Mendelson's Memos

Review: Tony Kaye's Detachment (2012) paints a grim picture of public education.

2012-01-26T16:46:00.000-08:00

Detachment
2012
100 minutes
rated R
Opens in limited release on March 16th

by Scott Mendelson

Most of the ideas in Tony Kaye's Detachment are not revolutionary, especially not to anyone who has followed the last thirty years of debate regarding the public education system in America (Jonathan Kozel's many works of nonfiction come to mind). And while the story is told in a style that sometimes veers in art-house cliche (sepia-toned flashbacks, first-person testimonial to an unseen listener, hand-held claustrophobia, etc), the picture is in the end devastating via its almost objective presentation of the issues at hand. Sure, Kaye is saying, we know that public schools are underfunded, understaffed, and stuck with various federal mandates and (worst of all, argues Kaye) a deluge of unmotivated students whose parents only take an interest when it comes to rebutting disciplinary measures. But told through the eyes of a substitute teacher who is far more caring than he wants to be, the picture wonders why we're so accepting a system that doesn't seem to be all that successful for any number of American youths.

The plot is pretty simple: Henry Barthes (Adrien Brody) is starting an extended gig as a substitute teacher in an unnamed public high school. Through his eyes we see the frustration, bitterness, cynicism, and acceptance of his full-time colleagues (played by, among others, James Caan, Lucy Liu, Christina Hendricks, and William Peterson, Blythe Danner, Tim Blake Nelson, and Marcia Gay Harden). The primary blame is placed at the feet of seemingly disinterested parents, although programs like No Child Left Behind with its unfunded mandates and reliance on arbitrary test scores as the be all/end all judgement for struggling schools, takes their licks too. Yes Mr. Barnes does provide token inspiration to his kids, almost despite himself, but it's merely because they take his blunt cynicism as a sign of respect. This is, at its core, a character study of someone who has long since given up being the great inspiration to young minds, as well as a brutal deconstruction of that entire concept.

Much of what happens borders on cliche, especially when the film leaves the classroom. He struggles with a student who mistakes simple empathy for paternal/romantic affection, bonds with a female member of the faculty, and deals with a dementia-stricken grandparent (Louis Zorich). But the film works because of the sheer understated power of its frank storytelling. That last subplot plays out in a stunningly powerful fashion, as Brody's best scene involves offering a token amount of absolution to the dying old man that he really has no business providing. Even the most absurd thread, which sees the overly compassionate educator basically adopting a child prostitute he meets on the street, plays out with an absolute lack of melodrama and ends in a refreshingly realistic fashion. Adrien Brody is terrific throughout, anchoring the picture with a precise portrait of a man who doesn't particularly want to save the world, but finds himself so weighed down by his own misery that he occasionally steps up almost by accident.

The film doesn't break any new ground thematically, but that's kind of the point. We are no longer shocked by the various flaws in the system we use to educate our youngsters and yet we constantly take offense at the idea that so many young people seem to have misplaced priorities and/or don't feel that they are valued by society at large. What sticks with you are individual moments. Isiah Whitlock Jr. has a blistering scene as a bureaucrat lecturing the faculty about how low test scores are only important because they decrease property values. Brody has a wonderful bit in the second act where he explicitly lays out why his young charges should actually give a damn about their own education. And Lucy Liu has one of the best scenes of her career when she finally explodes at a young girl whose only ambition is to hang out with her boyfriend and 'do some modeling'.

The film loses a few points due to allow Hendricks's character to serve primarily as a romantic foil, and then allow her to make a rather inexplicable judgment call, as well as a climax that feels the need to bring finality to a story that shouldn't have a natural 'conclusion'. But overall, Detachment works as a powerful character study and a searing indictment of the institutional disinterest in education that allows seemingly dedicated educators to eventually become as much a problem as a solution. Whether taken as gospel or inflated allegory, Detachment is a powerful piece of art.

grade: A-

Finding Nemo, Pixar's best film, gets a 3D trailer...

2012-01-25T14:47:00.000-08:00

It's not my favorite Pixar film. That honor goes, on a given day, to either Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, or The Incredibles. But Finding Nemo may be Pixar's most objectively perfect movie. It is a distillation of the core Pixar theme: surviving in safety vs. living in danger. It hits every emotional note and every comedic bit just right and works on two entirely different levels for kids and adults. Kids find it funny as hell, while adults (especially parents I'd argue) find it moving as hell. The film is just under nine years old, which means that there is an entire generation of young kids that doesn't even realize that the film has a prologue involving mass murder (a fact hilariously noted in an episode of The Simpsons last year, when Milhouse discovered the horror of the never-seen 'chapter 01' on his DVD). Allison discovered the movie two years ago, it was the first full-length theatrical feature she ever sat down and watched with us, as well as the first film she wanted to watch multiple times (Allison being Allison, she almost immediately asked where Nemo's mommy was). So I suppose the question is, will you see the 3D-converted version of Finding Nemo when it debuts in theaters on September 14th, 2012? And if you have very young children, do you start the film on the first or second chapter when the kids want to watch it?

Scott Mendelson

Review: Kill List (2012) is an experiment in genre-switch that fails to truly engage.

2012-01-25T12:51:00.000-08:00

Kill List
2012
95 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Ben Wheatly's Kill List suffers from the believe that it is far more clever and original than it actually is. It earns points for not exactly beginning and ending in the same genre, but the journey is frankly not worth the destination. The film is technically a dime-a-dozen crime story about a hit man trying to do a job under trying circumstances. Where it goes in the third act I will not reveal (although don't look too closely at the poster), but the majority of the film is taken up by somewhat cliched characters and relatively unengaging drama Only the uncommonly gruesome violence, delivered in a clinical and brutal fashion, serves to distinguish the picture. Even the third-act turn, while somewhat organic and slightly clever, loses points for eventually ending in an almost identical fashion to another 'extreme' horror drama from last year.

The plot, to wit, concerns two veteran hit-men on a job to kill three targets. Jay (Neil Maskell) is recovering from a botched job a year ago, and his wife (MyAnna Buring) is giving him grief over financial obligations. Joining him in this new and seemingly promising assignment is Gal (Michael Smiley), who is there as much to chaperone his old friend as do the job in question. But as the body count rises and Jay and Sam's new employers keep upping the stakes, Jay's mentally instability threatens everything, including the safety of those around him. That's all you need plot-wise, so I'll stop there. But despite its billing as a crime thriller, the strongest portion of the film is actually the series of domestic arguments that make up much of the first third.
The bitter and authentic disputes between Jay and his wife Shel frankly are more compelling than the rote 'let's go find our targets and kill them' motions that follow.

There are moments that pique the viewer's interest, among them when at least one of their intended targets seems grateful for his execution, and its clear that writer/director Ben Wheatly (along with co-writer Amy Jump) are playing a relatively novel game. The film basically exists in three different genres over its three acts. In short, they are trying to make a film from specific genres that doesn't reveal itself as said genre until the characters realize it as well. But good intentions don't make up for a somewhat faulty delivery. Much of the second act is downright dull and monotonous, while the third act will leave the viewer alternately amused at the outcome and checking off the films where they've seen this material before. Wheatly elicits solid performances from his cast, and its clear that he has the technical chops to excel somewhere down the line.

Kill List is an ambitious miss, a good and clever idea with no real energy of its own, a certain slack pace, and little to keep us entertained in the middle hour besides moments of graphic violence. I appreciate and like the movie that Kill List wanted to be far more than the movie it is.

Grade: C

The lesson for this year's Oscar nominations? Don't be an R-rated film!

2012-01-24T10:16:00.000-08:00

For a list of the complete nominations, go HERE. As always, click on the movies with links for the original theatrical review. I write a lot about the inexplicable trend of how the various year-end awards groups only consider 'appropriate' movies to be considered awards-material. There is and always has been a certain disdain for populist entertainment, a trend that's only gotten worse as the independent film movement exploded in the early 1990s and the year-end Oscar bait-calender got more jam-packed over the last five weeks of the year. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II may have received almost unanimously rave reviews (96% positive on Rotten Tomatoes), but it doesn't count because it was a big-budget fantasy drama that is considered 'popular' entertainment. Bridesmaids may have been one of the most successful R-rated comedies of recent years, a well-reviewed (90% on Rotten Tomatoes) comedy that may have been a game-changer in terms of how mass-market female-driven entertainments are viewed in terms of their commercial potential. But no, it's not a character-driven dramedy that's one of the best films of the year, it's just that 'women shit in a sink' movie, so it's not worthy. But a drama with Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock that's gasp... about 9/11?! That's EXACTLY the kind of film that is supposed to be among the year's best, right? And so it is that Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, a film with a 48% positive ranking on Rotten Tomatoes and a 46% score on Metacritic is now considering by the Academy to be one of the nine best films of the year.

Other than that insane nomination, today's Oscar nominations were a generally inoffensive bunch (I kinda hate Midnight In Paris, but it's a mid-summer release that plenty of people absolutely love). The most surprising and egregious omissions were in the Original Screenplay category, where 50/50, Young Adult, and Win/Win didn't make the cut, losing out to surprise (and worthy) contenders Margin Call and A Seperation. I would have tossed Woody Allen's Midnight In Paris script and The Artist, but that was never going to happen (alas, Allen is likely going to win). The much-discussed voting system for Best Picture, which was intended to yield between five and ten Best Picture nominees (and, in my opinion, unofficially weed out the more mainstream contenders), had an interesting and frankly not terrible effect. Since there was so much emphasis on a voter's absolute favorite film of the year, what we ended up with are nine films that can indeed be looked at as films the respective voters are passionate about. A film like Tree of Life generally brought about a love/hate it attitude, but those that loved it were likely to consider it among their very favorites of the year, so it made the cut. Moneyball is arguably a slight surprise, but again, there was a passionate 'this is the best film of the year' following. Having a small niche in the Academy that loved it was more useful this year than merely being liked by everyone. Which I guess explains the nomination for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, but geez (I guess I have to see it now...). At least my wild speculation last November may have been on the mark.

Unless you're Sasha Stone of Awards Daily, you probably didn't *love* The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, so it (rightfully) ended up honored for its one excellent element, Rooney Mara's star turn. The Best Actress category is one of several where you could almost an entire alternate category under 'damn-well should have been nominated' (Charlize Theron, Kristen Wiig, Tilda Swinton, Kristen Dunst, and Elizabeth Olsen). Happy semi-surprises popped up in the Best Actor category, with Demian Bichir scoring for his terrific lead performance in A Better Life and Gary Oldman scoring his first (!) Oscar nomination for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. As a result, Michael Fassbender lost out on what seemed a surefire nod for his star turn in Shame. Less expected but still disappointing was Michael Shannon's failure to get a nod, in fact the entire shut-out of Take Shelter. Also annoying but expected was the nomination for Jessica Chastain (that's good) for The Help (again... Take friggin Shelter!!), meaning that The Help scored three acting noms (along with Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer) along with its Best Picture nomination (for the record, I like the movie and am glad that at least one critically-acclaimed populist entertainment made the cut). In good news semi-surprises, Nick Nolte overcame Warrior's dreadful box office to score a much-deserved Best Supporting Actor nomination. I hope he wins.

In somewhat refreshing news, Clint Eastwood's lukewarm J. Edgar was completely shut-out, due to the fact that no one really liked it (The Iron Lady, which is even worse, should have suffered the same fate). In a somewhat surprising turn, two animated films that no one has ever heard of, A Cat In Paris and Chico and Rita, took the two Best Animated Film slots that were supposed to be reserved for Pixar's Cars 2 and Steven Spielberg's motion-capture adventure The Adventures of Tintin. I didn't like either film, but the omission of the popular Tintin again shows the Academy's issues with motion-capture both as a tool for animation and a form of acting (it's both, people...). In other words, Andy Serkis's performance in Rise of the Planet of the Apes never had a shot. Still, War Horse's deserved Best Picture nomination hopefully made up for Tintin's theoretical slight. On the plus side, Kung Fu Panda 2 and Puss in Boots snuck in alongside presumptive favorite Rango. Weirdly, the original song category had only two nominations. "Real In Rio" (from Rio) and the now-presumptive favorite "Man or Muppet" (from The Muppets). Ironically, in a year filled with films centered around nostalgia, the two that viewed nostalgia the most critically, The Muppets and Young Adult, were both mostly shut-out (and the most unchallenging of the bunch, The Artist, is probably going to win).

There were five nominees for Best Visual Effects, and I was heartened to see the terrific special effects for Transformers: Dark of the Moon sneak in despite the general (and somewhat justified) critical distaste for the franchise. Somewhat surprising was the inclusion of Real Steel, with its surprisingly low-key robot-boxing effects work. Along with presumptive favorite Rise of the Planet of the Apes, two of the five nominees were films that cost under $100 million. The other two were Hugo (which led all films with 11 nominations, including Best Picture, arguably all deserved) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II (the latter of which only scored the usual three technical nods, along with Best Make-Up and Best Art Direction).

Overall, the biggest disappointment was the lack of much outside-the-box thinking. There was no Alan Rickman Best Supporting Actor nomination, no Kristen Wiig Best Actress nomination, no love for art-house darlings like Take Shelter or Martha Marcy May Marlene, a complete shut-out for Young Adult, and no real momentum for critically-acclaimed populist entertainment like the aforementioned Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II or Bridesmaids. Heck, with as much respect as possible for Melissa McCarthy (who did her job and got laughs), her nomination as the biggest representation of the film is almost a slap against it, as a film filled with realistic and three-dimensional female characters received its only major acting nomination for its most over-the-top and least realistic character. If you want to see McCarthy ace a more three-dimensional role that doesn't base most of its humor around her unconventional (for Hollywood) appearance, track down The Nines.

And while I have no love for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, it's exclusion along with Bridesmaids and Young Adult from the Best Picture category sends a clear 'only one token girl movie allowed' message. You're going to read a lot of essays over the next week about how the Academy embraced a bunch of uplifting 'feel-good' movies over darker fare. And frankly that's bunk, based on the misconception that The Help and War Horse are actually feel-good movies, rather than the pessimistic downers that they are (but then, there are people who actually think Precious has a happy ending too...). What is clear is that the Academy basically ignored R-rated movies, as The Descendants was the only R-rated Best Picture nominee this year. And if you look at those that theoretically could have made the cut (Young Adult, Bridesmaids, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Margin Call, Take Shelter, The Ides of March, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II, etc) nearly every single one of them was R-rated.

In a year when the once-dreaded MPAA rating made somewhat of a comeback, it is disheartening to see that 'adult films' pretty much got shut out not just in the Best Picture category but in many of the major categories as well. Scrolling down the big six categories, only Albert Noobs (2 acting nods), Beginners (1 acting nod for Christopher Plummer), Margin Call (1 screenplay nod), The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (1 acting nomination), Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (1 acting and 1 screenplay nod), Bridesmaids (1 acting and 1 screenplay nod), and The Descendants (4 nominations) were R-rated films, with a total of 13 out of a possible 44 nomination slots. It would seem that the lesson this year is that if you want a shot at Oscar glory, make sure your film is rated PG-13 or PG... Anyway, for my own personal year-in-review lists, go here. As always, share your thoughts below. What was the happiest surprise nod, and the most depressing omission?

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (01/22/11): Underworld: Awakenings and Red Tails score. while Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close and Haywire falter slightly.

2012-01-22T09:04:00.000-08:00

Like clockwork, the fourth entry in the ongoing Underworld franchise debuted in the third weekend of January to take the top spot at the box office with a $20 million+ debut. While the original opened in September of 2003, the rest of the films have all used the mid-January berth every three years. As so it is that Underworld: Awakenings (trailer) debuted with $25.4 million this weekend. In pure numbers, that's the second biggest debut of the series, behind the $30 million opening of Underworld: Evolution back in 2006. But in terms of inflation/tickets sold/etc, it's actually a bit under the $22 million debut ($28 million adjusted for inflation) of the original Underworld. Considering the last entry, Rise of the Lycans, was a stripped-down prequel lacking franchise star Kate Beckinsale, it's arguably more fair to compare this fourth entry to the first two films in the series. As such, it's slightly lacking. The budget was $70 million (way up from parts 1 and 3, which cost just #22 million and $35 million respectively, and a bit up from the second film's $50 million budget) and the film had a theoretical 3D price-bump, yet the results weren't even up to the series's peak. Still, Sony is playing a different game this time around...

The comparison that Sony hopes to emulate is not to the prior Underworld films (only the second of which crossed $100 million worldwide), but the late-2010 Sony release Resident Evil: Afterlife. That too was a series that had a bit budget increase on the fourth film as well as the 3D gimmick. The previous three films in that series had done between $41 and $50 million in domestic box office and between $102 and $147 million worldwide. The fourth entry pulled in $60 million domestic off a series-high $26 million debut, but it earned an absolutely stunning $296 million worldwide thanks to massive overseas numbers. As I've noted any number of time elsewhere (like HERE and HERE), 3D is still a major factor in overseas markets, where 2D options are less plentiful and 3D films are that-much harder to pirate. Sony would like for Underworld: Awakenings to surpass the $62 million gross of Underworld: Evolution, but merely surpassing that film's $111 million worldwide take won't justify the $70 million budget this time around. Sony is playing a risky game, that those who flocked to one female-driven science-fiction action franchise that happens to be in 3D the fourth time around will flock to another with equal verve. So in this case, like a number of summer tent pole films, the domestic numbers are almost beside the point (it's done $13 million overseas thus far). But for what it's worth, the film played 59% 3D, 15% IMAX, and 7% other 'large-screen' venues. Meaning that just 28% of the audience watched Underworld IV in regular 35mm 2D.

The next big opener was the surprisingly solid debut for Red Tails (review). The Lucasfilm-produced Tuskegee Airmen action drama debuted with a pretty terrific $19.1 million. The longtime passion project for George Lucas was a rarity in today's marketplace, a big budget ($58 million) action film centered entirely around an African-American cast. Even with the financial strength of six Star Wars films, Lucas was unable to get funding for the film, so he dipped into his own pockets to produce and market the picture while allowing 20th Century Fox to distribute. The success or failure of this one will depend on legs and word of mouth (it apparently received an A from Cinemascore), but the 3.1x weekend multiplier bodes well. As expected, the film was marketed heavily in African American communities and the opening weekend was apparently made up partially from African American schoolkids who had been bused to matinee showings. Fair or not, the film will likely be seen as a test case for larger-budget genre fare starring African Americans, so it's worth rooting for even if you liked the movie less than I did.

The last wide-release opening was Steven Soderbergh's Haywire, which opened with $9 million. The film cost just $23 million and was the experimental auteur's foray into pure action film making. The gimmick is that he cast a completely untested actress name Gina Corano, whose prior claim to fame is being an MMA champion. Point being, she most certainly can and does fight convincingly onscreen, but she can't act worth a damn and everyone knows it. One of the perverse pleasures of the film is watching Soderbergh cut around and otherwise obscure the performance of his lead character, whose lack of acting ability really isn't her fault (she's not an actress, she's a professional ass-kicker). The film received a D+ from Cinemascore, which is a bit surprising. It surely is an artier and more at-arms-length clinical kind of action picture, but it certainly delivers the goods (my brother-in-law, who isn't exactly a hardcore fan of stereotypical art house cinema, loved it). Anyway, after the explosive success of Contagion ($135 million worldwide on a $60 million budget), Soderbergh has some leeway to play around a bit.

The other major debut was the wide-release of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (review). The Tom Hanks/Sandra Bullock post-9/11 drama has been playing in six theaters since Christmas day. The film pulled down an okay $10.5 million in its first weekend of wide release. The would-be Oscar bait film is expected to get mostly shut out on Tuesday, so the $25 million drama will have to get by on old-fashioned word-of-mouth and/or star power. In holdover news, Contraband (essay) had a mediocre 49% drop in weekend two, ending its tenth day with $46 million. Since the film cost just $25 million to produce, this is an unmitigated win for Mark Wahlberg and Universal. Beauty and the Beast 3D (review) dropped a harsh 51% for a $8.5 million second weekend. That's not nearly as strong as the 26% drop for The Lion King 3D (review) last September, but again, these 3D-converted re releases are pretty much free money. So a $33 million current cume is enough to push the whole movie over the $200 million mark in America. Joyful Noise dropped 45% in weekend two, giving the $30 million church gospel drama $21.9 million in ten days.

In holiday holdover news, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (review) is just shy of the $200 million mark ($197 million), while Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (review) will cross $180 million this week (it's at $178 million now, having crossed $400 million worldwide late last week). The Iron Lady took just a 31% drop in weekend two of wide release, giving the film over $12.6 million thus far and a solid foothold when Meryl Streep's inevitable Oscar nomination arrives on Tuesday. The Descendants (review) and (non-Oscar bait) The Devil Inside have both passed $50 million, while would-be Oscar front runner The Artist (review/essay) now sits with $12 million and should-be frontrunner Hugo (review) just crossed $55 million. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (review) now sits with $94 million while both Steven Spielberg films, The Adventures of Tintin (review) and War Horse (review) are at $72 million. Expect all three to disappear pretty quickly if Oscar doesn't shine on them this week. Holding somewhat strong despite the likelihood of Oscar love are Young Adult (review) at $16 million and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy (review) with $18 million. Both darn-well should be leading the pack on Tuesday, but alas...

That's it for this weekend. Join us next weekend when Liam Neeson battles snow, cold, and wolves in The Grey, while Katherine Heigl starts what could be a very large franchise with One For the Money (based on the first of seventeen novels featuring bounty hunter Stephanie Plum). Sam Worthington leads a solid cast (Elizabeth Banks, Anthony Mackie, Ed Harris) in Man on a Ledge. Expect the usual Oscar nomination whining on Tuesday morning, but otherwise take care.

Scott Mendelson

Pet Peeve of the day: Attention action filmmakers - security guards are people too!

2012-01-20T17:18:00.000-08:00

As a whole, Contraband is a pretty unremarkable would-be thriller. There is almost no real action, and much of the middle act is a series of monotonous scenes of Kate Beckinsale being threatened and/or beaten by Giovanni Ribisi. While Ribisi's character felt the need to continually antagonize Mark Wahlberg's family after Wahlberg has already agreed to do the crime in question is to be debated, since you'd think you wouldn't want to antagonize the professional criminal who is being entrusted with your precious cargo. Anyway, Wahlberg is the classic 'former criminal gone straight' archetype, complete with a loving wife and kids. If I my spoil the not-so shocking ending of the picture (...SPOILER WARNING...), Contraband ends on a mostly happy note, with Wahlberg having gotten away with the crime, protected his family (including his imperiled brother-in-law), and scored a large amount of capital for himself and his crew. And even though Wahlberg's character is actually an accessory to a mid-film heist that ends in the wanton murder of about half-a-dozen people, he's still an okay guy. After all, they were just security guards.

The first girl I dated in college was a young woman whose father was a security driver for some financial institution or another. I never met the man, but if I ever had I would have been tempted to ask him about how those in his profession are treated like absolutely expendable bugs on a windshield. Starting with Die Hard (where Alexander Godunov popped two guards at the very start of the Nakatomi Plaza takeover) and continuing through any number of Die Hard rip-offs over the last 24 years, few action films about terrorists are complete without an opening siege that sees the point-blank execution of any number of security people as the villains make their way to their base of hostage-taking/weapons-hijacking. And almost never are these hapless souls actually mourned by anyone else in the picture. Half the time they are literally forgotten as the film gets into gear. And what of their expendability in various hard-boiled crime pictures? We hear over and over again how top-notch Robert De Niro's heist team is in Michael Mann's Heat. Yet the first time we see them pull a job, they end up having to whack all three truck guards purely to show that Kevin Gage is kinda crazy (note - this also happens in Mann's 1987 film LA Takedown, which Heat is a remake of). Last time I checked, unless you were a terrorist or a hit-man, I'm pretty sure your reputation as a professional criminal was judged by how few corpses you left behind and, as is the case here, how well you chose your associates. But because the people whom De Niro's crew bumps off are security guards as opposed to cops and/or traditionally innocent bystanders, they retain their 'expert criminals' ranking until they start screw up their big downtown LA bank robbery at the end of act two. Even more disconcerting is when the hero of a film slaughters such security personal as indiscriminately as the bad guys, but keeps their nobility because it's for a 'just cause' (think The Matrix or Prince of Persia).

Not every dead body has to be accounted for in every action film or crime drama. Not every slain member of the 'good guys' requires a funeral. But the sheer brazenness in which the security guard above all other classifications of people in film, is randomly and brutally murdered without consequence is and always has been a bit disconcerting. It's basically a cheap tactic to amp up the body count without killing any major characters or too many hostages over the course of the film. When 'heroes' like Contraband's Mark Wahlberg escape legal culpability or even moral denouncement when they stand by without commentary while their buddies commit such murders, when films like Live Free Or Die Hard feature the point-blank execution of countless such security personal while keeping its PG-13 rating, when any number of films both good and bad (Speed, Hellboy, Demolition Man, etc) treat such murders as 'no big deal', the message being sent is that bank guards, armored truck drivers and other such protectors don't really count as full-fledged human beings on the scale of movie morality. Thus ends the pet peeve of the day... Feel free to share your thoughts below. Do you know anyone who works in security and if so, have they ever complained about the large-scale body count that their profession has racked up onscreen?

Scott Mendelson

Review: Red Tails (2012) is a low-key, mostly entertaining history lesson/B-movie.

2012-01-20T13:47:00.000-08:00

Red Tails
2012
120 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

The strongest aspect of director Anthony Hemingway and producer George Lucas's Red Tails is that it lives in a somewhat Utopian film industry where African-American dramas aren't all that big of a deal. The picture may have an unfair burden of proving the bankability of larger-budget ($58 million) genre fare revolving entirely around African Americans, but you don't see that sweat onscreen. It treats itself not like a test case, or a passion project for one of the more financially successful independent filmmakers of our age, but merely a B-movie action drama that involves actors like Cuba Cooding Jr. Terrence Howard, and David Oyelowo. Red Tails may be (unfortunately) an anomaly, but those behind and in front of the camera treat this as if it were one of many minority-led historical dramas that open each month at the local multiplex.

The plot, to wit, concerns six Air Force pilots in what was known as the Tuskegee program, along with two superior officers (played by Gooding Jr. and Howard). The drama on the ground is pretty boiler-plate stuff, although it's delivered with such a low-key, no-nonsense fashion that it works by not slathering on the melodrama for cheap emotional points. Terence Blanchard's score does not overemphasize every emotional cue and there is a bare minimum of what might otherwise be considered 'big important speeches'. You will be surprised at just how many seemingly major dramatic beats are allowed to play out with minimal score, and that includes the major action sequences. No one will win an Oscar here, and there are quite a few examples of 'on-the-nose' dialogue (most of it delivered by the comparatively hammy white actors), but the leading airmen have a natural and relaxed chemistry that allows us to look past the occasionally clunky dialogue and divergence into cliche. Only Oyelowo's half-baked romantic subplot represents a true problem, both because it isn't the slightest bit engaging and because it pads the otherwise relatively tight narrative right up to the two hour mark. Nate Parker's commanding officer has a needless subplot involving alcohol abuse, but it doesn't become a major part of his character.

But as an action film, it is an unmitigated triumph. There are four major action sequences in this picture, and they are pretty much all rock-solid. Befitting the man who directed most of the Star Wars films, the aerial battles in Red Tails are pretty superb, with (say it with me now...) long fluid takes and a clear sense of time and place. The action sequences are cut not for maximum intensity, but clarity and compensation. Since each mission has a specific goal, the picture explicitly spells out just what the objective is beforehand, allow us to not only follow the individual fighter planes in the sky, but keep track of the broader mission at hand. Since director Hemingway's prior experience is mostly character-driven television shows (he's directed several episodes of Treme and the 2010 zombie outbreak of Community), one may presume that much of the film's action was spearheaded by Lucas. But if I'm selling Hemingway short in the technical department, then what it means is that he should start appearing on 'the list' when studios start searching for tent pole directors.

I liked that the film didn't drown itself in inspiring 'feel-good' moments. I like that the one 'white air-pilots learn to respect their African-American colleagues' is basically played for laughs, and the primary racist antagonist (Bryan Cranston) gets no real comeuppance. I like that it's told exclusively from the point of view of those who actually partook in said missions. I like that the picture is told with a certain no-nonsense objectivity. It doesn't rub our noses in the idea that African American soldiers had just as much courage and bled the same blood as their Caucasian counterparts, because it trusts us to already know that should-be obvious fact. The film is a straight-shot drama about men of color proving themselves in battle when their abilities were in doubt by those in command. One could argue that its relatively simple characters and thin narrative makes it resemble a B-movie from 1952 and that would be pretty true. But considering the current Oscar front runner is a film that would probably be considered a B-movie in 1927, I'm not sure that's a fair charge. Red Tails is a truly old-fashioned drama, but it is told with a lack of pomp and overwrought melodrama that makes it easier to overlook its genuine flaws.

In a just world, Red Tails would be a B-movie that happens to feature an African-American cast, one of many. Instead, like The Help and Tyler Perry's pictures, it is burdened as the sole representation of what it happens to be. In this case, it is the rare mid-budget African-American action film. That so many critics can't let go of their Star Wars prequel bitterness doesn't help either, as Lucas makes the film all-too easy a target. But Red Tails is a true B-movie, warts and all, that barely works due to its unassuming presentation, relaxed and natural acting from its leads, and some cracker-jack action sequences. It is not a great film, but it does pass muster as a good movie.

Grade: B-

The Hunger Games gets a (seemingly) final theatrical one-sheet.

2012-01-20T12:48:00.000-08:00

This looks like the final poster and official theatrical one-sheet. The tagline operates both in relation to the story and Lionsgate's optimistic box office predictions. This one, arguably one of the higher-profile films of the Spring, drops two months from Monday. I hope Lionsgate has the courage not to cut another trailer, since their first teaser does a splendid job of not giving away the whole picture. Anyway, as always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Chuck Norris is not the cause, merely an alibi. The irony of a PG-13 Expendables II.

2012-01-19T10:15:00.000-08:00

This story broke yesterday (I first read it yesterday morning at Collider), but since it was based on a translation of an interview that actor Chuck Norris gave to a Polish magazine, I thought I'd wait to make sure it wasn't a mistranslation. But Sylvester Stallone has confirmed to Ain't It Cool News that The Expendables II will indeed be PG-13, although his explanation doesn't specifically blame Mr. Norris. To wit, here, translated into English, is the 'offending' portion of Chuck Norris's interview:

"In Expendables 2, there was a lot of vulgar dialogue in the screenplay. For this reason, many young people wouldn’t be able to watch this. But I don’t play in movies like this,” Norris explained. “Due to that I said I won’t be a part of that if the hardcore language is not erased. Producers accepted my conditions and the movie will be classified in the category of PG-13."

And here is Sly Stallone's confirmation:

"Harry (Knowles), the film is fantastic with Van Damme turning in an inspired performance... Our final battle is one for the ages. The PG13 rumor is true, but before your readers pass judgement, trust me when I say this film is LARGE in every way and delivers on every level. This movie touches on many emotions which we want to share with the broadest audience possible, BUT, fear not, this Barbeque of Grand scale Ass Bashing will not leave anyone hungry..."

What is strange about this is not that Stallone and his band of 80s and 2000s action stars are catering to the whims of one very over-the-hill action icon, or that Norris thinks that hearing profanity is more harmful to youngsters than watching over-the-top violence (in a pre-Sopranos/24 era, Walker: Texas Ranger was once considered the most violent show on television). No what's strange is that the first Expendables, judging on the theatrical cut, was clearly intended to be a PG-13 in the first place. Watching the film back in August 2010, I distinctly remember thinking that this was an awfully soft R, and that up until a certain third-act action sequence involving Stallone with a knife, it appeared that there wasn't going to be all that much R-rated violence at all. Stallone and company waffled back and forth prior to the film's release about its rating, and I am still convinced to this day that it was always intended to be a PG-13 movie.

As I mentioned in my initial theatrical review, the film is basically a PG-13 action picture with periodic bits of R-rated gore tossed in. But most of these scenes feel like inserts and many of them are basically stand-alone moments. For example, the opening gun-battle aboard a cargo chip (which is basically the only first-act action sequence) is relatively bloodless, especially as the night-vision goggles renders much of the violence in various infrared colors. But the opening salvo of that sequence, when Lundgren blows a guy in half with a projectile weapon, is the only thing about that sequence that merits an R-rating, and its shot and edited in such a way that it could have been easily removed from the film without harming the narrative. It's a completely stand-alone sequence. Most of the hard violence is like that, and it all feels like it was either inserted during reshoots or originally shot in such a way that it could be easily altered depending on the ratings requirements. The big second act sequence (when Statham strafes the 40-some fighters from a plane) has almost no gore to speak of, while the big third-act gore highlight (Stallone rescues Giselle Itie from rape-minded captors via bloody knife-work) can almost completely cut out when the film comes to FX in a year or so (since she ends up as Eric Roberts's hostage in the finale anyway, it's a needless sequence).

The only extended sequence that would have needed severe altering is the climactic moment when Terry Crews uses a 'bfg' to blow a dozen or so enemy soldiers to smithereens. And even that moment, if the blood is CGI (which I don't recall) could have been cut around. Not only is most of the violence the kind of big body count/low gore stylized carnage that can usually skate by with a PG-13, the film isn't exactly filled with profanity. According to Screen It, there are just 46 instances of any profanity in the 105 minute picture, with only eight F-words during that time. Frankly, I don't remember hearing a single one, but Screen It is a trusted source on this kind of thing, so I'll only say that I distinctly remember Eric Roberts using the word 'friggin' at least twice in moments of anger. Point being, you have only eight uses of the word 'fuck'. I can't say if they were or were not looped in after the fact, or whether they were intended to be looped if need be, but you still have a 'hard R' action movie with only a few real gore highlights, all of which were stand-alone and existing almost out of context with the rest of the picture. Add to that just a smattering of R-rated language and absolutely no sexual content, and it's pretty clear that The Expendables was intended to be a PG-13 picture at least during principal photography.

It is only the strong worldwide success of the first The Expendables that makes Stallone's announcement a surprise. How much of the excitement over the first picture was actually based on its R-rating I can only speculate, but I would speculate that it didn't hurt in the least. But Lionsgate and whomever is distributing the picture overseas surely want those under-17 ticket-buyers, especially as it's a sequel and thus likely to draw in those who enjoyed the original regardless of its rating. Chuck Norris just gave them an excuse to neuter the film for theatrical release. The question is whether they will need his permission to release an R-rated cut on Blu Ray several months later...

Scott Mendelson

Review: Miss Bala (2012) is a jolting and relentless bit of nasty business.

2012-01-18T15:45:00.000-08:00

Miss Bala
2012
113 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Gerardo Naranjo's bracing and relatively uncompromising Miss Bala operates on two levels. On the surface, it is a harrowing descent into a slice of hell, seen through the eyes on a single unwitting participant. Its genre elements kick into gear at around the fifteen-minute mark and never let up until the sobering conclusion. As a propulsive exercise, it exists as the kind of 'you are there' experience that would put most 'found-footage' horror films to shame. But it also exists as a brutal reminder of the absurdity of the ongoing drug war and the deplorable circumstances that exist for women in all-too many countries, as well as the lack of options for escaping said circumstances. It does not really need the onscreen text that more-or-less spells out its message just as the credits roll. The film itself operates as a powerful social statement, on top of being a pretty solid thriller.

Since the majority of the film is based in constant tension, woe-be-it for me to divulge anything that occurs past the first reel. Simply put, the film stars Stephanie Sigman as Laura Guerrero, a young woman in Baja, Mexico who sees participation in a beauty pageant as a gateway out of her poverty-stricken existence. Following the initial admittance process, she and her friend Suzu decide to celebrate at a local somewhat seedy nightclub. Soon enough, random chance leaves her a witness to a massacre when drug gangs break into the club and gun down a dozen or so party goers. Laura escapes from the carnage and makes her way home, only to attempt to track down Suzu, who went missing amid the chaos. It's at this point that things truly go south, and thus at this point I shall stop discussing the plot.

Once the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan, the picture roars along at an unchecked pace. But while it's tempting to call it a roller-coaster ride, it's actually something more unnerving. It's a roller coaster set completely in the dark, with no signs of what will happen next or just what's waiting behind the next corner. Sigman is in nearly every frame, and her hypnotic performance helps the film avoid turning into a kind of exploitation picture. The tension sets in as we realize that there really is little that Laura can do or say to affect the outcome other than keep her head just below water and hope for the best. In a city where corruption is standard, a young woman (especially a young woman) trapped in this maze of horrors is left with no one to turn to even if she does manage to break free.

The picture does threaten to grow slightly monotonous towards the end of the second act, as it comes close to becoming a case of 'okay, what terrible thing is going to happen to Laura and/or what awful thing is she going to have to do next?'. But the film builds to a genuinely compelling climax, and the final moments aren't so much bracing or head-snapping so much as bitter and sad. In the end it does work as a pure thriller, albeit not the 'fun' kind. It also operates as a powerful piece of commentary, explicitly critiquing a system that slaughters tens-of-thousands of Mexicans every year so that Americans (among others) theoretically have a harder time buying drugs. For people who are already in the grip of poverty, for a gender that often takes disenfranchisement for granted, heaping a genocidal drug war on top of it would be almost comical if the results weren't so catastrophic.

Miss Bala may be a pure stylistic genre exercise at its core, but its thrills and skill is all the more potent for actually having something important to say.

Grade: B+

Blaming the victim: The problem with Beauty & the Beast isn't Belle, but the Beast.

2012-01-17T06:01:00.000-08:00

Note -For what it's worth, the 3D conversion left me unimpressed. If you want to see it, do it because you want to see the picture on the big screen again, not because the 3D conversion adds any real value. If you want to read a similar retrospective discussion of The Lion King, go HERE.

I've long joked that I was able to ruin Disney's Beauty and the Beast merely by uttering two words: "Stockholm Syndrome". Having sampled the film in 3D over the weekend, it remains one of the just-plain weirder Disney cartoons in recent times. It is still a highly entertaining and visually impressive bit of entertainment. It's easy to see and remember (I was eleven when I saw it the weekend after Thanksgiving in 1991 as part of a double-sneak preview following Father of the Bride) how those who thought of Disney animated films as relative trifles like Robin Hood or Oliver and Company were knocked back by the sheer seriousness and scale on display. Even more than The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast was arguably the first Disney cartoon since the initial batch (think Pinocchio and Bambi) that felt like a grand-scale MOVIE. But watching it again, for the second time in two years (I bought the 2D Blu Ray over Hanukkah 2010), there are a few things that bear mentioning, both about the movie itself and the nature of how its critiqued.

First of all, the film serves as a template for how Disney cartoons would be constructed for the next fifteen years or so, give-or-take the influence of Pixar and Dreamworks. Beauty and the Beast mixes overtly dark and serious subject matter and high drama with almost inappropriately cartoon-ish supporting characters that act as an antidote to the 'tough' moments. The picture literally bounces from one extreme to another for much of its running time, following up a dark plot-driven scene (such as Belle being imprisoned in the castle) with a light and relatively superfluous moment (Gaston's big song, which exists only for a final moment that sets up a 'Let's get Belle's father committed!' subplot that comes and goes in ten seconds). The same standard applies for the action finale, which establishes an iron-clad pattern that would be followed in countless later Disney films (The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, A Bug's Life, Mulan, Tarzan, etc). Namely, the climax has the colorful supporting characters (in this case the various servants/household items) fending off hordes of nameless enemies in a comical and crowd-pleasing fashion while the main protagonist (the Beast) and main antagonist (Gaston) square off in a brutally serious and eventually fatal showdown. The balancing of tone, which wasn't always perfectly successful in every given picture, was the key that allowed Disney to tell grander, more adult-pleasing stories that still entertained the younger audiences.

But twenty years later, most of the discussion of the picture focuses on the core romantic arc of Belle and her deformed and cursed prince. As I said above, I often referred to the picture as "Stockholm Syndrome: The Movie", which pretty much sums up the relationship. On the surface, the young and beautiful Belle is imprisoned by the monstrous beast and rather quickly comes to love him as he gradually begins to go from captor to protector, friend, and then finally theoretical lover. Feminist scholars have long argued that the film sends a terrible message to audiences (especially young girls) by basically showcasing an abusive and power-imbalanced relationship as some kind of ideal fairy-tale romance. While the film is no feminist triumph, it's a little more complicated than that. Looking back on the film again, the picture does a strong job in the first act setting up Belle as someone who might actually fall for said scenario even without the kind of social conditioning that exists in a captor/captive situation. Belle is shown as being so unhappy with her 'provincial life' that it stands to reason that she may be susceptible to the theoretical allure of basically partaking in the kind of harlequin romance adventures that she reads about in the opening song. Whether or not Belle indeed has Schizoid Personality Disorder, or whether she merely has the same kind of 'Gee, now I get to live out my somewhat dangerous romantic fantasies' experience as Kathleen Turner in Romancing the Stone, Belle spends the first third of the film utterly miserable and with no plausible potential for improvement on the horizon. It doesn't seem quite as insane that she'd allow herself to fully envelop herself in the 'perils of Pauline' scenario she finds herself in.

Like Bella in the Twilight Saga films (I have not read the books), Belle eventually embraces, no matter how unhealthy it might be, circumstances that allow her to escape her current surroundings; where she doesn't fit in and doesn't feel like she belongs anyway. That the circumstance that she finds herself in is basically a captor/captive romance that is, by nature, based on a certain amount of submission, is an objective statement that doesn't necessarily make the picture 'bad'. We may choose to condemn her decisions, especially in light of the Beast's almost non-existent growth as a character (more on that below). But the only 'problem' with the character of Belle and the core relationship of the film is that it is in fact aimed at young children who are in no position to comprehend the creepy and (to certain personalities) erotic undertones of dominance, submission, the desire of some women to 'fix' damaged souls, 'animal magnetism', etc on display. If Beauty and the Beast were an adult erotic drama, Belle's fleshed out personality quirks and her dark romance with the Beast would be accepted without too much criticism (and, it must be said, the threat of rape would certainly be ever-present in the first half of the picture). So while on one hand I actually appreciated the film more the last two viewings than I had in a long while (it's actually borderline psycho-sexual for a Disney cartoon), it's also something I'll have to have conversations with my daughter about when she gets a little older. This demographic issue doesn't make Beauty and the Beast by itself a bad movie, but merely one that requires a bit more parental guidance than the likes of Hercules or Mulan.

But where the film really drops the ball, where it arguably merits every bit of criticism tossed its way, is in its depiction of the Beast and his servants. We can argue back and forth about whether the filmmakers intend to present Belle as a prototypical romantic heroine or whether we are supposed to notice and acknowledge her personality quirks along the way. But there is little doubt that we are supposed to truly believe in the Beast's change-of-heart, and that he has become a better man who deserves the love of a woman such as Belle. And quite frankly he does not in the least. Just going by the second act onward (since Belle is captured in the climax of act one), he goes from angry, violent, abusive, and near-psychotic in his treatment of his prisoner to... less so. The various candles and teacups and clocks all inform him that if he would just stop being such a grouch that surely this girl would quickly learn to love him. But is that all it should take? The Beast doesn't become incredibly gallant or uncommonly noble. He doesn't become fantastically romantic and, since this is a Disney film, we're not supposed to take any carnal attractions into account. Basically the Beast merely finds it within himself to treat Belle with what is generally known as 'basic human decency'.

Throughout the second act, he constantly indulges in self-pity about the fact that Belle can only see him as a monster, when in fact she's merely seeing him as the abusive asshole/jailer that he is. By the time the film reaches its climax he has merely become.... not a monster. He becomes polite, lets her roam the castle without fear, allows her access to his gigantic library, and eventually invites her to a formal dinner and dance. That's it! His most selfless moment is allowing Belle to leave the castle to look after her father, who has become lost in the woods in an effort to rescue her. But since he is directly responsible for that situation, it really doesn't mean that much that he allows her to save her own father. Not allowing a sick old man to freeze to death in the woods is what you'd think would be 'bare minimum' in terms of how humans are supposed to treat other humans. The Beast doesn't win Belle over by doing anything other than what any rational and decent-hearted human being should have damn-well done in the first place. The Beast, his various servants, and by virtue the film itself is basically teaching kids that all it takes to win the heart of the girl of your dreams is merely not acting like a borderline psychopath. And it also preaches that this formally-cruel, domineering, abusive, and hostage-taking tyrant (who, according to a newly-added to the Blu-Ray song "Human Again", is also illiterate) is absolutely a prize merely after he puts a halt to his very worst personality traits. He doesn't so much become 'good' as stop being 'bad'.

There is a lot of talk about how to prevent sexual violence and sexual harassment without explicitly/implicitly blaming and/or putting the burden of prevention on girls and women. And, as I've written before when discussing Twilight (HERE), the constant criticism that Bella Swan faces for her perhaps poor choices in boyfriends allows the male side of that equation (Edward and Jacob) apparent immunity from being rather dreadful boyfriend material in the first place. Thus it is the case here, where we've spent twenty years attacking Belle for her perhaps unimpressive choice in suitors while not bothering to attack the Beast for actually being a terrible would-be lover. The film, I would argue, doesn't present Belle as being a prototypical female role model anymore than Ariel was (Ariel also has serious issues and feelings of longing that exist long before she meets Prince Eric). But the film's explicit endorsement of the Beast as a genuine 'catch' and his presentation as a heavily romantic figure purely by his virtue of not being evil, is a disconcerting one that merits additional criticism. In the end, the rush to condemn the character of Belle (the hostage) while overlooking the Beast (the hostage taker) is a classic case of 'blame the girl first and last' when it comes to discussing the alleged feminism-related flaws in pop-entertainment. If he truly makes her happy, then Belle deserves a lifetime of happiness with the now-human prince. But on the basis of his onscreen behavior, the Beast does not deserve Belle.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (01/15/11): Contraband scores surprisingly large debut, Beauty & the Beast plus Joyful Noise open well in 'everybody wins!' MLK weekend.

2012-01-15T17:14:00.000-08:00

I've talked a lot about how the under-reported story of 2011 box office was the return to fiscal sanity in regards to production budgets and this weekend is a prime example. We have three big openers, all of which cost under $30 million, which means all of them are well on their way to profitability merely by posting a solid if-not-spectacular opening. Shocking all of Mendelson's Memos box office analysts (IE - me), Mark Wahlberg powered the low-budget ($25 million) and R-rated Contraband to a $24 million Fri-Sun/$28 million Fri-Mon debut all by himself to win the weekend. Wahlberg has had his share of big weekends (Planet of the Apes, The Perfect Storm, The Happening, etc), but they all arguably had larger factors at play other than just Walhberg's relatively limited star-power. The closest comparison is the 2005 debut of Four Brothers, but I'd argue that at least some of the credit for that $21 million debut goes to director John Singleton, along with the fact that it was hard-R action picture in a PG-13 time. Comparability, Shooter debuted in early 2007 with $15 million, albeit against the $24 million opening weekend of TMNT and the $19 million third-weekend of 300. Chalk it up to lack of demo competition, a growing appetite for R-rated genre fare, a token boost from Kate Beckinsale's token fanbase, or something in the marketing that I frankly didn't see, but Walhberg just scored his biggest 'all by myself!' debut of his career.

The picture is a shining example of the most positive trend over the last 1.5 years or so. While Shooter (which had a boatload of character actors in small roles and an apparently larger scale) cost $60 million in 2007, Contraband cost just $25 million to produce, so it will be quite profitable without even factoring in international dollars and the long life that action pictures exhibit post-theatrical (it will play on TNT in the afternoon for decades to come). While the last decade or so has seen a huge decline in R-rated genre fare, owing partially to the 2001 FCC crackdown on marketing such fare to younger audiences, there is a real marketplace for action films that actually show bloodshed, allow characters to use real profanity, and don't cut away or tone down the sound effects. It is arguably this starved demographic that is primarily responsible for the career of Jason Statham, and Contraband's 'make your budget back in one weekend' success proves that there is a real profitability if you can't still pump out a down-and-dirty action film that doesn't break the bank. One film does not make a trend, but this film along with the genuinely leggy run of David Fincher's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (which still cost too much, even as it slowly makes its way to $100 million with $89 million thus far) and the likes of The Lincoln Lawyer last year, shows that there is a sizable, if limited, audience hunger for adult films aimed at adult audiences.

Coming in at second place was the erotic psycho-sexual drama Beauty and the Beast. The 3D-converted re-release of the classic 1991 Disney cartoon debuted with a rock-solid $18 million over its Fri-Sun frame. This was of course the second (or third if you count the Toy Story/Toy Story 2 double feature in September 2009) retrofitted rerelease of a classic Disney cartoon, something that Disney aims to make a regular feature as in the days before VHS and DVD saturation. The film opened a bit below the $30 million debut of The Lions King last September, but not every re-release is going to do exactly what the previous one did. Considering Disney already did the 3D conversion for a Blu Ray release late last year, this theatrical exhibition is pure profit, so nice work everyone. As it is, I sampled the first half of the film over the (I was on a Disney cruise and they showed it over the weekend and it's striking how much it has operated as a template, even more than The Little Mermaid, for the next twenty years of Disney animated features. Anyway, I have no idea what the legs will be like on this one, but expect this 3D release to help cross $200 million and move up the chain of all-time grossing Disney cartoons. Coupled with its original 1991 run and a $25 million IMAX re-release in 2002, it now sits with $189 million domestic and $395 million worldwide.

Opening in third place was the Alcon/Warner Bros release Joyful Noise. The Queen Latifah/Dolly Parton/Keke Palmer gospel drama earned $11 million over the Fri-Sun frame. The picture cost around $30 million, meaning that it only needs slightly decent legs ala last year's Soul Surfer ($10 million opening, $43 million finish) or Dolphin Tale ($19m/$72m) to qualify as a solid hit. The film played 73% female and 65% over 35 years old. It's right in the comfort zone for Queen Latifah vehicles, as she averages around $8-12 million when she's not part of a larger ensemble. The two big expansions this weekend were The Iron Lady and Carnage. The Meryl Streep-as-Margaret Thatcher biopic expanded to 802 theaters and earned $5.6 million, and it will surely have strong legs as the Oscar season kicks into gear in a couple days. Less successful was the 479 screen expansion of Roman Polanski's Carnage. The awards-season also-ran earned just $786,000 on 494 screens. Barring some freak Golden Globe triumph for Jodie Foster tonight and/or inexplicable Oscar nominations, this one is pretty much finished.

There isn't much to say about the various holiday holdovers that hasn't already been said. Well, there is one thing. To the surprise of no one paying attention last weekend, The Devil Inside dropped 76.6% in weekend two, which is the nineteenth-biggest second-weekend drop in history, and the third-biggest for a 2000+ screen release as well as the second-biggest for any film earning anything over $13 million. Oh well, the film cost $1 million and has earned $47.5 million by Monday, so Paramount can cry all the way to the bank. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is proving quite the marathon runner, as it now sits at $189 million domestic (by Monday) and $510 million worldwide. It's currently Tom Cruise's third-highest grossing film domestically and worldwide (behind Mission: Impossible II and War of the Worlds). Ever more impressive is the sturdy run of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Written off by many (including to a certain extent myself) when it debuted last month to just 2/3 of the original's opening, it is making a run at $200 million domestic and $500 million international (it's currently at $170 million in the US and $392 million worldwide). The Adventures of Tintin is nearing $70 million domestic and $350 million worldwide. Let me again stress the impressiveness of a film that will likely end up with $80 million in the US off a mere $2.3 million opening day. The two best films of the year-end Oscar race, Tinker Tailor Solider Spy and Young Adult now sit with $15 million, while The Darkest Hour just crossed $20 million while nearing $50 million worldwide. War Horse is galloping at a steady pace hitting $65 million this weekend and needing some Oscar love to get to $100 million. More surprising is the genuine strength of We Bought A Zoo, which has now earned $63 million.

That's it for this weekend. Join us next time for Underworld: Awakenings, Red Tails, and Steven Soderbergh's action thriller Haywire. Also expanding into wide release is Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close which as far as awards-no-shows go, hopes to play more like Gran Tarino's late January expansion than The Lovely Bones's.

Scott Mendelson

Note to all of my readers...

2012-01-08T11:23:00.000-08:00

I am going to be taking a sabbatical of sorts over the next several days. I may get a chance to write, but I can't promise and didn't want to leave anyone wondering where the heck I went. Anyway, for those who crave new content on this site (HA!), feel free to check out the archives. The blog's true beginnings go back to around late-April 2008, so that's a good place to start. Anyway take care, have fun, and I'll see you when I see you.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (01/08/11): Devil Inside kicks off 2012 with $34m debut.

2012-01-08T08:52:00.000-08:00

More often than not, especially when dealing with big numbers, opening weekends are about marketing, not the quality of the film. So don't be too shocked when you hear that Paramount's The Devil Inside opened with $34.5 million this weekend. Yes, the film is allegedly terrible. Yes, audiences nationwide have allegedly been booing at the (allegedly atrocious) finale. But sometimes it's about a popular genre, a solid trailer, and the good luck of following up a recent smash hit. Exorcism and religious-themed movies have always been popular. The simple reason is that, along with the usual horror junkies, they attract more religious/spiritual moviegoers that otherwise disdain horror pictures. We've over/under $20 million openings from the likes of Stigmata (whose $18 million opening in September 1999 would equal about $28 million today), Exorcist: The Beginning ($18 million in August 2004), The Unborn ($19 million in January 2009), The Last Exorcism ($20 million in August 2010), and The Rite ($18 million last January). The anamoly that The Devil Inside most resembles is the somewhat surprising $30 million debut of The Exorcism of Emily Rose back in late 2005. But that film had both a PG-13 (like The Rite and The Last Exorcism) and a prestigious adult cast (Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, etc). Heck, throw in the $22-24 million debuts of various supernatural horror films (White Noise, The Haunting In Connecticut, The Amityville Horror, etc) and you can see that, when adjusted for inflation and a few other factors, a $34.5 million debut for The Devil Inside is quite impressive (it is indeed the biggest debut for a religious horror picture) but not a complete surprise.

As for those other factors, sometimes your best marketing weapon is your last hit film. Why did Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief open with $32 million in February 2010? Well mostly because its moody and effective (IE - misleading!) teaser played in front of every set of eyeballs who happened to see Avatar. The second release from Paramount's Insurge label (ten micro-budgeted genre films being given wide release) had a snappy and creepy little trailer that just happened to play in front of pretty much every print of Paranormal Activity 3 last October. That film opened to $53 million and eventually grossed $104 million, so an effective trailer targeting just the very demographics that would rush out and see such a film counts as a genuine gift. So you had pinpoint marketing targeting the very demographics who would be drawn to your picture, plus the inherent appeal of religious horror pictures, plus the fact that it was the week's lone new release and the first 'real' horror film released since October, and you had the recipe for a breakout opening. As it stands, it's the fourth-biggest debut for a supernatural horror film (behind Paranormal Activity 3, Paranormal Activity 2, The Grudge, and The Ring Two), and the third-biggest debut in January history. Where it goes from here is frankly irrelevant. The film cost $1 million to make, so even if it drops like a rock due to being infamously terrible (as expected, it had a terrible 2.1x weekend multiplier), it still gets to $50-60 million and counts as probably the most profitable film of 2012. So if you bought a ticket this weekend and feel used and abused, cheer up! You just helped Paramount cover the marketing/distribution losses for the Hugo ($52 million and help in the funding of the next Young Adult ($14.7 million).

The rest of the news involves holdovers. The major expansion was for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, which finally opened semi-wide (809 theaters) and grossed $5.8 million. The picture has been doing scorching limited-release business all last month, and its solid expansion following that is further evidence that the film would have been a more serious Oscar contender had it been released earlier in the year, if not even just its original November 18th release date. Its cume of $10.4 million is gravy on its already successful $25 million foreign take. It and Young Adult (another inexplicably ignored Oscar contender with $14.7 million thus far) are outpacing more likely Oscar contenders like My Week With Marilyn ($10.4 million after two months of semi-wide release), Shame ($2 million, alas handicapped by the NC-17), and The Artist ($7.1 million). But an earlier release and more high-profile box office performance would have possibly netted Gary Oldman the Oscar nomination he so richly deserves. Considering that we were coming off a holiday weekend, the drops for the mainstream holdover films are all shockingly small, giving credence to the theory that much of The Devil Inside's audience consisted of people who otherwise wouldn't have seen a movie this weekend. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol earned another $20 million (-31%) in its fourth weekend of play, putting the Brad Bird franchise entry at $170 million, or within an earshot of the original entry's $181 million domestic gross. Its $20 million weekend is nearly double any other fourth weekend in the franchise and would still be the film's biggest third weekend even if you didn't count the 500-screen IMAX preview. Worldwide, the film just surpassed the $457 million worldwide gross of Brian DePalma's Mission: Impossible.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is making a college try of trying to catch up to the original's $209 million cume following a 1/3 smaller opening weekend ($40 million versus $62 million) four weekends ago. The sequel is at $157 million, which is just $8 million away from where Sherlock Holmes was at this exact weekend two years ago. Now the sequel had an extra seven days to make that money, but it is almost keeping up the same pace as the original. Worldwide, the film is speeding towards $300 million. The first film made $500 million worldwide, and the comparative cost ($120 million for part II versus $90 million for part I) means that the second entry will be a smash even if it only makes it to $400 million. If Warner Bros. can make Sherlock Holmes: The Final Problem Was Not Quite As Final As We Thought for under $140 million, then they should go right on ahead. Not quite gaining ground as well is Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chip-Wrecked. The third entry now sits with $101 million and still trails its predecessors by $70-90 million. Still, the film cost just $75 million and will end up with at least $250 million worldwide, so if they can keep the budget under $80 million, Fox can certainly get away with Alvin and the Chipmunks: IN SPACE if they so choose.

Among the other big Christmas releases, David Fincher's remake/adaptation/etc of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo continues to prove that there is a clear audience for R-rated, adult-driven franchises, but that they shouldn't cost $90 million to make. The film sits with $76 million, and it just might squeak by $100 million domestic (it dropped just 24% this weekend), especially if Oscar shines on Ronney Mara. But in terms of actually being profitable, Sony will need strong overseas numbers to justify an adaptation of The Girl Who Played With Fire. The two family entries, We Bought A Zoo and War Horse, now both sit with $56 million and both are aided in the race to profitability by their smaller budgets. Cameron Crowe's dramatic comedy cost $45 million, while Steven Spielberg's sweeping World War I epic cost just $70 million. Spielberg's other Christmas picture, The Adventures of Tintin, has crossed $60 million, which is pretty impressive considering A) the US territory was basically just a bonus after the $260 million-and counting foreign grosses and B) it had an opening day of just $2.3 million.

And that's it for this weekend. I may be a bit late next weekend do to responsibilities, but we'll see how Disney fares with its second major 3D re-release, Beauty and the Beast (IE - Stockholm Syndrome: the Movie), while Mark Wahlberg tries another R-rated action picture (I love trashy B-movie action films, but Contraband looks boring even to me) and Queen Latifah, Dolly Parton, and Keke Palmer headline the religious-gospel drama Joyful Noise. Until then, please check out my year-end wrap up HERE, as well as my three '2011 in box office trends pieces HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Scott Mendelson

On the inherent darkness and pessimism of Steven Spielberg's body of work, and why he is more than just ET: The Extra Terrestrial.

2012-01-06T21:00:00.000-08:00

This essay has been slightly updated since the 2011 Oscar nominations were announced.

In the aftermath of the Oscar nominations (analysis HERE), there has been much hand-wringing over the notion that the Academy has embraced 'feel-good' entertainment over darker and more introspective work. The prime example of this false argument (which insists that you ignore the relatively downbeat finales of The Help and Moneyball, among others) is the Best Picture nomination for Steven Spielberg's War Horse (review). Many of the reviews, especially the negative ones, for Steven Spielberg's War Horse have emphasized the melodramatic 'boy and his horse' narrative, accusing the film of wallowing in sentimentality. Moreover, they basically accuse the picture of being 'conventional Spielberg', again citing the classic meme that Steven Spielberg isn't capable of truly playing in on the dark side. Both arguments are hogwash. For as long as I can remember (early-80s, natch), Steven Spielberg has had a reputation as the "Mr. Mass Audience", the guy who, film-making chops aside, was looked down upon because of his reputation as a purveyor of mainstream feel-good sentiment. He was the guy who made general audiences tear-up on cue, but still walk out feeling good. But looking over his filmography, not only are his 'dark and adult' pictures more frequent than you might realize, his entire reputation as a softy basically stems from one single incredibly popular (and critically-acclaimed) film that he made in 1982. On a film-by-film basis, Spielberg is far more likely to scare you or deeply disturb you than leave you with a nasty case of the warm-and-fuzzies.

It bears repeating that Spielberg's reputation as an unchallenging filmmaker for the masses has been around for thirty years or so. Looking back on his first decade of mainstream film making (let's say 1974-1984), it is E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial that stood out then, and arguably still today as the quintessential Spielberg film. While it certainly stood then and now as one of his most personal films, it's astonishing success (highest-grossing film of all time for 15 years) basically branded Spielberg as a director whose every film contained the kind of small-town nostalgia and overtly tear-jerking emotionalism that made E.T. such a smash hit. It's a meme that has followed Spielberg for the last thirty years. And going through his filmography it's apparent that it's not entirely a fair assessment of his career. From 1974 until 2011, Spielberg has shown viewers the darkness at least as much, if not more so, than he has shown them the light.

Jaws is a brutally violent horror drama that offers little good-cheer other than the cathartic final triumph. Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a disturbing character study about a husband/father who slowly goes insane and eventually ditches his family to go on a ride with interstellar beings (those same being who have been abducting random people for centuries, that they arbitrarily return them at the climax doesn't make them 'the good guys'). The first two Indiana Jones pictures are relentlessly violent, cynical, and relatively cold-hearted in their casual disregard for human life. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is so grotesque that it helped create a new MPAA classification, along with Gremlins (a darkly chaotic suburban horror comedy produced by... guess who?). These films are of course 'fun', but they are not sweeping testaments to the inherent decency of humanity E.T. was arguably his first overly sentimental and 'feel-good' film, and I would argue that its record-shattering success is the sole reason why critics (especially detractors) consider Spielberg to be a producer of mainstream feel-good bubblegum fantasies.

But the Steven Spielberg who directed E.T. is also the Steven Spielberg who directed Schindler's List, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, War of the Worlds, Munich, and yes War Horse. These are dark, painful, and often cynical films that show humanity at their darkest hours, and often at their worst. Sure War of the Worlds has a slightly upbeat finale, but does the final two minutes cancel out the proceeding 105 minutes of unrelenting horror and hopeless pessimism about humanity's ability to survive (morally and literally) its attempted extinction? Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan both end of notes of relative 'hope', but the narratives sandwiched between their prologues and epilogues are tales of war, genocide, and inherent human immorality. War Horse ends on a somewhat upbeat note, but the surviving characters have to go through the literal hell of war to get there, and they are no doubt scared and hardened by their experiences. The film is more than just a 'boy and his horse' fable, it is a bleak and unapologetic anti-war drama delivered through the bloodstained and arbitrary mass-slaughter that was World War I. It is arguably an even stronger anti-war film than Saving Private Ryan because it does not attempt to explain (and thus justify) the wanton slaughter. I don't think I have to explain the inherent pessimism and darkness of Munich (which on a given day is probably my favorite Spielberg film, natch).

That does not mean that Spielberg is incapable of genuinely 'light' mainstream entertainment. He is still the man who made Hook, The Terminal, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Catch Me If You Can, and The Adventures of Tintin (review). But even some of his 'lighter' entertainments have dark undercurrents and most of them have genuine depth below the big-budget razzle-dazzle. Indy III and Catch Me If You Can are arguably about Spielberg working out long-simmering issues with his father, Hook is a parable for Spielberg's struggles to be a globe-trotting filmmaker and an active/participatory parent, while Indy IV is basically Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford asking themselves if what should they do once their prime film-making years are behind them. Minority Report is an exciting and intelligent science-fiction thriller, yet there is ample reason to believe that it's inexplicably upbeat finale is itself a hallucination. Yes everyone whines about the allegedly 'happy' ending in the otherwise relentlessly bleak (and often brilliant) AI: Artificial Intelligence, but what exactly is so happy about a machine being given the gift of hearing the lie that he has spent his life wanting to hear before he can die? Even his two Jurassic Park pictures promise 'wonder and awe' but in the end deliver terror and death. The flawed-but-morally complex The Lost World ends on a 'Let's save the animals!' note but first offers a pitch-black narrative where the 'good guy environmentalists' have blood on their hands and the most sympathetic character (Richard Schiff) is heartlessly dispatched in the first act following an act of uncommon bravery.

What's ironic is that the films that most closely skew toward the 'stereotypical' Spielberg film are not among those he directed, but rather among the many films he has produced. The Goonies, Back to the Future, An American Tail, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Men In Black, The Mask of Zorro, Transformers; these audience-pleasing mainstream entertainments, most of them quite good, were all among films he produced, but he did not direct any of them. Doubly-ironic is that the one iconic 1980s film that he produced but is long-suspected of directing, Tobe Hopper's Poltergeist, fits far more into the wheelhouse of Spielberg's darker entertainments. It would seem that, along with ET, the critical reputation of Steven Spielberg is drawn not from the films he has directed but rather those he has merely produced. Steven Spielberg the director is a man who has dabbled in many genres, but his critical reputation is based less on the body of work he has directed but rather simplistic misconceptions based on a single incredibly successful and deeply personal project that he happened to direct near the beginning of his long career, along with some more-overtly crowd-pleasing fantasy pictures he has produced over the decades.

Those that write-off Steven Spielberg as the creator of easily-digestible feel-good slop do themselves, their readers, and film criticism in general a disservice. E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial was a terrific example of Spielberg indulging in tear-jerking, audience-pleasing melodrama to maximum critical and financial effect. But it is just one very good film that Spielberg happened to make back in 1982. Whether you like Spielberg or not (and I cannot imagine why you wouldn't at this point), you must admit that the Spielberg who directed Munich is just as much (if not more so) the real Spielberg as the one who directed Always or Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The same man directed Catch Me If You Can and Empire of the Sun. Steven Spielberg's year-end 2011 output stands as a shining example of 'light Spielberg' and 'dark Spielberg'. We cannot and should not write off Steven Spielberg as a one-trick pony purely based on just one of his more popular films. He is indeed one of the most successful mainstream directors in the history of the medium. But it is arguably because his films were often challenging, insightful, and willing to go to darker places that they captured the imagination of the last few generations of moviegoers. It is, give or take a few false steps over the last 40 years, his unwillingness to pander that has made him as popular as he is today.

Scott Mendelson

The 2011 movie year in box office trends part III: The box office and attendance was down, but the films were cheaper and leggier too.

2012-01-04T16:47:00.000-08:00

I generally dislike trend pieces. I'm a strong proponent of the idea that how well a film does is specific to the movie itself. That having been said, there were a handful of interesting patterns that did rear their ugly or not-so ugly heads this year. These pieces will be more about box office trends and what they may mean for the future. Without further ado, here we go...

Box Office was down, but so were the Budgets!

This was yet another year with pundits and armchair critics whining about 'SLUMPS!' and/or complaining about how 'This weekend's total box office didn't equal the total box office of this weekend last year!', as if no one realized that different films make different amounts of money. Because this needs to be said again, we can't whine about a steady diet of franchise pictures, animated films, and reboots but then complain when smaller pictures don't gross as much on opening weekend. But putting that aside, total box office was down around 3.8% compared to 2010. That's a difference of $494 million, or two or three massive unexpected smash hits (a Passion of the Christ) or a handful of major tentpole films not making quite as much as they might have been expected to make.

As I discussed in the first essay, there were a number of sequels that didn't quite equal their predecessor's domestic gross, which is pretty much where the difference lies. But even factoring that the total box office was down, even factoring that a weak first four months (which had smaller films that couldn't compare to Avatar or Alice in Wonderland) led to a mighty summer season which gave way to a smaller fall/holiday season (again, smaller films = smaller total box office), what is not being discussed is that costs generally went down as well. I don't have total numbers, but if you've been following the year in box office (or at least reading my weekly pieces), you'll notice that there were an uncommonly large number of somewhat cheaper films that had wide releases this year. Moreover, and this trend arguably started in late 2010, studios once again realized that there was a real market for adult-driven genre pictures as long as they didn't cost above $45 million.

So instead of Fox spending $65-85 million on the Justin Timberlake/Amanda Seyfried political parable In Time, they spent just $40 million, which made the film a massive hit when it earned $140 million worldwide. Relativity produced the Bradley Cooper/Robert De Niro sci-fi thriller Limitless for just $27 million, which makes it a massive hit with its $161 million worldwide gross. Insidious cost just $1.5 million, but Film District fashioned a winning ad campaign and led the movie to not only open with $13 million, but sustain a leggy run all the way to $97 million worldwide gross ($54 million on that came from domestic). The year was full of smaller pictures of that nature. Paramount may have wanted to capitalize on 1980s nostalgia with their Footloose remake, but they only spent $24 million to do it. Thus, when the film didn't quite explode Karate Kid-style, they still walked away winners with a $62 million worldwide take, including a $51 million domestic haul. Disney/Dreamworks may or may not get a franchise out of Real Steel, but the robot-boxing drama served as a prime example of 'doing it right'. By putting the emphasis on the human story (Hugh Jackman's relationship with his son) and using the robots on an 'as-needed' basis, the film came in at around $80 million, which makes the $227 million worldwide take a pretty big win.

Don't forget the countless moderately-budgeted R-rated comedies (Horrible Bosses, Bad Teacher, Friends With Benefits, etc) that dominated the year. Bridesmaids's $288 million gross is all the more impressive when you remember that it cost just $26 million to produce. Not every R-rated comedy was a hit. But even What's Your Number? qualifies as an eventual break-even film since its $30 million worldwide gross comes from just a $20 million budget. The only genuine flop comedies were The Change-Up ($73 million worldwide) and Your Highness ($24 million worldwide) which not-coincidentally were the only two that cost $50 million or more (on a cheaper budget, even The Change-Up would have been profitable). For those starved for R-rated entertainment, the comedy boom of 2011, with its relatively small production costs (and, I'd argue, the ability the edit out R-rated content in respective foreign territories) are a salvation after a decade of 'PG-13-or die' studio releases. Ironically, it was the few major PG/PG-13 comedies (Tower Heist, Crazy, Stupid Love, Jack and Jill) that struggled to get into the black due to their $50-80 million production costs that generally didn't 'end up on the screen'.

Even when you look at the higher end of the spectrum, we saw some surprisingly efficient tent-pole film-making that paid off. Sure you had the runaway budgets of Green Lantern ($200 million+), Cowboys and Aliens ($165 million), and Conan the Barbarian ($90 million), but you also had 'big' movies that cost arguably less than you'd expect. Fast Five may have cost $125 million (a record for the franchise), but it damn-well looked like it cost $200 million and was also coming off a shockingly successful fourth installment. Captain America was easily the biggest-scale Marvel Comics production yet, with globe-trotting action and many worthwhile set-pieces. Yet the Joe Johnston World War II adventure cost $140 million, making it the cheapest Marvel film on record and one of the cheapest such tentpole comic book adaptations in recent years. Fox gave us groundbreaking motion-capture performances for just $93 million with Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which made its surprising $493 million worldwide gross all the sweeter.

And if you watched Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Transformers: Dark of the Moon back-to-back, which one would you say cost more? Yet despite being the first film in the franchise where Michael Bay didn't feel constrained about how much robot fighting he could have, where the robots actually existed as genuine supporting characters, Transformers 3 actually cost $5 million less ($195 million) than Transformers 2. Even films that would have cost $100-200 million just a few years ago, such as Battle: Los Angeles ($70 million) and Sucker Punch ($82 million), were budgeted at a reasonable-enough level to justify the artistic gamble. The former was big hit ($211 million worldwide) while the latter was not ($89 million worldwide), but both represented a surprising case of getting maximum visual splendor for your buck.

Even the year-end franchise pictures exhibited a refreshing financial sanity. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol actually cost $10-20 million LESS than Mission: Impossible III, while Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows cost just $30 million more than the mere $90 million Sherlock Holmes (so the sequel will be enormously profitable even if it only makes it to $400 million worldwide). Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson dove headfirst into motion-capture animation for just $130 million with The Adventures of Tintin (A Christmas Carol cost nearly $200 million in 2009), which makes its $350 million-and counting worldwide take a solid success. But then Spielberg has often been a master of fiscal discipline, so it's not too much of a surprise that War Horse cost just $70 million. David Fincher spending $90 million on his remake (or adaptation of the novel, beside the point) of the $15 million Swedish adaptation of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was the exception this year, rather than the rule. Had it too followed the 'don't go over $50 million if you're targeting adults' rule, it's $90 million-and-counting domestic take would already be on the way to profitability, instead of having to wait until foreign box office and/or home-viewing dollars to break into the black.

As the industry moves forward, with its prime franchises ending and no guarantee of successfully establishing new ones, it's movies like The Lincoln Lawyer, Drive, Our Idiot Brother, Real Steel, Limitless, Horrible Bosses, and The Help that will hopefully pave the way. None of these films cost and arm-and-a-leg, none were a 'one film to serve them all' type would-be blockbuster, and all of them were able to make a profit without setting opening weekend records or doing 80% of their business in the first ten days. They were simply mid-to-low budget films that put their worth as a film above their worth as spectacle. So before we all scream about the end of the world because box office and attendance was down, remember that movies are also getting cheaper. And if Hop doesn't have quite the all-quadrants appeal of How to Train Your Dragon, we should also remember that Hop was substantially cheaper to produce. And if we claim we want more movies targeted towards different portions of the audience, then we can't complain when more niche-specific entertainments don't reach blockbuster levels. What we say we want, a mainstream film industry that targets adults of both genders and all races, plus young girls as well as the standard blockbuster-hungry young male, is something that more-or-less transpired this year. Whether we see these films in the theaters or at home, they are still being made, and mostly at a price that will encourage more of them.

Scott Mendelson

Follow the bouncing bat! A simple way to deal with that pesky "What the hell did Bane just say?" Dark Knight Rises issue...

2012-01-03T20:44:00.000-08:00

There have been rumblings in the blogosphere today that Warner Bros. may or may not have stealthily replaced the Dark Knight Rises IMAX prologue audio tracks with a new mix of said sequence, one with allegedly cleaned-up audio. This follows two weeks of breathless debate among the geek-squad about whether Chris Nolan should or shouldn't alter the vocal performance of Tom Hardy's Bane (presumably with Hardy's ADR-assistance) in order to appease fans who were unable to hear the primary villain's astute monologuing. Nolan's position is that the muscle-bound cult leader/terrorist/Mary Sue was always intended to be slightly difficult to understand, so paying audiences can suck it.

As the ire rises (pun damn-well intended!) among the rabid faithful and the man who runs Warner Bros, hundreds, if not thousands are awaiting the final decision with arguably more concern than tonight's Republican caucuses in Iowa (because, let's be honest, no matter who wins tonight, the GOP nominee is going to be Mitt Romney come July) allow me to offer a most modest proposal. No, I'm not saying Bane should eat babies, although it does bring up a question left unanswered by the exposition-filled prologue: If taking off the mask causes incredible pain, how does Bane eat? Or drink? Or brush his teeth before and after meals?

No, the proposal most moderate is simply this: Come July 20th, consumers will have the choice to see The Dark Knight Rises in three formats. They can watch it in Nolan's approved 35mm version, the equally director-approved IMAX Experience, or an alternate 35mm "I'd Like to Be Able to Hear What the Hell the Primary Antagonist Is Saying! Is That Really Too Much To Ask?!" edition. Viewers opting for this version will be able to hear a clean, articulate, correctly seperated sound-mix that does not sound like a first-generation Warner Bros DVD. Heck, if the May/June summer blockbusters disappoint, there might even be room in theaters for a fourth option, which presents the film as Nolan intended, but with subtitles complete with bouncing bats whenever Bane and/or McGruff the Crime Bat speaks.

What do you think, dear readers? Should audiences be able to actually understand important plot exposition and conversational dialogue from the main supporting character in the film, or is the fact that the characters in the film can here Bane good enough for you? Sound off below!

Scott Mendelson

The 2011 movie year in box office trends part II: 3D matters, except when it doesn't.

2012-01-03T17:07:00.000-08:00

3D matters, except when it doesn't!

I wrote about this back when summer ended, but the last four months of 2011 reiterated the same message: It's the movie! 3D cannot make a would-be flop into a hit. But where it can (and did) help this year is in getting predestined blockbusters to greater heights of would-be box office glory. Without 3D, it stands to reason that Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides would have barely made it past $200 million, that Green Lantern would have struggled to top $100 million, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon would have ended up closer to the first film's $319 million gross. Thor and Captain America ended up with $175-180 million at least partially due to the 3D ticket-price bump, without which they would have ended up closer to the $130-155 million grosses of Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, and/or The Incredible Hulk. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II broke the opening weekend box office record partially because of the 3D-bump, as even just 43% of opening weekend ticket-buyers making that choice was enough to put it past The Dark Knight's $158 million debut (in just 2D, barring other variables, Harry Potter 7.2 would have debuted at just over $150 million, or good for third place on the list).

More importantly, 3D is still a huge boon to overseas markets, especially where piracy is far more of a problem for big movies than it is here (which, in my opinion, was the real reason for the 3D madness that occurred post-Avatar). Three films, all in 3D and all grossing far more overseas than they did here, topped $1 billion just this summer. At least some of the overseas boom for the likes of Cars 2, Kung Fu Panda 2, and The Smurfs (which grossed $562 million worldwide off a $142 million domestic total) came from 3D interest and/or appeal. Whether it's that international audience are still high on 3D or whether it's harder to find a 2D print, and thus harder to find a decent bootleg where piracy is rampant), is an open question, but 3D has given a solid jolt to foreign markets in the last two years. If for that reason alone, 3D will be an attractive proposition, especially when films are can be cheaply converted. $5-15 million in 3D-conversion expenses against potentially however many hundreds of millions of dollars in additional box office, it's almost an act of restraint that more would-be tentpoles didn't indulge this year (and next year, natch).

And let's not forget the would-be blockbusters that 'did the honorable thing' and went out strictly as 2D. With $82 million so far, it's hard to argue that The Muppets would have crossed the $100 million mark with the help of that 33% price-bump for 40-50% of its shows in the first few weeks. Fox scored a surprise smash with Rise of the Planet of the Apes which rode great reviews and solid word of mouth to a $176 million domestic total and $481 million worldwide cume. Just dealing with domestic box office, adding 3D would have (assuming the film played 40% 3D and 3D tickets charged about 30% more than 2D, which seems a fair underestimate just to be on the safe side) grossed around $200 million, with untold additional fortunes overseas to boot. Sherlock Holmes: A Game and Shadows and Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked were both announced as 3D two years ago, only to be released as 2D just over two weeks ago. Both films have grossed noticeably less than their respective predecessors, a difference that arguably would have been made up had they gone the 3D-conversion route. Using the same math as above, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows would be not at $137 million but at $154 million at this point, or almost identical to the first film's $165 million respective 17-day total. This is not to say that studios were wrong not to pressure certain filmmakers to go the 3D route, but merely to show that it is unfortunately a clear case of sacrificing tens-of-millions of dollars each time out.

As 2012 marches onward, we are seeing a clear push/pull when it comes to using/shooting in 3D for would-be blockbusters. As noted here and elsewhere, 3D didn't save Conan the Barbarian from being a massive money loser, nor did it save the still-disastrous Green Lantern. And for that matter, having the best live-action 3D ever won't save Martin Scorsese's Hugo from being a pricey financial stinker (at $140 million, it's at just $57 million worldwide at the moment). For films that were already going to be smash hits, 3D was merely a cheap way for studios to boost box office comfortable in the knowledge that the protesting fans would be first in line to pre-order their tickets anyway. And come March 9th, 3D damn-sure will not save Disney from what will likely be a domestic disaster with the $300 million John Carter, although overseas numbers may help avoid total catastrophe. Marvel is damn-sure going to release The Avengers in 3D, because it needs every dime humanly possible to justify its ambitious-but-risky investment ($175 million would be disappointing, let alone the $155 million gross of The Incredible Hulk). Men In Black 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man will surely be 3D, because (let's be honest), these are both among the more cynical cash-grabs in recent tentpole-dom (Sony's decision to start charging theaters for Real-D glasses is a possible game-changer, but we'll see what happens in May). Star Trek 2: Is There Anyway We Can Make This Cheaper Than the First One? will go out 3D because Paramount spent too-damn much money on the first film in pursuit of international box office that never materialized, with no guarantee that the second film will 'pull a Dark Knight'. Pretty much every animated feature from here-on-out will be 3D because the dreaded 'conversation quality' issue is all-but irrelevant when it comes to animation.

The Dark Knight Rises will go out as 2D and IMAX because Chris Nolan has more power than the ghost of Jack Warner over at the Dream Factory (likewise, whether or not Zack Snyder's Superman: Man of Steel goes out as 3D will be up to Nolan). IMAX will continue to grow in popularity, but the arguably superior medium will remain somewhat niche-ish until the amount of theaters expands. The films that have already been planned for 3D, such as The Hobbit parts I and II will continue as such (since they are already filming it in 3D anyway). But from here on out, expect to see a few constants. Smaller, sure-to-be-flops anyway films will use the 3D conversion as a desperate 'get as much cash as we can' money grab, while the studios constantly debate on doing 'all 3D, all the time!'. Because, as conversions get cheaper (and arguably better), the appeal of adding $10 million to your budget for the ability to charge 30-40% more per ticket on 40-60% of your admissions is almost free money. If Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and/or Titanic hit it big in 3D, we may see a world where the primary use for 3D is animated films and retrofitting the re-release of modern classics (Lord of the Rings, Grease, Top Gun, Jurassic Park, The Princess Bride, Independence Day, etc), which is also 'free money'.

Point being, 3D is here to stay, not because it is artistically preferred or even because it's increasing in popularity, but because it exists as a cheap way to increase profits on new films and create a new demand for older pictures. So yes, 3D is here to stay, truly for better or for worse.

Scott Mendelson

Everytime I see a link to a Men In Black 3 behind-the-scenes story, I think I'm about to see this...

2012-01-03T14:01:00.000-08:00

"We're leaving!"

Scott Mendelson

The 2011 movie year in box office trends part I: Sequels drop domestically, but soar internationally.

2012-01-03T11:52:00.000-08:00

Sequels grossed less here, but much more over there!

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, with a few exceptions, it was generally a foregone conclusion that sequels would cost more than the originals but gross a bit less. Normal were sequels like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom ($184 million versus $242 million for Raiders of the Lost Ark) or Batman Returns ($162 million vs. $251 million for Batman). Yes, you occasionally had a break-out franchise like Lethal Weapon ($65 million for Lethal Weapon, $147 million for Lethal Weapon 2), but the franchise growth pattern was generally closer to the likes of Beverly Hills Cop or Gremlins. But sometime around 2001, starting with The Mummy Returns ($202 million versus $155 million for The Mummy) and Rush Hour 2 ($226m/$141m), we started a ten-year trend of sequels generally out-grossing their predecessors domestically. You could argue the first big example was Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, which out-grossed its predecessor in just its opening weekend in June 1999, but the general rule quickly became that a well-marketed sequel to a popular original could be expected to out-gross its immediate predecessor in America.

We saw all three Lord of the Rings films, the first three X-Men films, and the first three Bourne pictures step up the domestic gross of their predecessors and The Matrix Reloaded crush the domestic gross of The Matrix. We saw the second Pirates of the Caribbean film set a new opening weekend record while clobbering the first film's hefty domestic ($423m/$305m), while Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen did the same ($402m/$319m). It wasn't always a foregone conclusion, as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone remained the series high mark until the eighth and final chapter, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones failed to come anywhere near The Phantom Menace, and each Spider-Man picture made less domestically than the last. But the idea that a sequel could capitalize on the success of the original in a major way, that it could 'pull a Dark Knight' became the standard way of thinking.

But this year that all came to a screeching halt. With the exception of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II, which earned a series high domestically ($381 million) and worldwide ($1.3 billion), the big sequels generally grossed less in America than their respective predecessors while far outpacing the earlier films overseas. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides earned 'just' $241 million, which would have been a genuine flop on a $250 million budget had it followed suit overseas. But the film ended up with $1 billion worldwide, so we are sure to see Pirates of the Caribbean: Voyage of the Bored. Transformers: Dark of the Moon may have been the best of the series and a watershed moment in quality live-action 3D, but it still grossed $50 million less than the reviled Revenge of the Fallen. Third films not quite equaling the grosses of their first sequels is not that unusual, as fans of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End or The Matrix Revolutions can tell you (don't say "Ha ha, what fans?" unless you're trying to pick a fight). But Transformers: Dark of the Moon, like Harry Potter 7.2 and Pirates of the Caribbean 4, got a real 3D-bump worldwide where it ended up with $1.12 billion and became the fourth-biggest grossing film of all-time. Cars 2, Kung Fu Panda 2, Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I, X-Men: First Class, Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked, The Hangover part II, and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows all somewhat under-performed compared to their predecessors, and almost all of them did or will surpass their worldwide totals of the prior entries due to muscular overseas figures.

None of these films are flops, far from it. Let me repeat that, all of these films are solid hits if not outright smashes thanks to strong overseas numbers and generally reasonable budgeting (more on that in a later piece). But it may signal an end to the era where a sequel capitalizes on 2-3 years of pent-up anticipation to explode out of the gate. The two exceptions to the rule, sequels that far out-grossed their immediate predecessors if not the entire respective franchises, Fast Five and Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol, were arguably the two entries that markedly improved on their long-running franchises (they were also, natch, breaths of fresh air in regards to real stunt-work and practical effects). Meaning, at least in America, if you want to improve at the box office, you have to hope you can improve on the quality scale as well.

So if The Dark Knight Rises 'only' makes $450 million this summer or Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part II 'only' grosses $260 million next November, don't be too surprised (although both have the 'series finale' cachet that won't hurt in the least). But those working out the budget details for the likes of Iron Man 3, Thor 2, and Star Trek 2: We Really Don't Want to Make This But Paramount Is Offering SO MUCH Money should take heed. Just because they loved you once doesn't mean they will always love you just as much the second or third time around.

Scott Mendelson

2011 year-end wrap-up parts I-VI, all in one spot!

2012-01-02T15:45:00.000-08:00

For those who don't want to hunt for lists, here is a handy one-stop shopping place for my six 2011 year-end wrap-up lists. I saw over 200 films this year and ended up writing about 70 of them. I may do a piece tomorrow about the various box office trends of the year, but for those who want just the movies, be they good, bad, or ugly, this is the place to go. So without further ado, here you go...

The Underrated films of 2011

The Overrated films of 2011

The Good films you Missed of 2011

The Worst films of 2011

The Runner-Ups of 2011

The "Best" films of 2011

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (01/01/12): Strong holdovers close out 2011 movie year.

2012-01-01T14:06:00.000-08:00

As is often the case, the last weekend of the year is basically a repeat of last weekend, both in general ranking and numbers, as the holiday weekend tends to keep drops low, if often absent. Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol led the pack of major Christmas and holiday releases that actually went up from last weekend. The Brad Bird spy thriller earned $31 million over Fri-Sun, with an eye towards a likely $40 million four-day holiday weekend. At the end of its third weekend, the first of which was IMAX-exclusive, the crowd-pleasing Tom Cruise vehicle will have grossed $140 million by Monday, which means it has already outgrossed the $134 million-grossing Mission: Impossible III. Overseas, the sequel is doing even bigger business, with a worldwide total of $324 million as we close out 2011. The $215 million gross of John Woo's Mission: Impossible II is likely out of reach, but surpassing the $181 million gross from Brian DePalma's Mission: Impossible is not only possible but plausible. Worldwide, the film is shaping up to be $600 million earner, the respective totals, speculative as they may be now, would make this film Tom Cruise's third-biggest domestic grosser and his biggest worldwide earner ever. MI4 already ranks ninth on both lists.

Coming it at a strong second place was Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Both it and Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked debuted below expectations two weeks ago, but both have used the holiday season to pick up lost ground, proving again that the last two weeks of the year are great for leggy runs. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows grossed $22 million, for a new total of $132 million. Combined with Monday's grosses, that should put the second Sherlock Holmes picture exactly where the first was at the end of its New Year's weekend, albeit with an extra seven days to get there. Point being, if the film can avoid complete collapse in the mostly barren January (and said mediocre January slate will boost every single film discussed here today), it may get closer to the $209 million domestic total of Sherlock Holmes than anyone thought possible two weeks ago. Alvin and the Chipmunks 3 earned $18 million for the weekend, giving it $94 million with the strong possibility of crossing the $100 million mark on Monday or Tuesday. The third Chipmunk film still lags behind the first two by $40-50 million ($, but a $150 million total would be nothing to be ashamed about, especially with the infamous Fox overseas machine (Alvin 3 has already made $79 million overseas).

In genuinely positive news, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo held onto those adult viewers with a solid $16 million second weekend, and it will end the long holiday with about $60 million. The David Fincher film will still struggle to get to $100 million, but that just means that the film shouldn't have cost $90 million in the first place. Whatever my issues with the picture, the industry desperately needs R-rated adult franchises. So I'm still rooting for the film to turn a profit, which it will need strong overseas business to do. War Horse also earned $16 million in weekend two, although it was somewhat of a comedown considering it earned $15 million in its first two days over the last two days of the Christmas weekend. The Steven Spielberg Oscar-bait drama has now grossed $42 million. That's not a huge number, but the film only cost $70 million to make (Spielberg knows how to stretch the dollar better than anyone outside of Clint Eastwood), meaning a strong European showing is all that's needed to make the film profitable. If it gets Oscar love, then $100 million domestic is pretty assured, so it's just a question of hanging on until the end of January.

The other Spielberg film, The Adventures of Tintin, showed even stronger legs. Ah, Christmas, the time when a film can score a $2.3 million opening day and still end up with around $50 million by the end of its second weekend! Regardless, the US market was just gravy for this one, as it's nearing $300 million worldwide. Showing even more surprising strength is the Cameron Crowe family drama We Bought A Zoo. Produced for $50 million, the Matt Damon film had a $9 million weekend over Christmas and rose 52% to $14 million this time. The film now has $41 million domestic. Since it's a Fox film, it will likely do about $350 million overseas (I jest, but only slightly). This closes out a pretty terrific year for Matt Damon. He has of late been inconsistent outside the Bourne franchise, but in just over twelve months, he's had True Grit ($171 million), The Adjustment Bureau ($62 million), Contagion ($75 million), and now We Bought a Zoo which should gross at least $65 million before it's done. Yes, he has a voice on Happy Feat 2 ($60 million domestic against a $135 million budget) and a cameo in Margaret ($46,495), but we won't hold that against him. As for Cameron Crowe, We Bought a Zoo is now easily the third-highest grosser of his career, behind his Tom Cruise films Vanilla Sky ($100 million) and Jerry Maguire ($153 million). Oh, and Puss In Boots crossed $145 million domestic and $400 million worldwide. The Darkest Hour is struggling to make $25 million domestic, but it's $13 million cume has nearly been equaled overseas ($8 million), meaning that Summit's would-be tax write-off may accidentally make a profit next quarter. And The Muppets squeaked past the $80 million mark to close out the year, but the front-loaded performance of the film, as well as still-unknown overseas play-ability and merchandise sales leaves the franchise in doubt.

In limited release debuts, three female-centered films were opened all against each other right at the end of the year. The Meryl Streep vehicle, The Iron Lady (where she plays Margaret Thatcher) debuted with a huge $55,000 per-screen in four theaters. A Separation and Pariah cannibalized each other, earning just $22,200 and $12,000 per-screen respectively in their 3-4 screen debuts. In other Oscar bait news, The Descendants will cross $40 million tomorrow. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is holding on strong is limited engagement with a $4 million total, far eclipsing Shame ($2 million as of tomorrow). Young Adult may be somewhat disappointing, but it's already equaled its $12 million budget and could get a real boost if Charlize Theron scores the Oscar nomination that she damn-well ought to. Hugo, at a cost of $140 million, may never make its money back, but it at least can say that it crossed the $50 million mark as of tomorrow. The Artist may be the presumptive Best Picture favorite at the moment, but at some point it has to start actually attracting audiences, as its $5.6 million total isn't going to cut it come late-February. The Hurt Locker ($12 million) was a fluke for a reason, riding the critical passion all year long and then turning the post-nomination parade into a grotesque girls vs. boys contest with Katherine Bigelow cast as the damsel in distress against her mean, evil, Oscar-stealing ex-husband James Cameron. The Artist has no such absurd narrative this time around.

That's it for this weekend, and this year. Join us next weekend (maybe... I may have to miss the first couple weekends due to other responsibilities) as Paramount releases the first of its slate of 'micro-budget' horror films with The Devil Inside.

Scott Mendelson

When it comes to girls' toys, it's not 'pink vs blue'. It's 'pink vs normal'.

2011-12-31T09:00:00.000-08:00

The problem isn't just that 'boys stuff is always blue and girls' stuff is always pink'. Because, as anyone who has walked through a toy store knows, that's not actually the case. When you go to buy Legos or board games or the like, you generally have two choices. You have the regular version of a given toy with whatever colors the creators decided to use and then you have the 'pink version' of that same toy. This is actually far more troubling than merely offering a 'boy-friendly' version and a 'girl-friendly' version of these otherwise mainstream toys. And, slight digression, this only happens with stereotypically 'boy friendly' products. You don't see blue-tinted variations on make-up kits or doll sets, which in turn hurts younger boys who might want to play with dolls (that's a whole different essay). You have the 'normal' version vs. the 'girl version'. What this obviously tells girls (and parents, natch) is that it is 'not normal' for them to want to play with Legos, doctor kits, tool-sets, or seemingly mainstream board games. No, that's not how 'it's always been' done. And while that may currently be 'normal', it sure as hell isn't right.

Scott Mendelson

2011 year-end wrap-up part VI: The 'Best' films of the year.

2011-12-30T10:19:00.000-08:00

Here is the sixth (and probably final) essay detailing the year in film. This time, it's the best of the best. Of course 'best' is a subjective term, so you might want to consider these my 'favorites'. Despite what everyone likes to whine about at the end of every year, 2011 was in fact one of the better years in a good long time. Maybe it was the effects of the 2007 WGA strike wearing off, maybe it was just dumb luck, but on the whole, movies, especially mainstream movies, were pretty on-spot more often than they weren't. But just as important, most of the year-end Oscar bait was actually quite good, so this is a year where I don't have to half-heartedly apologize for having a list filled with movies nobody saw and mainstream pictures that no one admits to liking. Even if it took 1/3 of the year to really get cooking, 2011 was an uncommonly solid year for all forms of cinematic entertainment. And of course, there are at least a few films that might have made the cut if they hadn't come out so close to the end of the year (mainly A Separation, Shame, and Pariah). But they merely become contenders for the 2012 Black Book award (IE - great films that you saw too late to include in your best-of list, named after Paul Verhoeven's fantastic 2006 World War II thriller that I saw in mid-2007). And thus, without further ado, here are the very 'best' films of 2011. As always, the list will be alphabetical order, with a final paragraph at the end for my very favorite film.

50/50
This was a complete and total surprise, one that I wish I had seen earlier in its release so that I might have been able to give it the proper attention. Unfairly written off as a Judd Apatow-wannabe comedy purely due the appearance of Seth Rogen, this fantastic comedic drama from director Jonathan Levine and writer Will Reiser is a loosely non-fiction telling of Reiser's diagnosis with cancer and how it affected him and those around him. I can't speak to the medical accuracy of every onscreen moment, but the film feels bitterly real and it is never less than emotionally honest. Joseph Gordon Levitt reaffirms that he is one of the better actors of his generation, and he is surrounded by a wonderful supporting cast (Rogen, Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard, Phillip Baker Hall, etc). The picture is relatively restrained, dealing with its subject matter with a morbidly comic touch, which makes the emotional pay-offs all the more powerful. The movie is raw when it needs to be, cynical when it has to be, and just a bit uplifting when it has earned it. It also contains one of the biggest emotional gut-punches of the year, arguably the most moving scene involving a book since Carl found his wife's scrapbook in Up.

A Better Life
This fine and observant drama from Chris Weitz (plus writers Eric Eason and Roger L. Simon) basically plays out like a loose variation on The Bicycle Thief set on the streets of East Los Angeles. It is a character study of a single Mexican day-laborer and his attempts to rise up the theoretical economic ladder while keeping his son from straying off course. Demián Bichir delivers one of the best performances by any actor this year. Without getting into the politics of legal and illegal immigration, this is a powerful and provocative little drama that has justifiably stayed with critics since its release in May.

Bridesmaids (review)
First let's point out what Paul Feig's Bridesmaids is not. It's not "Hangover for girls". Despite it's single (one/01) moment of bathroom humor, it is not a gross-out comedy or a raunch-fest. It's an uncommonly observant character study of one seemingly normal woman basically staving off a nervous breakdown as she attempts to participate in the wedding of her best friend. Kristen Wiig (who also wrote the screenplay with Mumolo) gives a fantastic lead performance that damn-sure should result in an Oscar nomination, as she anchors the film and keeps it from descending into farce. Melissa McCarthy delivers most of the bawdy punchlines and makes her theoretically clownish supporting character into more than just a caricature. Rose Byrne does subtle work here, presenting a character who is perfect on the outside but has her own set of self-esteem issues that bubble up. And Chris O'Dowd is the best romantic foil of the year, arguably the 'perfect would-be boyfriend' but capable of error and willing to hold a grudge if the reason is just. Regardless of what boundaries it did or did not break, Bridesmaids is the best comedy of the year and a finely tuned portrait of one woman trying to come to terms with her failures.

Captain America: The First Avengers (review)
Inside a needless prologue and a rather terrible epilogue (via studio-mandate) are about 105 minutes of near-super heroic perfection. Joe Johnston's dynamite action-adventure picture finally gives Steve Rogers the cinematic treatment he has long deserved. Chris Evans delivers a genuine portrait of America at its best: unquestionably decent and open-hearted, willing to fight but not itching to kill. It's a bravura star turn that helps make this the best Marvel Studios movie ever and perhaps the best film based on a Marvel character outside of maybe X2: X-Men United. Stanley Tucci does a supporting turn every bit as grounded and sympathetic as Gary Oldman's work in The Dark Knight, while Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, and Hayley Atwell (as the year's coolest 'love interest') deliver top-notch support. Johnston's splendid World War II action picture uses nostalgia in a tricky fashion, making us yearn for a time when America was unquestionably good and an absolute moral authority. With great acting, strong writing, and terrific action, Captain America is a comic book adventure that ennobles the sub-genre. Chris Evans as Steve Roges does more than just save the world from the Red Skull. His most super-powered feat is finally making me excited for The Avengers next summer.

The Descendants (review)
Alaxender Payne returns with a bit of a switch. While most of his films have been dark comedies about seemingly light subjects, this George Clooney vehicle tells a dark and somber story with a light touch. Clooney sinks his teeth into a great role, as a man who finds out that his wife was cheating on him right after she ends up in a life-threatening coma, and Shailene Woodley (already solid on The Secret Life of the American Teenager) becomes a movie star as his resentful but empathetic older daughter. The film gives terrific material to Judy Greer and Matthew Lillard, as it asks whether 'doing the right thing' is really the right thing when it threatens the happiness of others around you. This is just a terrific little drama that hits almost all of the right notes.

Fast Five (review)
The fifth time is inexplicably the charm as this fourth sequel (and third entry from director Justin Lin) in an otherwise unremarkable series blasted off the summer season with uncommonly high style. The stunts are all practical, the locations are gorgeous, and the action sequences are all the more eye-popping for being able to believe your eyes. More importantly, the caper plot actually works, as the 'franchise all-stars' of the previous Fast/Furious pictures all team up to rob a drug kingpin while evading a US Marshall played with pure overacting gusto by Dwayne Johnson. No one will accuse this film of being high art, but the emotional stakes are established just well enough to matter when the action heats up (Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, and Jordanna Brewster sell the material as much as they need to). Unlike so many sequels in long-running sequels, this one doesn't ignore every prior sequel but uses the character histories to add a rich emotional subtext to this fifth film. The events of the prior films are not only referenced this time around, but they actually matter in regards to how the characters act and the choices they make. This is a top-notch action picture and, along with another film on this list, will hopefully mark a return to big-budget action pictures involving mortal Earthbound heroes performing very real acts of daring do right before our very eyes.

Hugo (review)
Keeping in mind that I don't think Scorsese necessarily walks on water, this is probably my favorite Martin Scorsese film since... I dunno... Bringing Out the Dead? Which I suppose is a backwards way of saying I enjoyed Hugo more than The Departed, The Aviator, and Gangs of New York. The first act is slow-going, but Martin Scorsese and writer John Logan's loving plea for film preservation absolutely kills in the last 2/3. This was one of several films about nostalgia, although it differed from the others in that it concerns a once-great artist who wants to forget his former glories because he can't reconcile them with his disappointing present. With fine turns by Asa Butterfield, Chloe Grace Moretz (I can think of no better child actor currently working), Ben Kingsley, and Christopher Lee among others, this enchanting and shattering family adventure film also boasts the finest live-action 3D you are likely to see for a long time.

Margin Call
This film was arguably the Video On Demand success story of the year, and it's easy to see why. It's a great film detailing the last 24 hours before the utter collapse of a Lehman Brothers-type financial firm whose chief qualities - terrific acting and finely-tuned dialogue - play just as well at home as on a big screen. It features a host of wonderful actors (Stanley Tucci, Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Irons, Demi Moore, Paul Bettany, Zachary Quinto, etc) in terrific character turns for a story that has obvious social relevance. Fictionalized as it may be, the film works as a chillingly plausible 'as it happened' account of the bankruptcy that kick-started the current financial crisis. This is simply a terrific drama that is as delicious as it is nutritious.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (review)
Along with Fast Five, this dynamite action thriller may help revive the art of practical magic. Brad Bird's live-action debut may not have much emotional renascence and the script may have a few holes here and there, but it does have unmatched showmanship that takes you back to a time when the very idea of action sequences were magical in and of itself. The sheer quality and imagination of the action sequences on display, the sheer thrill of how real they all seem to be, and the looks of sheer horror on the faces of the actors who have to perform them, reminds us, once again, how wonderful it is when you can believe what you're seeing. Tom Cruise re-establishes himself as a preeminent entertainer, as he jumps, climbs, and runs (and runs and runs!) to remind you why he was once the biggest star on the planet. He may be a little crazy, but damned if he's not absolutely determined to give you your money's worth even if you're paying $20 per IMAX ticket. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is the best action thriller of the year and one of the most purely entertaining movie-going experiences of 2011.

The Muppets (review)
In a weird and surprising way, this would-be exercise in childhood nostalgia operates as a rebuttal to the constant need to revive and relive the entertainment properties of our youth. Oh sure, we still love the Muppets, but must our kids also worship them as we did? The film isn't so sure, and that self-doubt gives the picture an air of pathos behind the surface-pleasure delights. It operates not just as a joyous and hilarious celebration of Kermit, Miss Piggy, and the gang, but also a fond farewell and most-fitting finale (if need be) to these iconic entertainers who never really got that 'one last show'. With James Bobin, Jason Segel, and Nicholas Stoller's celebration of all things Muppet, the film gives us a chance to finally make our peace with Jim Henson's unexpected passing just over 20 years ago. This film is the closest we'll ever get to be able to thank Mr. Henson in person.

Rango (review)
Gore Verbinski's visually dazzling and endlessly inventive ode to film noir and the spaghetti western is unlike any cartoon you've ever seen. Johnny Depp gives his best performance since, I dunno, the first Pirates of the Caribbean film, and you can feel the obvious attention being lavished on this labor of love for all involved. It's basically Chinatown in the old west with anthropomorphic animals, but the construction is so breathlessly exciting and funny that it stands on its own as a wonderfully quirky piece of adult entertainment that is nonetheless appropriate for (most) kids.

Take Shelter
Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain deliver two of the year's very best performances in Jeff Nichol's devastatingly intense slow-burn drama. The film concerns a family man who is suddenly besot by visions telling him to build a giant shelter to protect his family from an oncoming storm, but it's really a powerfully subtle and observant study of mental illness and how economic difficulties can prevent families from dealing with critical problems before they implode. Shannon barely rises above a whisper and is all the more engrossing because of it, while Chastain (in the best of her seven 2011 performances) takes what could have been a stock 'supportive wife' character and invests her with a character arc and poignancy all her own. This is just an awesomely compelling drama that is every bit as intense as the most gripping thriller.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (review)
This terrifically engaging and openly mournful period-piece espionage thriller operates on several levels. It is an acting treat, with a terrific lead performance by Gary Oldman, with several fine supporting turns by Tom Hardy, John Hurt, Kathy Burke, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Mark Strong. It works as a pinpoint precise spy thriller, where even the most rapt viewer will have to use their little grey cells to put the puzzle together along with Mr. Smiley. And, on a darker note, it is a condemnation of a generation that spent their lives protecting and stealing arbitrary pieces of now-irrelevant information, regardless of the collateral damage. Tomas Alfredson's drama uses its period-piece setting to reflect every so poorly on the present.

We Need to Talk About Kevin (review)
Tilda Swinton gives one of her very best performance in this horrifying and haunting drama about the pain caused when your own child doesn't love you. This devastating picture can be read on multiple levels, depending on whether you choose to take the climactic events at face value or as some kind of righteously-indignant fantasy that justifies a mother's inexplicable inability to connect with her own offspring. However you read it, it is a painfully intense and gripping film that will leave you scarred.

Young Adult (review)
This partially inspired an essay about how audiences judge complex and potentially unsympathetic female characters differently than their male counterparts, and the film's box office failure and likely Oscar shutout more-or-less proved me correct. Jason Reitman directs from the best script of Diablo Cody's short career, crafting a dark and uncommonly sympathetic portrayal of the kind of person who would have been the stock villain in a more conventional 'chick flick'. Charlize Theron turns in another great leading turn as a genuine female anti-hero in the kind of complex character drama usually reserved for the Paul Giamattis and Phillip Seymour Hoffmans of the world. Like so many other films this year, it is a commentary on nostalgia, as its embittered lead returns to her home town to try to recapture her glory days of high school by stealing back her old boyfriend. Cody, Reitman and the team never justify Mavis's actions, nor do those actions exist in a vacuum. It is a sometimes painful but always funny and authentic little slice of life that also features exceptional supporting work from Patton Oswalt. Like Bridesmaids, it may count as some kind of 'progress', but it stands first as a terrific film on its own merits.

And now, at last, my absolute favorite film of 2011...

Kung Fu Panda 2 (review)
On the surface, this unexpectedly terrific sequel is a dynamic action film, a riotously low-key comedy, and a rare sequel that respects the journeys its characters took in the previous film and expands upon their world rather than replaying the first adventure. On a purely visual level, the film is an absolute treasure trove of gorgeous sights of 'old-world' China that reminds us just how much visual splendor we take for granted in modern animated films. But beyond the pitch-perfect action, witty and moving character beats, and eye-candy on display is a somber and reflective tale of, ironically enough, letting go of the past. In a year when so many films good and bad are dealing with characters who are stuck in the past, Kung Fu Panda 2 is about accepting and letting go of the scars of the past. Written by Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger and directed by Jennifer Yuh Nelson, this moving character journey pits Jack Black's Po against a Gary Oldman's tortured peacock Shen who continues to do evil because he can't confront the initial horrors that he committed as a child.

The film unblinkingly deals with heavy issues in a way that's taken for granted at Pixar, and it tells a terribly sad story in a surprisingly lively fashion, with minimum onscreen bloodshed. There are moments of unexpected emotional power and unexpected grace, as characters (like Dustin Hoffman's wise but dryly sarcastic teacher and James Hong's endlessly loving father) we have only begun to know become characters we have grown to love. This is the second film in what is supposed to be a six part saga. Seeing how well the universe is expanded and developed, and seeing exactly where the series plans to go from here (the cliffhanger is a stunning good news/bad news twist), this is the one ongoing franchise that I desperately want to see be continued until its natural end. For being a near-perfect sequel and a near-perfect film, for giving me a new franchise to become truly excited about as Harry Potter and Batman end or head toward their finale, for being the most unexpectedly satisfying cinematic experience of the year, Kung Fu Panda 2 is my favorite film of 2011.

And that's a wrap on the whole 'year in movies' lists. I may do one more if time allows discussing the various trends both good and bad. But if time does not allow, here ends the year that is 2011. Overall, it was the best year in cinema for at least as long as I've been writing, highlighted by a resurgence in the adult-focused, star-driven, mid-budget genre picture. Anyway, share your thoughts below. For the prior year-end wrap-up lists, go here, here, here, here, and here. Happy New Year to everyone!

Scott Mendelson

2011 year-end wrap-up part V: The Runner-Ups

2011-12-29T11:13:00.000-08:00

This is the fifth of several year-end essays detailing the year in film. I'm cheating quite a bit here, as I originally did not plan on writing a 'runner-up' list. But, upon reflection, I realized that I had ten films that were really quite good but nonetheless didn't make my absolute best-of list. One could argue that writing about more films possibly dilutes the impact of the eventual 'best-of' list, but at the end of the day, I saw a lot of really good movies this year, and I see no reason not to celebrate as many of them as I can get away with. So now, in alphabetical order, the ten 'runner-ups' of the year. And yes, I'm stealing three of these from the earlier 'good films you missed' list, because I damn-well would have reserved them for a runner-up list if I knew I was going to have time to write one. In their place I added one (Winnie the Pooh) that didn't get its proper glory.

Cedar Rapids
This was among my favorite films of the year for the first half of 2011, so it's a testament to how strong the rest of the year was that this didn't quite make the final cut. Regardless, this wonderfully charming, witty, and openly moral character comedy absolutely merits discovery. Ed Helms gives a terrific star turn as an isolated country bumpkin, so entrenched in his small corner of small-town USA that a trip to Cedar Rapids, Iowa feels like a bender in Las Vegas. Director Miguel Arteta and writer Phil Johnston's surprisingly warm comedy never goes for the crass joke and never allows its characters to go over-the-top. Anne Heche is allowed a three-dimensionality somewhat rare in female supporting characters. Even John C. Reilly, as the token goofball, is allowed moments of humanity and genuine pathos.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II (review)

I can only imagine how much better this series finale would have played for me had I not read the books. If I had not seen the major emotional beats coming, had I not been expecting certain major deaths, had I not missed the major portions from the book that were not included in the film, would I have loved it as much as I expected it to? I cannot say, but I will say that the film improved on a second viewing, that the awful 3D hurt the theatrical experience, and that most of my carping revolves around not what is in the film but what is not. Judging purely by what is in the film, it is a splendidly emotional and sprawling finale, with a massive battle that never becomes bigger than the personal stakes of our main characters and major beats for nearly every minor supporting character. Alan Rickman gets one of the finest scenes of his career, in a performance that in a more 'prestigious' picture would make him an Oscar front-runner. It may not be the best Harry Potter film in the series, and it may not quite have achieved the levels of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, but by any rational standard, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II is a wonderful and powerful piece of fantastical fiction.

The Lincoln Lawyer (review)
I've talked here and there about how 2011 was a great year for mid-budget adult-centric genre fare, and this top-notch legal thriller was a shining example. Matthew McConaughey delivers a wonderful star turn in this old-fashioned, star-filled legal thriller that was so good and so successful that it spawned a sequel and a television series. Yes, the film tips its hand a bit too early, but what fun it was watching actors like Marissa Tomei, William H. Macy, Michael Pena, and a number of others digging their teeth into this genre material. It's perhaps 'merely' a pulpy legal thriller, but by god it's an awfully good one.

Martha Marcy May Marlene
This is the awkward part when I explain why a film that made a number of 'best-of' lists only ends up on my 'runner ups' list. The answer is simply that it was merely a really good movie, if not quite a great one. The lead performance by Elizabeth Olsen is being justifiably heralded, and John Hawkes shines yet again. If the 'cult' material felt a little old-hat for a viewer that has actually seen a number of television movies about the subject, the sheer artistry and moody craftsmanship on display makes up for it. This isn't the first film to deal with a young woman escaping from a religious cult. But it is one of the best.

Moneyball (review)
Anchored by strong turns from Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, this terrifically engaging and low-key drama is at its best when it focuses on Billy Beane's single-minded quest to use statistics in a relatively new way in order to craft a winning ball club. It only falters when it includes moments of his family life in what felt like a pandering attempt to make him 'relatable' to audiences who aren't sports junkies. But when it keeps its eye on the ball, it's a fine and thoughtful light drama that never inflates its importance or the importance of the story it's telling.

Puss In Boots (review)
This film is the kind of movie that made me want to do a 'runner-up' list. It's not even the best Dreamworks cartoon of the year, but its unexpected quality makes me incredibly excited about the future of Dreamworks Animation. What would have been a quick cash-in spin-off is a gloriously exciting, exceptionally witty, and often just-plain weird fairy-tale adventure that is absolutely beautiful to look at. It's a film by and arguably for cat lovers, and it's the first movie that my four-year old daughter absolutely loved. It may have been motivated by commerce, but it's absolutely a work of art.

War Horse (review)
This one gets better the longer it lingers in my mind. Yes, I'm not a big horse junkie and I can't say I was all that teary eyed during the moments of horse drama. But hidden beneath this 'boy and his horse' fable is a brutally unflinching look at the madness and carnage that was World War I, delivered in a brutally violent but bloodless fashion that makes it not only a pretty great movie, but an educational one as well. Spielberg may been knocked for the melodrama, but he also deserves credit for the horrifying and somber moments as well, and the fact that this works as a true anti-war picture if only by virtue of refusing to explain or justify why so many young men (and horses) were sent off to die. That a film as good as War Horse ranks in the upper-middle of Spielberg's filmography is a sign of how impressive his nearly-40 year run has been. And he's not anywhere close to finished.

Warrior (review)

This terrifically acted and thoughtfully written family drama is one of the best 'underdog sports' movies ever made. Yes, Nick Nolte deserves an Oscar nomination and yes Tom Hardy is ferociously compelling as one of two brothers who hash out years of family bitterness in the lead-up to a MMA tournament, but the rest of the package is superb as well. The characters, every single one of them, feel absolutely human and three-dimensional, and seemingly stock characters like Joel Edgerton's sympathetic wife (Jennifer Morrison) and a sympathetic school principal (Kevin Dunn) are given intelligence and opinions of their own that makes the film feel that much more real. As odd as it may be to praise a film like Warrior for its dialogue, the sheer quality of the conversations that take place in this film (where adults discuss their problems and their feelings like adults) is what makes it more than just a well-acted TappOut movie.

Win/Win
Paul Giamatti shines in this thoughtful little drama about a struggling lawyer who commits a genuine wrongdoing in order to keep his business afloat and his family in the dark about his financial problems. The plot thickens when the old man he has agreed to become a guardian for (Burt Young) is visited by his seemingly homeless nephew and the young man ends up taking up residence with the family. Amy Ryan and Alex Shaffer deliver solid supporting turns in this pretty terrific movie that, yet again, probably deserved a wide release.

X-Men: First Class (review)
This is one of the best comic book films ever made, and a sterling comeback effort for the maligned X-Men franchise. Using the prequel format as a way to play around with continuity, Matthew Vaugn and Jane Goldman fashion this 60s-set drama as a old-school 007 caper, with Kevin Bacon threatening the world with nuclear armageddon using the classic 'pit two countries against each other and clean up the mess' scheme that suddenly came back into fashion this year. Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are dynamite leads as the young Magneto and Professor X, respectively, and the emphasis of character over action makes this a gloriously engaging and often intelligent piece of pop entertainment. So why is it only on the 'runner up' list? Alas, a second viewing highlighted the seams of a rushed-production and the exclusion of any gender/race commentary in this 1960s fable was even more glaring the second time around. It's still a terrific movie, but there is obvious room for improvement the next time around and there is another comic book adventure that I enjoyed even more this year.

Okay, no more stalling. The next list will absolutely be the best-of 2011 list. As always, share your comments below.

Scott Mendelson