Why Eddie Murphy should work with Tyler Perry...

Over the next week or so, I'll start posting my 'best/worst/etc. of 2012' lists. Among the films appearing on my 'underrated' list is Eddie Murphy's A Thousand Words. As longtime readers know, I often use my 'underrated' list to discuss films that, while objectively bad, didn't quite deserved the critical bruising they received and/or have nuggets of interest hidden inside the relative failure. But for now I'd like to merely acknowledge that Eddie Murphy is and arguably always has been a fine dramatic actor. Everyone was astounded by his nearly-Oscar winning turn in Bill Condon's Dreamgirls six years ago, and I'd argue that the key to said performance was his willingness to not go big during what could have been big dramatic moments (re - the scene where he drowns his artistic rejection by silently cutting a line of cocaine). Point being, it was less of a revelation than the mere fact that Murphy doesn't get to to do pure dramatic acting all that often (you could arguably count Life way back in 1999). As I wrote when A Thousand Words came out, Eddie Murphy has little desire to resurrect the Eddie Murphy of the early 1980s, and for arguably good reason (he's not exactly a kid anymore).  But if Mr. Murphy does want to change up his routine a bit, then the best avenue would be to try a few more pure dramas, or at least films which required dramatic performances.  

Star Trek Into Darkness gets a very generic 'sequel' trailer.

Oddly enough, I did not see this trailer with my Friday afternoon showing of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.  Now that I've seen this trailer, what do I think?  Well, it looks pretty solid.  Yes it still feels like we're following the 'dark sequel' template, almost as if it's in a Mad Libs book.  Yes we get not one ponderous 'character arc in a monologue' speech but two ponderous 'character arc in a monologue' speeches.  I could say that once again the film is being marketed as "The Dark Knight but Star Trek-style", but I think that's almost too easy of a label.  But the film both looks pretty epic in scope *and* seems to involve quite a bit of, trekking across various stars.  They do seem to be teasing both references to Wrath of Khan and a major character death. 3.5 years ago, I pegged Chekov (Anton Yelchin) as the likely 'killed off halfway through character, and the fact that Yelchin's star hasn't exactly risen since only adds credence to said theory (that we see him in a red shirt when Pike is monologuing about Kirk's arrogance getting his friends killed doesn't help).  Anyway, this looks somewhat like generic sequel 101, but it still looks awfully entertaining.  As always, we'll see, in this case when Star Trek Into Darkness drops on May 17, 2013.  What are your thoughts on the above trailer?  Do share below...

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (12/16/12): The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opens with an expected (and record) $84 million.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (review/teaser/trailer) basically opened like a Lord of the Rings film, give or take various variables.  Its $84.7 million estimated debut clobbered the December record, which is the $77 million earned by Avatar ($77 million, $80 million adjusted for inflation) and I Am Legend ($77.2 million, $89 million adjusted for inflation) in 2009 and 2007 respectively.  It soundly thumps the various other Lord of the Rings films, but this is where it gets tricky.  The prior Peter Jackson Middle Earth pictures opened on the weekend before Christmas week, which I've long argued is the best weekend of the year to open your picture.  So the fact that The Hobbit opened a week earlier makes this number a little more impressive, although the pre-Christmas weekend is more about legs than opening weekend.  On the other hand, the prior films all opened on a Wednesday, meaning that their would-be opening weekend was spread out of five days.  And of course, we have to take into account nine years of inflation and the whole 3D/IMAX price bump. So purely looking at inflation and comparing the Fri-Sun portion, this opening is about on par with The Two Towers ($62 million, but $84 million adjusted for inflation) and well ahead of Fellowship of the Ring's ($72 million, but adjusted-for-inflation $66 million) and King Kong ($50 million, and $62 million adjusted for inflation) for what that's worth. It's a bit behind the $72 million/$95 million opening of The Return of the King.  

Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) bores and blunders at 48 frames-per-second.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

2012
165 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

I don't know if seeing The Hobbit part 1 of 3  (teaser/trailer) in the much-discussed 48 frames-per-second diminished the viewing experience, but it certainly didn't help.  Since it's the way Peter Jackson intended the film to be seen, it very much counts when judging the overall motion picture.  It's neither the great savior of cinema that the likes of Peter Jackson or James Cameron would have you believe, but nor is it a bell weather of the 'death of cinema'.  It is *different*, that's for sure.  You get an unparalleled clarity of vision and a certain lifelike presentation, akin to looking at a window at 'real life'.  The various CGI creatures look arguably more lifelike and the 3D is pretty flawless (although the screen looked even more vibrant when I took off the glasses, making me wish there had been a 48 fps 2D option).  But for that clarity you lose a certain cinematic grandeur.  Yes, certain introductory scenes look like live theater and yes there is an inconsistency of speed, as any number of moments will make one wonder if they're watching the film on 1.5x speed on their Playstation 3.  Moreover, even during the action sequences, a few of which are indeed still impressive, resemble not so much epic struggles but rather like watching a staged recreation akin to Civil War reenactors.  Especially during battle scenes set in open fields, it feels more like the finale of Role Models than a tent-pole action sequence.  Ironically, it's a technology that may actually be better suited to character dramas that big-scale action.  Your eyes do indeed adjust to the whole 'speed play' issue pretty quickly, but you never do become 'used' to the effect during the entire 165 minute running time.

Midnight movie math: The Hobbit earns $13 million.

Initial reports show that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey earned $13 million from 3,100 screens at 12:01am last night, setting a record for December and surpassing the respective $8 million midnight gross earned by The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King way back in December 2003.  It opens wide on over 4,000 screens consisting of 2,000 different viewing options today.  Of course, said figure was nine years ago and without the 3D/IMAX ticket-price bump, but that's for another day.  What this looks like for the weekend is pretty simple.  The "prequel" is arguably heavily anticipated by hardcore-but less anticipated by the general moviegoer.  I was at the midnight showings for The Two Towers and Return of the King, but nine years later, I'm merely catching an after-work screening with a friend, as much to see the 48 fps as see the film that I'm not all that excited for.  Obviously some of that is me merely being an adult with a family and various adult responsibilities (four years ago, I ended up waiting until Saturday afternoon of its five-day opening weekend to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull), but part of that is merely the fact that this new film is squarely pitched to the hardcore fans.  That's not a bad thing, it just means that the midnight screening (and opening Friday) will be more front loaded than the prior Lord of the Rings pictures.  So we're looking at a midnight-to-weekend percentage of 14-20%, with a possibility that potential bad word of mouth (obviously speculative here) gives us a multiplier closer to the 22% of the latter Harry Potter/Twilight pictures.  Realistically, The Hobbit is looking at an opening weekend of between $65 million and $93 million, with an off-chance of massive front loading giving the film something akin to a $59 million opening weekend.  So let's be realistic and give it $80 million for now.  

Scott Mendelson

Press Release: A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD to go IMAX.

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX’S A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD

TO OPEN IN IMAX^® THEATRES WORLDWIDE FEBRUARY 2013

LOS ANGELES – Dec. 14, 2012 – IMAX Corporation (NYSE:IMAX; TSX:IMX) today announced that A Good Day to Die Hard, the fifth installment in Twentieth Century Fox’s enduring action-thriller series starring Bruce Willis, will be digitally re-mastered into the immersive IMAX^®  format. The film will be released in IMAX^® theatres internationally starting Feb. 7 and domestically beginning Feb. 14. This is the first IMAX installment of the Die Hard film franchise.

"The exhilarating action sequences that are the hallmark of the Die Hard franchise, as well as its global setting, make it a perfect fit for The IMAX Experience®,” said Greg Foster, Chairman and President of IMAX Filmed Entertainment. “We’re thrilled to partner again with the great team at Fox and for audiences worldwide to experience this franchise in IMAX for the first time.”

The IMAX release of A Good Day to Die Hard will be digitally re-mastered into the image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience^® with proprietary IMAX DMR^® (Digital Re-mastering) technology. The crystal-clear images, coupled with IMAX’s customized theatre geometry and powerful digital audio, create a unique environment that will make audiences feel as if they are in the movie.

About A Good Day to Die Hard

John McClane goes global. For the first time, the New York City cop, played by Bruce Willis, finds himself on an international stage – as a fish out of water in Moscow. The film introduces McClane’s estranged son Jack, an apple who hasn’t fallen far from the tree, and who may even be more of a hard-ass than his father. John and Jack must put aside their personal and professional differences, and work together to keep each other alive … and stop the Moscow underworld from controlling nuclear weapons.

About IMAX Corporation

IMAX, an innovator in entertainment technology, combines proprietary software, architecture and equipment to create experiences that take you beyond the edge of your seat to a world you’ve never imagined. Top filmmakers and studios are utilizing IMAX theatres to connect with audiences in extraordinary ways, and, as such, IMAX’s network is among the most important and successful theatrical distribution platforms for major event films around the globe.

IMAX is headquartered in New York, Toronto and Los Angeles, with offices in London, Tokyo, Shanghai and Beijing.  As of Sept. 30, 2012, there were 689 IMAX theatres (556 commercial multiplex, 20 commercial destination and 113 institutional) in 52 countries.

IMAX®, IMAX® 3D, IMAX DMR®, Experience It In IMAX®, An IMAX 3D Experience®, The IMAX Experience® and IMAX Is Believing® are trademarks of IMAX Corporation. More information about the Company can be found at www.imax.com. You may also connect with IMAX on Facebook (www.facebook.com/imax), Twitter (www.twitter.com/imax) and YouTube (www.youtube.com/imaxmovies).

Brandon Peters returns! Brandon Peters dissects the Dirty Harry franchise part II: Magnum Force (1973)

Magnum Force

1973

Director: Ted Post

Starring:  Clint Eastwood, Hal Holbrook, Mitchell Ryan, Tim Matheson, Robert Urich, Felton Perry, David Soul

Rated R

What does a woman have to do to go to bed with you?

Try knocking on the door.

Dirty Harry returned to the screens after 2 years in the follow up, Magnum Force.  The sequel deals with turning the tables on Harry making go against what he seemed to be championing himself in the first film.  Whereas Harry’s vigilantism and recklessness was arguable to solve a case and the life of a girl before her time ran out, Magnum Force’s villains are just straight up executing those that managed to weasel out of the courtroom on technicalities. While the first film did include action and violence, it was more suspense oriented.  This film ramps up the violence to another level.  The kills are ruthless and gory.  Some of the deaths in this film will even make you wince.  The film also features a lot of boobies, including those of pre Three’s Company Suzanne Somers.

2012 in film: The female-driven blockbuster is no longer a surprise, no longer written off as a 'fluke'.

2012 isn't just the year where we saw one female-starring and/or female-centric blockbuster after another.  2012 was the year when such a thing no longer merited any real surprise.  Back in 2008, we also had a solid run of female-centric smash hits.  Sex and the City, Mama Mia!, and finally the initial Twilight installment.  But we also had endless hand wringing about what these successes meant to the industry and/or how these various films (especially the first and last) were oh-so harmful for their target demographic.  What a difference four years can make.  This year we had The Hunger Games, Snow White and the Huntsman, Brave, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part II, and what looks to be a surefire smash in Les Miserables in a couple weeks.  And you could certainly make the case for the likes of the male-stripper dramedy Magic Mike, The Vow, and Prometheus (which of course starred Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron), as well as the rather successful Pitch Perfect which slowly grossed $65 million.  What's important isn't that these female-centric films all were pretty huge hits, with several achieving genuine blockbuster status.  What's important is that nobody really gave a damn.

Pacific Rim gets a suitably large-scale teaser...

Between this and Man of Steel (along with The Hangover part III), Warner Bros. is going to have a very nice summer. I don't know whether or not Guillermo Del Toro's Pacific Rim is going to be anything more than basically a straight version of Monsters Vs. Aliens, but I've remarked before that I wish the 2009 Dreamworks animated feature was willing to take its 50's sci-fi throwback more seriously.  The scale of this picture is obviously huge, although these days commenting on the scale is about as useful as saying "Wow, great special effects!" about pretty much any major film past 1994. *Big* is the new normal for stuff like this, and I hope that either the film is more than just Robots Vs. Monsters or at least that it's a really really exciting version of said template.  Del Toro doesn't generally do soulless blockbusters, so one can presume that the picture has some substance.  If the film really hits big, expect Idris Elba's (in his natural accent it appears) rallying cry: "Today we are cancelling the apocalypse!" to become a catchphrase of sorts.  Anyway, this looks pretty terrific so we'll know more when we know more.  Pacific Rim opens July 12, 2013.  Any thoughts?

Scott Mendelson      

Trailer: GI Joe: Retaliation teases subversive global fantasy of the world's worst fears concerning American military might.

It will be amusing and interesting to see how Paramount was able to rejigger the story in order to put previously DOA 'Duke' (Channing Tatum) back into the movie after he was un-killed following his banner 2012 theatrical year.  But more interesting than that, I'd argue, is the film's weirdly subversive plotline.  Wisely continuing from G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra's terrific cliffhanger, the Jon Chu-helmed sequel runs with the idea of the president of the United States being a literal world-wrecking super-villain.  We've had plenty of stories which toyed with the idea of an absolute monster attaining the highest office in the land, but they are usually defeated prior to election (or, in the case of the fifth season of 24, most of Gregory Yitzin's comparably tempered evildoing was committed prior to his exposure as the season's big bad).  Of course, with the president replaced by Arnold Vosloo's Zartan, the world must deal with an America that the world has arguably always feared.  Here we have a US president who basically uses America's stockpile to rain utter carnage on the world over.  I have to wonder if this plot thread is some kind of way to appeal to foreign markets, just as the film's conversion to 3D was more for overseas grosses than domestic ones (let's just say if you asked foreign audiences back in 2002 about The Two Towers, they probably said it was an Iraq-invasion parable very different from the one stateside audiences presumed).  Yes, the G.I. Joes are basically American, working to save their country from an internal threat.  But the idea of a US President gone mad with genocidal powers is something I don't think we've seen before, so for that reason alone G.I. Joe: Retaliation may end up being more than just a pointless sequel.  We'll know soon enough when it opens on March 29, 2013.   

Scott Mendelson