The good news/bad news regarding the decidedly un-feminist female characters in Oz: The Great and Powerful.

Full-on spoiler warning...

Unfortunately pretty much everything I feared about Oz: The Great and Powerful, right from the second trailer, turned out to be true, at least from a gender perspective.  It is indeed about three seemingly powerful women sitting around and waiting for a random man who fell out of the sky to not only attempt to save Oz but, more importantly, shape all three of their respective destinies.  The film also equates beauty with virtue in a rather explicit fashion, with somewhat laughable scenes of Rachel Weisz's Evanora complaining of jealousy over Michelle Williams 'pretty face' seemingly oblivious to the fact that said evil witch is played by *Rachel Weisz* (spoiler: Rachel Weisz is insanely hot). It's not just that Mila Kunis and Michelle Williams play seemingly strong female characters who constantly yap about needing some prophesied male wizard to swoop down and save their asses. The biggest problem in the film is that it allows its feeble and somewhat selfish male hero to basically define them and their actions.

Dumb parent worries: Will my kid get spooked by PG-13 trailers like After Earth in front of PG-rated movies like Oz?

I made an offhand joke a couple days ago about all of the big summer release trailers being dropped online and presumably into theater this week.  I'm taking my daughter to see Oz: The Great and Powerful tonight and I'm curious to see which trailers are attached to PG-rated Disney family adventure.  Obviously The Hangover part III is probably not going to make an appearance.  But what about the more mainstream PG-13 entertainments like Iron Man 3 or After Earth?  So will the first 15-20 minutes or so of my daughter's moviegoing experience consist of a series of trailers for big summer releases that she can't see?  Will I have to explain that "No, sweetie, *this* Iron Man movie is for adults."  I've had to do that before, like when when she spotted the DVD of Snow White and the Huntsman at Best Buy, and I always feel like an idiot when doing so.  The other thought that comes to mind is a 12 year old news story, one which I gave little thought to at the time.  

Oz: The Great and Powerful earns $2 million at 10pm/midnight.

Let's do the quick midnight math, shall we?  Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful earned an impressive $2 million at 10pm/midnight last night.  Now this isn't a geek-friendly comic book sequel or young-adult literary property in the vein of The Hunger Games, so midnight frontloading should be pretty limited.  That's a bit less than the $3.5 million earned by Alice In Wonderland and larger than the $1.6 million earned by Snow White and the Huntsman.  If we were talking about Thor 2: The Dark World, a $2 million 10pm/midnight number would mean around $40 million for the weekend, with an expected 5% of the weekend represented in advance showings, with potential for even harsher front-loading   But for a 'normal' movie, we're usually looking at between 2% and 4% representing the midnight number.  And let's be honest, this thing is going to explode on Saturday if only due to the lack of family films in the marketplace.  So offhand I'd wager a 3% 10pm/midnight take for a $66 million Fri-Sun debut, as Alice in Wonderland also did 3% of its $116 million weekend at midnight (as did Snow White and the Huntsman in a $56 million debut).  But the lack of family fare could mean an even bigger growth during weekend matinees and the film arguably has less 'must see now' factor due to the fact that Burton is a more mainstream name than Raimi.  So let's just call it 2.5% at 10pm/midnight for a $80 million weekend take.  But don't be too surprised to see it flirting with $100 million by Sunday.

Scott Mendelson  

M. Night Shayamalan's After Earth gets a second promising trailer.

Cautious optimism is the phrase here.  This looks good.  This looks like a solid and visually creative piece of big-budget science-fiction.  Will Smith generally doesn't make awful movies.  Jaden Smith held his own three years ago against an Oscar-worthy Jackie Chan in The Karate Kid.  And M. Night Shyamalan?  Well, one can only hope that this seemingly work-for-hire project allow him to find his groove again, especially with Will Smith in the producer's chair able and willing to tell him "no".  I know I say this a lot, but I still believe in M. Night Shyamalan.  The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are two of the best films of the last fifteen years.  Signs is top-notch popcorn entertainment and even The Village and Lady in the Water have things worth noting (potent political subtexts and a powerful musical score in the former, a haunting Paul Giamatti performance in the other).  But come what may, even if After Earth turns out to be another miss, even if Shayamalan never makes another good movie again, so be it.  M. Night Shayamalan made The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable.  Nobody can take that away from him.  Anyway, After Earth opens on June 7th, in IMAX no less.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Dead Man Down (2013) shoots itself in the foot with a moronic and wrongheaded finale.

Dead Man Down
2013
110 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Up until the very end of the picture, Dead Man Down is a mostly serviceable crime drama.  It has fine work from Colin Farrell and Noomi Rapace along with worthwhile supporting turns by Terrance Howard and the always appreciated Domonic Cooper.  It doesn't set out to turn heads or reinvent the wheel, but it tells its grim story of revenge and tortured romance with just enough aplomb to merit a casual viewing.  But oh that ending... I have no idea what screenwriter J.H. Wyman or director Niels Arden Opley were thinking and I can theoretically give them the benefit of the doubt that they just couldn't decide on a thoughtful finale.  I'd like to think they just gave up and went on 'bad screenwriting autopilot'.  It's frightening to think that these two professionals thought that the last reel constituted a worthwhile conclusion to their otherwise worthwhile yarn.  It's tough to review a movie where your biggest gripe involves the very end without actually revealing what happens at the end, so maybe we'll get to that later.

The Hangover III gets a promising, if potentially misleading trailer.

It's tempting to be somewhat intrigued by the darker tone of this initial teaser for The Hangover part III.  But let us recall that the first act or so of The Hangover part II teased a proverbial Heart of Darkness journey only to cop out during its second half into a tiresome retread of the first film.  Still, if this is really the series finale, then Todd Phillips arguably has complete creative freedom to make whatever movie he wants, including the kind of movie that I'd argue he wanted to make last time around.  Still, this does look a little better than the last film and John Gooddman's inclusion is promising (I'd argue Paul Giamatti was the best thing about the last time around).  Three final thoughts.  First of all, the final gag is a genuine winner.  Seocnd of all, what exactly is the logic of Warner Bros. not waiting a week and attaching this to their The Incredible Burt Wonderstone?  Did they rush it out so they could attach it to prints of Oz: The Great and Poweful? Finally, I can only hope (foolishly I know) that Warner Bros. chooses not to cut any more trailers for this picture, as I can't imagine anyone not knowing whether or not they want to see the movie at this point regardless.  Let's hope they keep whatever surprises the film has in store out of the marketing for as long as they can.  The Hangover part III opens Memorial Day weekend.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

PS - I love the poster they dropped yesterday.  I hope whomever drew that Enemy Mine poster back in 1985 gets royalties.

Skyfall director Sam Mendes will not be helming the next 007 adventure. Why Martin Campbell should return to the fold...

Okay, so Sam Mendes is officially out.  There was rumbling over the last few weeks that Sam Mendes would actual But as of today, Mendes politely bowed out of the running.  He will not return to helm the next James Bond picture following his phenomenally successful Skyfall.  I'm sure I will be but one of a million people offering their thoughts on who should helm the next 007 picture. It's tempting to once again half-jokingly offer up Terrance Malick, Warner Herzog, Sophia Coppola, and Michael Haneke as go-to picks.  But the choice is obvious.  The name is Campbell, Martin Campbell.  He directed two of the very best 007 pictures of the post-Connery era, if not outright ever (it's no secret where I stand on this... Goldfinger can suck it).  He revitalized the franchise twice with two different Bond actors in the last 18 years.  The stain of Green Lantern leaves him in a position of 'needing a hit', and there is no reason to presume he won't knock it out of the park for a third time.  But more importantly, doing the follow-up to Skyfall gives Campbell a new set of tools to play with in the 007 sandbox.  This time he'll just get to play with few restraints, without the burden of franchise rebirth.

Pity... Universal cancels Oblivion's early IMAX release.

Having rather loathed Tron: Legacy, I've had to work myself up in order to get excited about Joseph Kosinski's Oblivion.  Yes, Tom Cruise usually makes sure that his big-scale pictures are a cut above and yes the film looks better with each trailer, but the biggest cause for hope was its release schedule.  The film's national release was set for April 19th, but the film was also going a full week early in IMAX only, giving paying audiences a week-long sneak preview in IMAX and other larger-screen formats.  But alas, that promising move by Universal has been cancelled.  Chalk it up to Cruise wanting to do international press for the film's overseas debut on the 12th and the film's US debut on the 19th, chalk it up to Universal wanting an extra week of play for their 3D reissue of Jurassic Park on April 12th, but audiences will not be seeing Oblivion: The IMAX Experience one week early after all.  Color me genuinely disappointed.

Bigger isn't always better. Why Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters may represent the future of big-scale studio movies.

I wrote a few weeks ago about how something released this year or perhaps last year might be a signal for the future of the would-be blockbuster, a film whose respective success would spawn a decade or so of like-minded would-be tentpoles. What if I were to tell you that a possible template for future would-be blockbusters had already arrived this very year?  What if I were to tell you that the future of big-scale filmmaking may be none-other than Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters?  Laugh if you wish, but let's take a look at what the film represents.

Iron Man 3 gets a final and frankly terrific trailer...

I'll add commentary later today.  But for the moment, this looks like a pretty terrific action thriller that just happens to be a superhero threequel.  It's good to see that the bad guy isn't just targeting Stark this time around, and this may in fact dive head-first into the politics that the second film only skirted around.  Could this finally break the curse of the comic book part 3?  Share your thoughts below...

Scott Mendelson