Fool me once... Ironically, the Wrath of the Titans trailer looks spectacular in 3D.

As you may recall, the 2010 remake of Clash of the Titans became the whipping boy for lousy 3D-conversions after Warner Bros. hastily converted the 2D feature in order to cash in on the success of Avatar.  The film opened with over $60 million (mostly due to some terrific trailers) and eventually grossed nearly $500 million worldwide.  Alas, the picture was critically-slammed and took it extra-hard on the chin for some truly terrible 3D-conversion work, which was barely in evidence and served to only make the film so dark as to be occasionally unwatchable.  The Jonathan Liebesman-directed sequel, Wrath of the Titans, is being released March 30th.  Judging by the 3D version of the trailer, Warner Bros. doesn't plan on making the same mistake twice.

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.

Blu Ray Review: Justice League: Doom (2012) is paint-by-numbers, lacks depth.

Justice League: Doom

2012
77 minutes
rated PG-13
Available for OnDemand on February 21st, available to purchase on DVD or Blu Ray on February 28th.

by Scott Mendelson

I've complained before about the inexplicable need for the DC Animated Universe features to be so bloody short.  Only the anthology Green Lantern: Emerald Knights has run over 80 minutes and at least two (Batman: Year One and Superman/Batman: Public Enemies) were barely an hour.  For whatever reason, the thirteen features since late 2007 have all hovered around the 75 minute mark, and it's almost always been a point of contention.  But this time around, that truncated running time has become a fatal flaw, as this loose adaptation of a 2000 Justice League of America arc ends up sacrificing the entire dramatic crux of the story.  All that's left, while not boring, is a rather route pure action tale with one large-scale set piece after another.  And by holding off the story's key reveal until near the end of the picture, the film ends up being a giant set-up to a plot twist 90% of the viewers will already know about, and the other 10% will be spoiled by the synopsis on the back of the box.

Weekend Box Office (02/19/12): The Vow and Safe House fend off Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance and This Means War.

It was yet another 'photo-finish' at the box office over this President's Day weekend, but as always, it's the hard numbers rather than the arbitrary rankings that matter.  But since we need to decide which movies to discuss first, in order we shall go!  For the moment, it appears that Safe House will top the charts in its second weekend after barely missing the top slot last weekend.  It grossed $23.9 million over the Fri-Sun weekend and $28 million over the holiday.  Safe House will have grossed $82 million by Monday, a rather huge total for Mr. Washington.  In just eleven days, Safe House is Washington's 7th-biggest grosser, out-grossing such films as Training Day ($76 million), Man On Fire ($77 million), and Unstoppable ($81 million).  Barring a complete collapse, Safe House should become Denzel Washington's fifth $100 million grosser over the next weekend, with an outside shot of eclipsing the $130 million gross of American Gangster, which is currently his top grosser.  While we can debate how much credit co-star Ryan Reynolds gets for this one (he certainly didn't hurt...), Safe House is already his fourth-biggest grosser and will likely out-gross Green Lantern's $116 million total in a few weeks.  I'm frankly shocked at the strong legs for this one, as it's certainly one of Washington's worst genre entries in a long career with a number of solid adult-skewing action pictures (it looks like it was shot through a puke filter and edited in a blender, plus the script is so generic it could have been written in a Mad Libs book).  Still, star-power is a rare thing these days, and Denzel Washington clearly has it.  

News Commentary - By Grabthar's Hammer, Dean Parisot to helm Red 2!

One of the great mysteries over the last decade or so is deducing why Dean Parisot hasn't made a half-dozen more movies since 1999.  The guy's second film, Galaxy Quest, is not only one of the best comedies of the last twenty-years but remains the best Star Trek movie ever made, bar none (ironically, there were actually a few elements from said parody that were cribbed with a straight face in the 2009 J.J. Abrams reboot).  The film didn't become an out-and-out smash hit, partially due to a boycott of Dreamworks movies from Regal Cinemas at the time.  But his second film, the underrated and ahead-of-its-time Fun With Dick and Jane (yes, it's a remake, but its middle class family struggles with economic obsolescence was about three years two early) was the last live-action Jim Carrey film to crack $100 million in the US back in 2005.  And up until yesterday, Parisot has been relatively MIA.  Variety is reporting that Parisot has been hired to helm Red 2, the sequel to Summit Entertainment's surprisingly successful 'retired spies get back in the game' action comedy from late 2010.   

In a 'trash your last movie' era, why I'm glad that Pixar is defending Cars 2...

As a result of director Andrew Stanton and the various producers of John Carter are making the junket rounds this week, there has been opportunity to discuss what many pundits and critics feel was a rare Pixar whiff in Cars 2.  Producer Lindsey Collins, while speaking to Movieline's Jen Yamato, discussed both the film's critical reception and the fact that it was the first Pixar film not to receive an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature since the inception of that category in 2001.  Without simply laying out the quotes (hence the link), she correctly states that there were a number of really solid animated films this year, that she believes that Cars 2 suffered from a kind of anti-Pixar backlash, and that director John Lasseter still loves the film.  I don't know if the film suffered from an anti-Pixar backlash (although expectations were that the film would be mediocre prior to press screenings), and I am personally not a fan of Cars 2.  But I personally am darn-happy to see the Pixar gang defending it against the critical onslaught.

Remember when the GOP tried to convince us that Barack Obama was The Joker? A chilling new report shows that they may have been right...

Remember this picture?  It popped up in the summer of 2008 as a piece of political propaganda, usually with a caption along the lines of 'Socialism!' or 'Audacity!'.  Alas, it turns out that the juxposition may be more accurate than anyone would have guessed four years ago.  There is a lengthy and seemingly well-researched article over at the London-based Bureau Of Investigative Journalism that states that, along with the widespread use of unmanned drones as a weapon to unilaterally target would-be terrorist targets, the Pentagon, under Obama's orders, has apparently been targeting not just the primary targets but those who first arrived on the scene, be they first responders or mourners.  The paragraph in question -

"But research by the Bureau has found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children.  A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts."

So, why isn't The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo a hit yet? Oh right...

This was posted as a comment elsewhere, but it touches on something I wanted to talk about, so I'm sharing it here too...
So as of last week, David Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo crossed $100 million in the US and $100 million overseas, giving the film a current worldwide cume of $211 million.  Yet, what should be a terrific result for what is currently an endangered species, an R-rated, hyper-violent/sexual adult thriller, is in fact something of a disappointment.  Why is that?  Simple, it cost too much.  It shouldn't have cost $90 million, end of story. I don't care how good or bad it is, I don't care how polished it looks or how splashy the 007 title sequence is, it was a film with a limited theatrical audience and should have been budgeted as such. The lesson over the last few years is that adult genre fare, even R-rated fare, can thrive as long as they don't cost anymore than $45 million. Contraband cost $25 million. The Town cost $40 million. The Lincoln Lawyer cost $40 million. Limitless cost $27 million. The Grey cost $25 million. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, a 2.5hr R-rated thriller that basically advertised that it wasn't appropriate for general moviegoers and had a limited international audience due to the fact they'd have to read subtitles just like the original, cost $90 million. Despite all of its negatives, it still grossed $100 million domestic off a $12 million Fri-Sun opening, showing genuine legs in a front-loaded marketplace even as a hyper-competitive January caused unexpected screen-bleeding.. But, because it cost $90 million, it will struggle to break even.  Sometimes, expectations be-damned, it's just about the math.

Scott Mendelson

The Bourne Desperation gets a teaser trailer...

The most striking thing about this teaser (which premiered late last week) is that it's in fact a variation on an old joke my wife and I used to do back when The Bourne Ultimatum came out five years ago.  It's no secret that I kinda hate The Bourne Ultimatum, finding it to be a dumbed-down, streamlined, crowd-pleasing remake of The Bourne Supremacy.  But the goofiest part of the picture is the revelation that Jason Bourne wasn't just a patient in the Treadstone program, no, he was also involved in an even more secret and devious organization: Blackbriar (which, to be fair, was I believe referenced offhand at the finale of The Bourne Identity)!  So if the fourth film ever came to fruition, we'd inevitably see the reveal of yet another uber-secret government-sanctioned wet-ops program.  "If you were horrified by Treadstone... if you were mortified by Blackbriar... then you will shit your pants when you learn about Bald Eagle!!"  Bourne: "Oh my god... you turned us into half-human/half-robot killing machines!"  Reanimated Clive Owen: "Look... what... they (loading-loading)... make (Error!  Error!) you give!"  Sadly that absurdest bit seems perilously close to fruition with this new teaser for The Bourne Redundancy.  

Dear genre filmmakers - If you want your surprise reveals to be surprising, don't make the opening credits the ultimate spoiler.

SPOILER warning - this post contains third-act spoilers for a handful of recent and not-so recent thrillers, including Safe House, which just opened on Friday.

I'm not going to go into too many details about Safe House, but I will say that it's such a painfully conventional thriller that it could have been written in a Mad Libs book.  If I crack that it would have possibly been a riveting thriller in 1988, that's not entirely an insult.  In 1988, the film would have seemed a little less boiler-plate and its now-standard political cynicism wouldn't have been quite as formulaic.  Moreover, the picture likely would not have been shot with a puke-filter over the camera and wouldn't have been edited within an inch of its life, rendering its shoot-outs and fight scenes incomprehensible.  It's not especially more violent or action-packed than something like Andrew Davis's The Package (another genre entry that also somewhat deals with getting a dangerous prisoner from point A to point B), but the moments of action and violence were cleanly shot and coherently edited.  But its most frustrating element is something that has been a problem for decades.  Like so many thrillers over the last 20-30 years, a large chunk of the tension in Safe House depends on trying to uncover which of the alleged good guys may actually be a bad guy.  And like so many genre entries of late, the would-be mystery is anything but mysterious due to some inexplicably obvious casting.