In praise/defense of The Haunting In Connecticut.

I have nothing but envy for those critics who got more out of Mama than I did.  But I do take issue with a certain thread that pops up in many of the more positive reviews, the idea that is somehow the first mainstream horror movie in forever to actually have three-dimensional human beings at its core.  To be frank, I think the prestige associated with producer Guillermo Del Toro and star Jessica Chastain has caused certain critics not so much to overpraise the film but to assign it undue credit in terms of presenting a humanistic horror film.  Just as each new 007 film sees cries of 'most feminist Bond girl ever!', I think at least some of the praise being heaped on Mama is perhaps selective amnesia in terms of the oft-derided horror genre.  For a prime example of a horror film that exists as a character drama first and a horror film second, one need only look at a film that's receiving a somewhat under-the-radar sequel this Friday, possibly tonight in certain theaters.  I'm talking of course about The Haunting In Connecticut.

Five Sylvester Stallone films better than Bullet to the Head...

Rather than obsess over how weak and amateurish Stallone's newest action film happens to be, I thought I'd take some time to pick out some better examples of Sly's surprisingly interesting filmography.  These five films aren't so much the best or even the most underrated, but merely five films that merit discussion and are worth digging into just a little bit more than usual.  Agree?  Disagree?  You probably do, because I could have easily done such a piece on ten Stallone films worth briefly dissecting, but I imagine I can only punish my readers for so long at one time.  You'll get your chance below, but for now enjoy these mini-essays of well, uh, let's just call them five Sylvester Stallone movies that are much better than Bullet to the Head.

Review: Bullet to the Head (2013) is awful, but amusingly so.

Bullet to the Head

2013
90 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

I cannot in good conscience recommend Walter Hill's Bullet to the Head (trailer).  It is an amateurish production that looks and feels like a direct-to-DVD film in all of the worst ways.  It is badly acted, terribly written, and lazily plotted.  It is easily one of the worst films Sylvester Stallone has ever made, and it's a huge step down after Rocky Balboa, Rambo, and the silly-but-large scale Expendables films.  Moreover, it lacks any of the subtext or resonance that has occasionally highlighted Stallone's best work and brightened some of his lesser films over the decades (essay HERE).  Yet it is also the kind of movie that can be a genuine good time in the right frame of mind and with the right audience.  If you have a friend or two who is in the right mood and you waltz into a cheap weekend matinee, you'll probably amuse yourself accordingly.  But for anyone actually expecting quality cinema or even something on par with a mid-range Jason Statham vehicle, just know that this makes The Mechanic look like Safe.

When the words don't match the face: Beautiful Creatures banner poster brings to light a poster art pet peeve.

This is a perfectly satisfactory billboard poster for the upcoming Beautiful Creatures.  It has its title, its release date, a tagline, and a roll-call of the elder vets and younger newbies (plus young vet Emmy Rossum) that will play in the southern gothic supernatural sandbox.  Everybody looks snazzy and it's a solid sell.  There's just one annoying problem.  They are exactly 1 for 7 when it comes for accuracy of labeling.  I've known Jeremy Irons as an actor for thirty years and I know he doesn't look like some kid aiming to be the next Robert Pattinson.  And I've had a thing for Emmy Rossum since her Mystic River/Day After Tomorrow/Phantom of the Opera break-out led to a near-decade of relative obscurity before bouncing back on Showtime's Shameless.  She does not look like a younger variation on Michael Angarano.  And while I don't know offhand who Thomas Mann is, I know he probably doesn't look like a dead-ringer for Viola Davis, who in turn is not the young Caucasian girl at the center of the poster.  By random chance, Emma Thompson is actually correctly labeled.  But the rest are all very wrong.  Yes I get the poster design, which puts the young girl at the center and then slowly branches out with the various forces of good or evil that will try to influence her destiny (IE - evil Emmy Rossum versus good Emma Thompson or something like that).  But any number of posters that screw this up in any given year don't even have that excuse.

Scott Mendelson gets pull-quoted again...!

Thanks to the many readers who caught it and especially to Ryan Bisasky who scanned and sent me a copy of the box art in question.  I don't generally write in a fashion that would lend itself to pull-quoting nor do I make as much of an effort as I should to review little-seen movies that might be desperate for a quote, so this doesn't happen all that often.  I occasionally get inquiries about possible quotes but I don't make the final cut that often (movies I was almost quoted on: The Muppets, Puss In Boots, and eventually Zero Dark Thirty).  Anyway, feel free to rejoice or mock accordingly.  Maybe if I took my wife's advice and wrote accordingly ("Thor brings the thunder!" or "Jack Reacher reaches for greatness!") this would happen more often.

Scott Mendelson

Oz: The Great and Powerful gets four new character posters. Why I might owe Disney a slight apology.

This banner dropped awhile ago, but I never got around to posting it so I'm using it at the top for convenience.  After the jump you'll get the four character posters that dropped on Friday but officially dropped from Disney on Monday.  In my essay last week about The Little Mermaid 3D, I included this film as a Disney property that was technically targeting boys but had female appeal.  I still stand by that statement, as the film is clearly James Franco's journey.  But it must be stated that the film also has three major female characters, all played by actresses of note and at least one of them playing something other than the love interest (I'm presuming some misdirection with Mila Kunis being revealed as the main 'wicked witch').  It doesn't mean I don't think the film looks a little iffy or that Franco seems to be attempting to give a bad performance, but it does mean that we'll get a major would-be tent pole where the major female characters outnumber the major male ones.  That frankly doesn't happen all that often so it deserves notice when it does.  Also of note is Michelle Williams's role in this, as it represents the acclaimed actresses's first tentpole appearance and her first major role in an overtly commercial picture since oh, Halloween: H20 in 1998 (you could say the superb Dick in 1999, but that flopped anyway).  Yes I know she cameoed in Shutter Island and did a voice in Where the Wild Things Are, but you know what I mean! Anyway, the character posters are after the jump.  And no, I will not be posting the 12-second teaser for this Sunday's Super Bowl commercial.

Scott Mendelson

The Lone Ranger gets a new poster...

No, I'm not posting a 21-second preview of a 90-second Super Bowl trailer.  But I will post this rather nice new poster, which seems to the be the official theatrical one-sheet.  So yeah, along with Iron Man 3 and Oz: The Great and Powerful, Disney seems to be going full-steam ahead with this Sunday's game.  I know G.I. Joe: Retribution has a preview debuting during the game as well, along with Oblivion, World War Z, and allegedly Star Trek Into Darkness.  But the big teaser debut will be for Universal's sixth Fast and the Furious film.  This clip will be notable both because it's the first footage anyone has seen of the film and because we might finally find out what the title of the fifth sequel is going to be.

Scott Mendelson

Blu Ray Review: The Dark Knight Returns part 2 (2013)

The Dark Knight Returns part 2

2013
76 minutes
rated PG-13
Available January 29th from WHV on all the usual home-viewing outlets.

by Scott Mendelson

Note: My review of The Dark Knight Returns part 1 can be found HERE.

One of the dangers of being too literal of an adaptation is that you start to realize, when seen in a different format, what doesn't quite hold up.  Such is the case with the second part of The Dark Knight Returns, which dramatizes the third and fourth books in the 1986 graphic novel.  At least in animated form, it is clear that Mr. Miller bit off just a bit more than he could chew, with a final chapter that expands the playing field far beyond Gotham's borders.  It doesn't quite work, taking us out of the intended story and using it as a way for Miller to discuss a broader commentary on 1980s American foreign policy (the original story was of course written in the mid-80's).  Nonetheless, those wanting a faithful adaptation of the iconic comic book will get their money's worth.  As a filmed adaptation, it is stymied only by a curious bit of miscasting and material that just-plain doesn't work as well on the screen as it did on the page.

Weekend Box Office (01-27-13): Hansel and Gretel slightly overperforms while Parker and Movie 43 underwhelm.

This weekend's lesson is "all the marketing prowess in the world doesn't matter if you don't have the movie". Paramount has been batting 1.000 in terms of launching major fantasy-skewed franchise pictures.  From at least summer 2007 with Transformers, they have been the most consistent performers in terms of grabbing those blockbuster debuts, launching not-quite sure things like Iron Man, Star Trek, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, and Thor to blockbuster numbers while also turning a glorified home movie (Paranormal Activity) into a massive horror franchise in their spare time.  They were a little off their game in 2012, with several high profile delays into 2013 (Star Trek Into Darkness, GI Joe: Retaliation) and with the few films Paramount did release in 2012 somewhat under-performing (Jack Reacher, Katy Perry: Part of Me, The Dictator, Rise of the Guardians).  But I would argue the fact that Paramount got what looked to be an utter shit-storm like Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters to nearly $20 million, or $19 million in this case, is a sign of their sheer marketing will.  They hit all the sweet spots (in theater infomercials, an unexpected R-rating, IMAX engagements, an exclusive sneak peak at a future Paramount movie, saturated coverage in various demographics, etc.) but the movie is the movie.

J.J. Abrams is directing Star Wars Episode VII. A look at how the surprising politics of Star Trek may bleed into Star Wars.

So, it's officially official.  Disney just put out a press release, which means I can write about it without fear of it being debunked moments after publication.  J.J. Abrams is indeed directing Star Wars: Episode VII.  And what do I have to say about that?  Well... not much really.  There is indeed a part of me that feels that it is wholly inappropriate and/or unnatural that the same director will be behind new Star Trek *and* new Star Wars movies.  Back in the old days, I believed in the perhaps simplistic idea that every franchise would get their own special director.  Sam Raimi had Spider-Man, Bryan Singer had X-Men, and Chris Nolan had Batman.  Obviously that idea no longer exists. Bryan Singer can helm X-Men and then go on to attempt to reboot Superman with Superman Returns before taking back the X-Men franchise from Matthew Vaughn, who is now rumored to be among Warner's top choices for a Justice League movie.  Even with more and more franchises being rebooted and/or changing hands, it seems like an awfully incestuous little circle, with only a handful of directors seemingly ending up helming these major properties.  Say what you will about Marvel, but they deserve kudos for thinking outside the box on pretty much every major film thus far when it comes to a director.