unofficially be over (unless summer for you was all about The Final Destination or Halloween 2), so we'll see which leftovers the moviegoers end up discovering. But for now, Funny People was a difficult-to-market deviation from the norm that opened just a bit below what would have been the norm. What a shocking development!

For more on the similarities between Washington DC and Hollywood, the art of massaging expectations, just what happened at the box office this weekend last year, and more, visit Mendelson's Memos.

Scott Mendelson

Bad Buzz flashback: The Avengers (1998)

With a beloved British TV series as source material, and cast consisting of Sean Connery as a super villain, Ralph Fiennes as a gentleman secret agent, and Uma Thurman as a black catsuit-wearing femme fatale, The Avengers was initially seen as a sure-fire way to close out the summer of 1998 with a bang. Amidst all the relatively factless hub-bub raging about next weekend's release of GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra, one can be reminded of another 'last big film of summer' that weathered terrible buzz and creative control issues. Alas this time, way back in August 1998, it was a losing battle.

At the beginning of summer 1998, The Avengers was the film I was most looking forward to. The rumors piled up and the allegations of incompetence compounded, but I still refused to believe that such a perfectly cast film that looked so promising could end up faring so poorly (ah, to be young and stupid). Besides, I had actually read an early draft of the script, and I found it to be a dark, violent, and refreshingly complicated action-adventure film. Little did I know that the script that I had read was merely the skeleton. By the time the film came out, it was so lacking in blood and thunder that it needed an random 'f-word' tossed into a climactic fight scene just to avoid a PG rating.

Allegedly spurred by one terrible test screening, Warner Bros hacked out a good 30-45 minutes of the picture, turning a two-hour plus opus into an incomprehensible 84-minute jumble (quite a bit of the running time is spent explaining offscreen events). The film opened on August 14th without press screenings (which was a pretty rare thing for such a major film in those days) and proceeded to make a mere $10 million in its first weekend. The film made just $23 million on a $60 million budget and sits in a bare-bones DVD, a mere piece of random trivia. To this day, there remains no trace of the would-be director's cut and it's unlikely that the film will ever be revisited in any real fashion. Let's take a moment to remember that sometimes the buzz is 100% correct. And, for such a bad film, that film still has one hell of a trailer...

Scott Mendelson