Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Crappy Super Bowl Episode. When good shows pander for Super Bowl viewers.

My mother used to say that every time she would recommend a television show to friends or family members, the next episode to air would inevitably be terrible.  It would seem that said curse has passed down to her son in a manner of speaking.  It's no secret that I've become a genuine fan of CBS's Elementary, finding to be not only much better than expected but arguably about as good as BBC's Sherlock in its own specific way.  No, Johnny Lee Miller doesn't have the raw magnetism of Benedict Cumberbatch, but nor is his version of Sherlock Holmes supposed to be a tall and striking creature of pure sexual charisma.  They are two very different shows, and they both mostly succeed on their own respective goals and intentions.  Elementary is akin to USA's Monk, albeit without the painfully cornball humor and (so far) without a main character who has no idea how civilization functions at any given moment.  So last night CBS gifted the show with a prime post-Super Bowl episode, surely a perfect way to hook the masses on this surprisingly good show, right?  Well... no.  Last night's episode was easily the worst episode of Elementary yet aired by a healthy margin.  Of course that shouldn't be surprising, since it was the latest show to fall victim to the Curse of the Super Bowl.

Oz: The Great and Powerful gets an FX-packed Super Bowl tease.

I'm still not uber-impressed, but I imagine I'll like the marketing more where James Franco talks less.  It's no secret that the current season is absolutely starved for kids-faire.  My daughter literally asked me today when there would be more kids movies for her to see. Whether or not I end up dragging her to this (my wife wants to see it too apparently), I imagine it will benefit mightily from the lack of such family-friendly fare in the first two months of the year, akin to The Lorax opening to $70 million last year for the same reason.  Come what may, it reminded me that I probably ought to show her the original Wizard of Oz, as I imagine she'd enjoy that one. It's also a fine education in the whole 'color vs. black-and-white' issue since she didn't end up seeing Frankenweenie.  This certainly looks visually impressive, with a sparse and less cluttered look compared to Burton's Alice In Wonderland.  The laughing at the end pretty much rules out Michelle Williams as the 'wicked witch', so now it's just a question of whether or not Rachel Weisz (who the laughing voice sounds most like) is the real villain or merely the red herring to hide Mila Kunis's true villainy.  Anyway, this is probably the last major tease we'll see until release, give or take the usual clips released online.

Scott Mendelson        

The Lone Ranger gets a 90-second Super Bowl tease.

I'm not sure 'good enough' is quite what Disney wants to hear in regards to their very pricey summer tentpole, but that pretty much sums it up.  This Gore Verbinski film looks like solid fun, with a nice blend of humor and myth-making.  It's a bit odd to hear what I presumed is the villain (Tom Wilkinson) telling the 'comforting' story of the Lone Ranger, but I can't fault an ad for my own confusion.  The action looks grand and seems to have quite a bit of personality, and I'm partial to an action film that feels like a genuine 'jumping and swinging' adventure.  Will this set the world on fire?  I have no idea, but Disney can always just demand a Pirates of the Caribbean 5 at a reduced rate if this flops.  For those who like the western, this seems like the real deal, a genuine bit of western action-adventure on a modern tentpole scale.  And yes, on that note, it looks a lot better than Wild Wild West.

Scott Mendelson   

Star Trek Into Darkness gets a Super Bowl tease and (more intriguingly) a two-day early IMAX release.

Okay, so having Kirk ask who Benedict Cumberbatch is and having the villain merely answer "I'm better... at everything" is just being obnoxious, although I appreciate the subtle dig at those dying for confirmation about who he's playing in this sequel.  The rest of the tease is pretty much standard 'dark sequel' boilerplate, and I can't wait for someone to eventually cut together a super-cut of scary villain interrogation scenes with Joker, Loki, Silva, and whoever the hell Cumberbatch is playing, in turn followed by a supercut of their magnificent and meticulously planned escapes  ("He's been planning this for years!"  "He planned to get caught!" "He wanted to hit us where it hurts!").  What's interesting is the news that the film will debut on IMAX 3D two days ahead of its planned May 17th national release.  I wrote way back when that the successful five-day sneak release of Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol would start this kind of thing, and it appears that I was right.  Tom Cruise's Oblivion is getting a full week of exclusive IMAX play and Skyfall of course opened a day early in IMAX.  Now Skyfall made a whole $2.5 million on that Thursday, so we're talking more about word of mouth than actually amassing major IMAX bucks.  Still, the early sneak release means that Paramount is playing long ball, arguably sacrificing a shot at the Fri-Sun record books (however unlikely) for a chance to get the word out before the weekend even begins.  It's a promising strategy and one that also implies that Paramount has confidence in the product and/or will be having long-lead press screenings for critics more important than myself.  I'll still get the All-Media at worst, but I sincerely hope that Paramount actually screens this for press *in* IMAX, unlike nearly every major theatrical release from 2012 save The Amazing Spider-Man and The Dark Knight Rises.

Scott Mendelson

Iron Man 3 gets a creative and compelling Super Bowl tease.

This is the first piece of marketing we've seen since the teaser back in October, and it's actually a nice deviation.  The extended version (which only includes about 20 seconds of additional footage) is mostly stuff we've seen from the theatrical teaser while the remaining thirty seconds sets up without ruining a major action set piece.  I actually watched both Iron Man films over the last couple weeks and I have to say they have both aged very well, even the second one which is still flawed mostly in its messy third act and its weirdly kid-friendly tone when it comes to its poorly-developed villainy.  There's not much more to say, other than the set piece in question looks terrific and kinda scary (for no particular reason, the idea of being sucked out of an airplane, especially while still strapped to a seat, has always been kinda disturbing to me).  From what we've seen, it looks like Happy is the film's big death, but other than that I hope that Marvel and Disney show a little restraint especially as they actually have action sequences to market, as opposed to the last film which had just two major set pieces from which to cull footage.  I'm sure we'll get another trailer, probably attached to Oz: The Great and Powerful on March 8th.  But for now I'm glad about how little I know about the actual story, even having read the comic arc that it's loosely based on.

Scott Mendelson    

Fast & Furious 6 teaser wins the Super Bowl. I dare Universal to not cut any more marketing materials until after it opens.

Well, that was worth the wait, but then Universal, like Paramount's Transformers series, has always done well by way of Super Bowl teasers with this long-running franchise.  A few notes.  A) Are the random shots of scantily-clad gyrating women really necessary?  B) I still think Universal is nuts not to open this one in April where it will absolutely dominate the pre-summer season.  Oh sure, it may well win the Memorial Day weekend race, but everybody loses a little by the demo head-to-head match ups.  The Hangover III and Fast & Furious 6 are literally targeting the same demographic and both films will open a bit less than they otherwise would have without direct competition.  Coming off the obscenely good and quite popular Fast Five, an unopposed Fast & Furious 6 would be looking at a $100 million+ Fri-Sun debut.  Heck, The Hangover part III may well have a shot at that too under different circumstances, even if the second film wasn't quite as beloved as the first one.  But going head-to-head?  Now both will be lucky to get past $75 million apiece.  For what?  A dick-measuring contest?  Anyway, last point, this is such a grand and effective teaser that I challenge Universal to stop.

Weekend Box Office (02/03/13): Warm Bodies tops while Bullet to the Head tanks.

Ah, Super Bowl weekend!  Warm Bodies (review) can go from a $9 million Saturday to a $2.9 million Sunday and it's okay!  According to the studio, it earned $8.1 million on Friday, $9 million on Saturday, yet is expected to make just $2.9 million today.  Yes, I know today is the Super Bowl, but I'm always shocked by these mega drops each and every year.  The film, which has an estimated $20 million debut, played 60% female (because girls like horror films too!) and 65% under 25, which means it is doing best outside of the stereotypical older male football fan who is already getting ready for the big game so it may end up with a slightly higher weekend total in the end.  It earned a B+ from Cinemascore, with an A- from those under 25 and an A from those under 18.  Regardless, this is a solid debut for a film that easily could have played to the geek crowd exclusively. This is the kind of film that could have easily opened with $8 million over the weekend, as opposed to $8 million on its first day.

Fast & Furious 6 gets poster and most boring title possible.

They just couldn't wait one more day could they?  Universal is of course debuting the first teaser for the sixth Fast and the Furious film tomorrow during the Super Bowl, and the prime reason for curiosity was discovering what the title was going to be.  Well, wonder no longer, cause Universal had to release the above teaser poster and spoil all the fun.  And really, Universal, Fast & Furious 6?  That was the best you could come up with?  They could have gone with any number of more creative titles for this sixth installment.  And while my personal pick, Faster & Furiousier, is probably never going to happen (followed of course by Fastest and Furiousest), the producers certainly had license to have a bit more fun than they've obviously chosen to do.  Also, boring title aside, we have a synopsis, which takes the story in the most logical next direction (the gang teams up with Dwayne Johnson in exchange for pardons), but it's also a little odd when you consider the last film.  

If you recall, the whole point behind the big $100 million drug money heist was to earn the financial security needed to not live on the lam anymore.  Yet now we learn that they are basically suffering from the same 'this is no way to raise a family' issues they had last time.  Minor issues to be sure, likely more to do with the generic plot synopsis than any real script problems, but I do hope that part 6 is indeed a continuation rather than a rehash.  What made Fast Five more than just hollow action stunts is the attention to continuity from the previous installments that gave the film an emotional kick that it otherwise would not have had.  Anyway, Fast & Furious 6 opens May 24th, against The Hangover part III.  One of those should damn well move since they are both targeting the same demographic, but that's not my problem.  I'll post the Super Bowl teaser sometime tomorrow evening.  So what would be your pick for a better, more creative title for this sixth entry?  Oh, and the official synopsis is below (spoiler warning if you didn't stay for the end credits of Fast Five).

Scott Mendelson

Since Dom (Diesel) and Brian’s (Walker) Rio heist toppled a kingpin’s empire and left their crew with $100 million, our heroes have scattered across the globe. But their inability to return home and living forever on the lam have left their lives incomplete.

Meanwhile, Hobbs (Johnson) has been tracking an organization of lethally skilled mercenary drivers across 12 countries, whose mastermind (Evans) is aided by a ruthless second-in-command revealed to be the love Dom thought was dead, Letty (Rodriguez). The only way to stop the criminal outfit is to outmatch them at street level, so Hobbs asks Dom to assemble his elite team in London. Payment? Full pardons for all of them so they can return home and make their families whole again.

Review: Warm Bodies (2013) is a poignant and allegorical genre hybrid that adds rich layers to the zombie template.

Warm Bodies

2013
97 minutes
Rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

There is very little that happens plot-wise in Jonathan Levine's Warm Bodies (trailer) that you haven't seen somewhere else. But beneath the somewhat generic narrative is both a rather sad subtext and a worthwhile parable that elevates the film beyond its somewhat simplistic humor. Most importantly, the film genuinely adds a new idea to the zombie cannon, something that seems so simple that I'm surprised that someone didn't do it much earlier.  In short, the film is told from the point of view of a zombie.  Set in a world where something somewhere caused the vast majority of the world to turn into zombies, the film tells a seemingly simple story of how one such brain-eating creature falls in love with a random human he happens to encounter.  The romance is arguably the film's weakest element, as it's basically a variation on Beauty and the Beast's Stockholm syndrome, but the story goes in some thoughtful directions nonetheless.  Based on a novel by Isaac Marion, Warm Bodies takes bits and pieces from Beauty and the Beast, Wall-E, and How to Train Your Dragon to shape a film that becomes a parable for our current 'war on terror' foreign policy.  But its most important idea is detailing the sheer hell of actually being a zombie.

Daniel Craig doesn't deserve a raise for The Girl Who Played With Fire because Daniel Craig is not a box office draw...

This one is pretty simple.  Daniel Craig allegedly (Hollywood Reporter) wants a raise for his appearance in Sony's planned The Girl Who Played With Fire.  Sony is refusing and may even be trying to wrangle a pay cut.  Sony is allegedly digging its heels out of the desire to cut costs, as the first film grossed $232 million worldwide yet still barely broken even due to its frankly absurd $90 million budget.  Had the film cost a more reasonable $60-$70 million, it would have been quite profitable for Sony.  But it didn't so it wasn't.  If we must see the two other chapters in the original series, then they damn-well shouldn't cost nearly $100 million apiece. You could argue that Rooney Mara is an essential component of any sequel and should be hired even at a token higher cost this time around.  But everyone else involved is expendable.  Daniel Craig, whose character was as bland a male lead as you can ask for, is not a box office draw, period. If Sony sees fit to write out his journalist protagonist, I imagine it won't affect the film's financial fortunes one iota.  Daniel Craig is one of countless actors who do just fine in a marquee role or a popular franchise but flounder elsewhere.  If Daniel Craig wants a raise from Sony, he is welcome to ask for one for the next James Bond film.   But outside of the 007 series, Daniel Craig isn't a box office draw, period.