Release Date Musical Chairs - Dreamworks moves Puss In Boots to October 28th.

Well this comes out of left field, or perhaps not.  As you can see above, Dreamworks Animation has shifted the release date for their Shrek spin-off from the plum 'start of the holiday season' date of November 4th (where cartoons such as The Incredibles, Monsters Inc, Megamind, and Madagascar 2 all successfully debuted) to the crowded Halloween weekend.  What is odd about this is that November 4th was a pretty open weekend, with only Brett Ratner's Tower Heist and A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas representing competition.  But October 28th already has four wide releases - In Time, Anonymous, Johnny English Reborn, and The Rum Diary.  Puss in Boots would have likely won the weekend no matter which of these two weekends it chose to debut on, so the question is, 'why the date change?'.

Chris Nolan to use his extensive capital at Warner Bros to... helm another Twilight Zone Movie? And is Warner missing out by having Nolan go it alone?

First off, the various articles all chiming with SHOCK that Chris Nolan is at the top of Warner Bros' list to helm a new Twilight Zone Movies is pretty funny.  OF COURSE Chris Nolan is on the top of Warner's list for this project.  I'm pretty sure he's on the top of the list for every single project at Warner Bros, including a Sex and the City prequel and whatever variation on Valentine's Day and New Year's Eve they trot out next year (Halloween?  Oh wait...).  Saying that Chris Nolan is the preferred choice to direct anything at Warner Bros. is like saying that the connoisseurs at Ruth Chris would prefer to have a fillet as opposed to chicken or ribs.  He's the studio's most valuable resource, and he has delivered the critical and commercial goods on a shockingly consistent level.  So it stands to reason that he's at the top of the list for any project that Warner deems a high priority.

Thanks to the glory of time travel, enjoy this Real Steel trailer from 1987!

It's a frankly amusing coincidence that there are two remakes (official or not) of 1980s films coming out over the next two weeks; both films remade from originals that featured theme songs by Kenny Loggins.

Scott Mendelson

Because the twist was beside the point... What those who've ripped off The Sixth Sense over the last twelve years have gotten wrong about its finale.

With Dream House opening today, sans press screenings, audiences will get a chance to discover, if they choose, just how much of the film has been spoiled by the trailer.  Early reviews indicate that the movie is both stunningly boring and basically a hodge-podge of classic twist ending cliches.  While it's fashionable to blame The Sixth Sense for the last ten years of last-minute 'gotchas!', the would-be thrillers that have followed in M. Night Shyamalan's footsteps missed a crucial distinction.  The last minute reveal that closes The Sixth Sense isn't really the finale of the film.  It's not a big zinger that the entire movie revolves around.  The movie, at its core, is a human drama about a troubled young boy and his struggling single mother.  With painfully good work by Haley Joel Osment and Toni Collette (both of whom damn-well should have won Oscars) and a genuinely sympathetic and thoughtful screenplay by M. Night in his prime, the climactic reveal, and really all of the supernatural material is merely a means to an end.  It is, to paraphrase one of the film's last lines, always second to the heartbreaking human drama.  The movie doesn't climax with the revelation about Bruce Willis's ultimate fate.  It truly climaxes one scene earlier, as mother and son finally open up to each other and reach an understanding that will truly strengthen their relationship.  The emphasis on character over thrills and chills is among a handful of reasons why The Sixth Sense is still a masterpiece and one of the best films of the 1990s.  The scene above, the true finale to The Sixth Sense, is probably the best thing M. Night Shyamalan has ever filmed, and it is one of the main reasons I still haven't given up on him.

Scott Mendelson     

Review: Fault of Abduction (2011) lie not with the star, but with its script, stunts.

Abduction
2011
105 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

A good movie can overcome a weak central performance (see - On Her Majesty's Secret Service), just as a sparkling central performance can make a mediocre movie feel like a great one (see - Iron Man).  But a poor story combined with a mediocre lead performance is a pretty toxic combination.  Thus we have Taylor Lautner's Abduction.  I had a token amount of hope for the picture because I like trashy thrillers, even ones that star actors I don't generally care for (see - Shooter).  But the movie is just-plain bad.  It's not bad because Taylor Lautner can't act, although this is surely not a convincing testament to his star power.  It is weak because it fails to excel in the areas that had little to do with whether or not its lead actor was up to the task.  John Singleton is saddled with a weak script and a shocking lack of big-scale action.

Kinda neat: IMAX schedules a week of discounted 'old favorites'.

http://www.amctheatres.com/imaxbigmovies/

Since Contagion isn't exactly burning up the IMAX box office and Real Steel still has a week before opening, IMAX is trying something a little different.  For one week, starting tomorrow, various IMAX theaters will be showing a slate of three popular IMAX titles over the last three years.  For just $7 a ticket, you can opt to revisit Star Trek, Inception, and Fast Five on the large-screen format.  Nothing much to add here, but I almost hope this starts an occasional trend.  I'm not sure if my schedule would permit such a thing, but I'd love the opportunity to revisit Batman Begins and The Dark Knight in their IMAX glory before seeing The Dark Knight Rises.  Anyway, click on the link below the big banner ad for tickets and what not, otherwise consider this a plug for what I think is a rather fun and smart idea.  Will you be attending any of next week's bargain rereleases?  What movies would you like the chance to revisit in IMAX, or what older movies would you pay to see reconverted to IMAX (IE - the Lord of the Rings trilogy?).  Share below if so inclined.

Scott Mendelson

Avengers assemble in poorly-photoshopped Entertainment Weekly cover.

It's no great tragedy, but the photo-shopping on display is pretty terrible.  The only real harm is that this poorly constructed and awkward Entertainment Weekly cover will probably count as a 'first look' for a large number of general moviegoers, just the sort that need to be intrigued to get this sure-to-be expensive comic book epic over the $185 million mark that seems to be the ceiling that non-Iron Man Marvel Studios projects seem to be reaching for.  Of course, Tony Stark is in this picture, but it really isn't going to be Iron Man 3 (especially since Thor and Captain America both did well this summer).  Anyway, enjoy Mark Ruffalo giving his best 'blue steel' look.  Derek Zoolander would approve.

Scott Mendelson

Did Sony just kill 3D? Who foots the bill when studios won't pay for 3D glasses?

The Hollywood Reporter uh, reported (sorry) yesterday that Sony Pictures will be the first of the major studios to no longer pay for the 3D glasses in the Real-D format (as opposed to specialized IMAX 3D glasses), but rather demand that exhibitors pay for the $3-4 glasses themselves.  Several studios have apparently been looking into such an arrangement, but Sony struck first blood, in a move that could have devastating consequences for the 3D movie business in America.  The policy is set to go into effect May of next year, just in time for Sony's two big summer films, both live-action 3D franchise pictures.  Men in Black 3D comes out over Memorial Day weekend while The Amazing Spider-Man drops on July 3rd.  While the reality is that the situation won't affect most kinds of 3D (Real-D is just one of several kinds offered in first-run theaters today), the perception could do real damage to the format if the theaters choose to pass down this extra expense to the consumers.  And all-things considered, I can't imagine why they wouldn't.

Begun, these IMAX wars have? Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol in IMAX will go head-to-head with Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows after all.

In the category of 'here's an interesting idea', Paramount and director Brad Bird announced today that Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol (see trailer) will be opening five days early in select IMAX theaters.  So while the film's wide release will stay occur on Wednesday, December 21st, the film will have its IMAX debut on Friday December 16th, 2011.  This is more-or-less a first of its kind.  Paramount did hold sneak previews the day before the wide release of Super 8 which occurred in most of its IMAX locations, but this selective sneak opening basically gives the fourth Mission: Impossible film a pre-release opening weekend of sorts.  Point being, it looks like M:I4 will be going head-to-head against Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (see trailer) after all, as December 16th is the wide-release opening day for the Robert Downey Jr/Jude Law sequel.

Trailer: Katherine Heigl's One For the Money panders to gender stereotypes.

This one dropped a couple days ago, so pardon the tardiness.  Anyway, I know nothing about the Stephanie Plum character or the Janet Evanovich novels that this film is adapted from.  All I can say is that it's a big clearer why Lionsgate moved this film from its original mid-summer 2011 slot to January 27th, 2011.  It's no secret that I'd be all smiles about a female-centric action franchise.  But this looks quite terrible, feeling like a rehash of The Bounty Hunter (of course the novel in question was published in 1994) and, most crucially, refusing to take its premise remotely seriously.  Again, I can't say if this is faithful to the novels, but why must this female-driven action film be burdened by camp and in fact sell the idea that women cannot be convincing action stars?  Before she became a star on Grey's Anatomy, Heigl dabbled in action (macing Everett McGill in Under Siege 2: Dark Territory) and sci-fi tinged adventure (she had a supporting role on Roswell).  The basic source of the comedy seems to be "ha ha, look at how incompetent that chick is with traditional action tropes!").  I'm surely giving more thought to this trailer than it deserves, but it really was eye-poppingly bad.

Scott Mendelson