Mendelson's Memos

Scott Mendelson goes to Forbes! A word about the future...

2013-04-08T06:22:00.000-07:00

I was going to write this on Thursday, but then Roger Ebert died and I just didn't have it in me. So I apologize to those who follow this blog but not my social media outlets and have no idea where I've been since Thursday. Long-story short, I have been hired to write about box office and marketing for Forbes. It's not a king's ransom, but it's a token amount of extra money to do what I've been doing purely for fun for five years going. The "bad" news is two-fold. First of all, the pieces that go on Forbes are exclusive to Forbes for five days, so if you're wondering where my weekend box office column is, it's right here. Now certain pieces, like the first two I wrote for the site, aren't quite as time-sensitive and thus can be republished here in a week's time. For those who don't want to go to Forbes to read my work (although I wish you would, since I get extra commission based on traffic), I will do my best to republish the work here in good time. The other "bad" news is that this means that I will be altering my focus just a bit.

Yes I will do the financial/inside baseball pieces that I've always done. And yes I'll still do early film reviews, even if I happen to add a footnote regarding potential box office and what-not. But there will be less time for some of the kind of stuff I'd otherwise like to write, such as the 'films I love more than anyone else' series, or the essays purely focusing on film as it relates to social issues. Point being, if I only have a limited amount of time to write, it behooves me to write the kind of stuff that I'm being paid for. I've put five years into this site, with nearly 2,700 pieces to show for it, so I'm not quite willing to just ditch the site entirely. As I'm sure you noticed, Brandon Peter struck out on his own last week because if worst comes to worst, I didn't want him hanging around a dilapidated shack.

For the moment, I will be writing material on Forbes and then, if it's not uber-timely, re-posting it here about a week later. I will likely be linking to articles I write there here that are uber-timely, such as box office write-ups and pre-release film reviews. This is a new and exciting development, but I also don't know and can't predict what will happen to this site in the long term. I want to keep it alive, if only because so many of you have helped keep it alive for so many years. But for the moment, the best thing you can do is go to my Forbes page and "follow" me. And of course, you can read the pieces I've already published and share them as you would the stuff that originates here. Mendelson's Memos will still survive in some form or another. But for now, hang in there as I figure out what that form happens to be.

My pieces thus far:

Weekend Box Office (04-07-13)...
On the normalization of the $1 billion blockbuster...
The box office legacy of Jurassic Park 20 years later...

And with that, I keep moving forward. I hope you will too...

Scott Mendelson

Roger Ebert has died. But cinema is more alive than ever...

2013-04-04T13:54:00.001-07:00

If the film critic has any kind of noble purpose, it is to shine a light on the good and the unexpectedly great in film. No one gets into film criticism because they hate movies. We got into this because we love the cinema and we love the singular experience of watching great movies. If we have any kind of noble goal, it is to highlight what we love, even if its a minority opinion and even if it opens us up to ridicule from our peers. If we have a social good, it is in highlighting the great movies that may have slipped under the radar. It is in highlighting the little-seen independent film that desperately needs the publicity to stand out alongside its peers. It is also in highlighting the genuine artistry found in mainstream studio pictures, especially in a time when so many film scholars are all-too willing to write off every would-be 'big movie' and thus declare that cinema is dead. Cinema is not dead. Cinema is as alive as it's ever been.

Thanks to DVD, consumers can now watch films in their original aspect ratio and with subtitles to boot. Thanks to Netflix the smallest art film and most obscure documentary has just as much of a chance of being discovered on your home page as the biggest blockbuster. Thanks to Video On Demand, the smaller films that no longer find themselves being booked in the best theaters can now be viewed in the comfort of your own home in a high quality presentation for only the cost of a single movie ticket. Thanks to revolutions in film making techniques and technology, nearly anyone *can* make a movie if they so choose, and we are meeting new and exciting film making talents each and every day. Thanks to the Internet, film lovers from all over the world can converse with the click of a mouse on any number of social media platforms. Thanks to the Internet, an entire generation of film critics have sprung up from the multiplexes, which makes it all the more likely that one of them will discover a gem that otherwise would have gone unnoticed.

It is not a perfect system. Too many would-be seemingly mainstream films are consigned to the art house because too many blockbusters (good and bad) take up too many of those multiplex screens with their 2D, 3D, and/or IMAX formats. The industry is still overwhelmingly dominated by white males and the critical masses still give their stories more critical respect than those made by and/or intended for female and/or minority audiences. Film criticism is on the brink of falling into a bottomless pit of irony and snark, where how badly you trash a film or how ironically distant you can be is considered more of a virtue than being willing to unabashedly love a film so much that it hurts. The ability to turn a phrase in criticism is not without value, but what value is our profession if we merely exist to point out how everything is terrible? But we can recover from this and we can do so quite easily.

We can highlight not just the films we love over the films we hate, but we can highlight the film writing we admire, film criticism that highlights the good and the great, the underrated or undervalued, as opposed to YouTube videos that bank purely on snark. We can walk into that theater expecting every would-be blockbuster be as good as every would-be Oscar-bait picture and we can give the 'big movies' the same under-the-hood analysis we would offer for a film we expected to be great. We can spend our time writing about the movies we love over the movies we hate. We can point out what is good about the movies that are mostly bad. We can defend the films and the filmmakers who have been unfairly maligned in the media. We can not just write our own work but share the work of those whose work deserves notice. Obviously many of us already do this and many of us occasionally stumble along the way. But when we stumble we (sorry...) keep moving forward and do better next time.

Roger Ebert has died, but the art form he loved is very much alive. We honor him not so much by remembering his reviews of North but rather his and Gene Siskel's raves for Do The Right Thing during a time when pundits were sure that Spike Lee's drama would cause race riots. We honor him by remembering his essays and his and Gene Siskel's relentless championing of Hoop Dreams. We honor him by remembering what films and what filmmakers we never would have discovered at a young age had Ebert (and yes Siskel) not introduced us to them. I had never heard of Martin Scorsese until I started reading Roger Ebert. Sight-unseen, I presumed that Halloween was just another crappy slasher film until Ebert's four-star review compared it to Psycho. To read his review of Speed is to read a film critic absolutely in love with the very idea of top-quality popcorn cinema. We all have our favorites and we all have our disagreements. It's no secret that I felt that Ebert had become spoiler-happy in the last several years, and that he much preferred his essays to his film reviews. But his mark on film criticism is unmatched by anyone before or since.

To paraphrase a film I didn't like as much as he did, Roger Ebert was an inspiration to all of us who loved movies and all of those who loved writing about movies. It will be a very long time before someone... inspires us the way he did. In his honor, I will link to a new movie review site that has greatly impressed me, one that deserves the plaudits that will surely come its way over time (Movie Mezzanine). In his honor, I will plug the wonderful work and wonderful writers found at Why So Blu, because I have so much damn fun whenever I participate in their podcasts and commentaries. In his honor, I will also link to the brand new, fresh-off-the-blog website of Brandon Peters, finally ready to strike it out on his own after nearly a year of impeccable work on this very site. In his honor I will watch one of my fa... no. In his honor, I'll let my wife pick one of her favorite movies. So if I end up watching Grease 2, Batman & Robin, or White Chicks tonight, it's your fault Roger. The balcony remains open, as it always shall. Goodbye, Rog. And thanks for everything.

Scott Mendelson

Scott Mendelson: On seeing Jurassic Park 20 years ago...

2013-04-04T06:30:00.000-07:00

I'll make this simple. My first theatrical viewing of Jurassic Park remains, without question, the best theatrical movie going experience of my life. It encapsulated pretty much everything good about the theatrical experience, including any number of elements that are perhaps non-replicable in today's film culture. The viewing was an unexpected advance-night screening, back before every movie opened on Thursday at 12:00 am, if not 10:00 pm or earlier. Jurassic Park had a whole slate of advance screenings on Thursday the 10th of June, starting at I believe 8:00 pm. I had presumed I would be seeing it sometime that weekend, but my mother informed me that my dad was coming home from a business trip and he was picking me up in time for a 10:00 pm screening. Obviously excited, I hurriedly rushed to finish the original Michael Crichton novel that I had been blazing through. We got to the theater early enough and the auditorium, as well as the auditoriums around us, were absolutely jammed packed. Everyone was excited to be there, but nobody really knew what they were in for.

You see, you have to remember this was 1993. There was no Internet. There were no published test screenings or embargo-busting reviews. Most reviews for new movies were published in the Friday edition of the local paper. Heck, most reviews even in rags like Entertainment Weekly would appear in the issue dropping on the Friday or Saturday of opening weekend. So as lucky ticket holders for an advance-night showing, we got to see Jurassic Park having absolutely no idea if it would be any good or not. And thanks to a relatively restrained marketing campaign, we also didn't know the major 'money' shots weeks in advance. We didn't know every major plot reveal or character moment via released clips online or the filmmakers discussing who would or would not be in a theoretical Jurassic Park II. If the studios didn't want you to know something about a film back then, you didn't know it. And Universal made sure paying consumers like myself and my dad knew very little about what was about to transpire.

Oh, and those dino effects? Yeah, the marketing kept most of that offscreen too. Nobody, but nobody knew how astonishing Stan Winston's special effects were going to be. That iconic moment 22 minutes into the film when Dr. Grant, Dr. Sattler, and Dr. Malcolm see the brontosaurus for the first time? That moment of jaw-dropping astonishment perfectly set to John Williams's classic theme? Yeah, everyone in the audience felt the exact same way. No one expect the dinosaurs to look *this* real. Also kept under wraps was the sheer quality of the film. Steven Spielberg was coming off of Hook, not exactly his finest hour, and he had somewhat struggled since E.T. nine years earlier. Oh the Indiana Jones films did fine box office-wise (although the meme was still that the second was too mean and the third was too campy), but his venture into serious projects like Empire of the Sun and The Color Purple didn't strike as much of a chord as hoped (although we forget that The Color Purple made nearly $100 million in 1985 and earned several Oscar nominations). Point being, nobody knew if Spielberg still had the goods.

Well yes, Jurassic Park was *that* good, an exciting, funny, and surprisingly scary thrill ride that felt like a perfect merger of the horror of Jaws and the wonderment of E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial. Those who bought into the false meme of Spielberg as a no-harm, no-foul shiny-happy-fluff filmmaker were shocked by how intense and violent the picture was, putting its adult and kid characters directly into harm's way with zero apologies. Did your audience scream when the cup of water started vibrating? Did they shriek during the climactic kitchen chase? My audience went absolutely nuts for the scare right after Laura Dern restored power to the park. "I think Jurassic Park is back online!" The jump scare that followed was so perfectly timed and the audience's reaction so thunderous that most of us missed the fact that Samuel L. Jackson had just been killed offscreen. But more than just a thrill-ride, Jurassic Park remains a thoughtful and compelling adventure movie. And we loved every crowd pleasing minute of it. As my dad and I drove home, we passed my brother and his friends driving elsewhere. My brother asked us how the movie was. My dad merely shouted that "It was awesome!". And it was...

Twenty years later, that screening serves as a perfect encapsulation of why we love movies. It was a major film that absolutely delivered the goods both on the screen and on the page, offering characters just quirky enough ("I wonder if they'll have *that* on the tour...") and dialogue just thoughtful enough ("We spent so much time wondering if we could we never stopped and considered whether we should!") to make it more than just a pure genre exercise. Its quality was a complete and total surprise because the studio had the good sense to let us discover the goods for ourselves. And that 10:00 pm screening is the reason I'm such a junkie for the now somewhat common and almost mundane midnight/advance-night screening, as well as the reason I was so angry by what transpired in Aurora last July. In the two decades that followed, the movies got a lot less surprising. The studios became more and more willing to spoil the fun as a matter of marketing, fully expecting that a film would play itself out by the end of the second month anyway. The once thrilling excitement of seeing a movie just before opening night before a single review had been published gave way to long-lead embargoes that established a film's critical consensus before most critics had seen it, let alone paying audiences.

There has been a lot of talk lately about how the studios have basically turned to outright spoilers as a form of pre-release marketing. 20 years ago, Jurassic Park was a perfect example of keeping it close to the vest. Audiences discovered how good the film was and how wonderful its best parts were all by themselves, allowing true word of mouth to take hold for a now unthinkable year-long theatrical run. It was the last of an era. It was the last film to run that long in any theaters and it was the last blockbuster to truly take advantage of the second-run theatrical play. And while it's not entirely true, Jurassic Park feels like the tipping point from surprise smash to preordained blockbuster (nobody thought it would be as massive of a hit as it was, becoming the highest-grossing film of all-time worldwide for a few years). But it all comes down to a young movie fan thrilled to unexpectedly see a sneak preview of the summer's most anticipated film, sitting in a crowded audience as everyone, son, father, and everyone else around them, thrilled to the onscreen spectacle that was actually every bit as good as they could have possibly hoped. *That* was Jurassic Park.

Scott Mendelson

Guest Review: Evil Dead (2013) is a solid horror remake...

2013-04-03T21:34:00.000-07:00

Evil Dead

2013

92 minutes

Rated R

Evil Dead is a surprisingly faithful yet reimagined retread of the legendary Sam Raimi film that pushes the limits of commercial theatrical wide release horror films. This is a horror film that isn't afraid or ashamed to be one. With a intense, blood-drenched finale that should leave a packed theater cheering, Evil Dead falls on the side of good remakes.

The story of this iteration of Evil Dead surrounds a girl, Mia (Jane Levy), who is being taken out to an old abandoned secluded cabin, once owned by her family, to hopefully detox her current drug problem. Along the way to assist, are 2 of her friends and her brother with his girlfriend. Upon exploring a smell in the basement, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) and David (Shiloh Fernandez) find a ritualistic set of dead cats and the Book of the Dead. After reading some passages, wild things begin to happen to Mia. Should her friends believe the things she says or is it her trying to escape cold turkey detox?

The biggest shock I had with 2013’s Evil Dead was how much it follows beats and directions of the original. The characters, settings, events are all very similar. The film adds a much more weight and depth to them this time around though. There’s a whole other “important film” type story that in the middle of this supernatural disaster that’s going to happen. The characters aren't just “there” this time around. There’s a lot more going on in the way of the choices, actions and decisions made by all of them. Its quite fun and sometimes you’re sitting there and realizing you might be seeing the same thing comes as almost a surprise plot twist. They also play with what you think may happen based on your prior knowledge. It’s a fun little game the Fede Alvarez and company have going on.

Fede Alvarez delivers a film with the look and feel of a Alexandre Aja film. If one had to go blind and guess who directed this movie, I’m guessing he’d be the most popular answer. Alvarez populates this attractive with an abundance of gross real/fun practical effects that the horror genre seems to have been lacking for years. This film has some great work going on, it knows it, and it flaunts it every chance it gets. So many great prosthetics and genuine looking terror floods the film. For someone who loves stuff like that, it was greatly appreciated. There is unfortunately one brief use of noticeably poor CGI, but it’s early on. I’m actually looking forward to seeing the Unrated cut when it hits Blu-Ray. This film will put smiles on horror fans’ faces and keep the hands planted over the eyes of the casual filmgoer.

The actors in this film all appear to have been put through the Bruce Campbell gauntlet. Everybody gets messy, everybody gets beat up. It’s quite impressive. I was notably impressed by Jane Levi and Lou Taylor Pucci. All the actors turn in pretty solid performances for a horror movie. Only one cast member seems to be noticeably subpar, but doesn’t have enough lines to really get a good grasp on that. Jessica Lucas was the only recognizable cast member for me going in.

While I say the film keeps faithful to the original and does keep to the tone, it’s a bit of a different tone. Whereas the deadites in the original took joy in making a living hell for Ash and the others before killing them or possessing them, these deadites seem to be just straight up killing machines. Mia’s deadite is the only one who attempts any real form of communication. The original’s all were discernable and had character, these are all pretty much monotonous one-note beings. They brings the intensity, but in a killing machine type of way, not a “haunt you in your sleep” fashion.

The film’s final act plays for a great amount of suspense driven fun. The film gets loud, the gore hurts and you’re on your tip toes seeing how it will finish. The setting for it is infinitely cool in spectacle and I really couldn’t get over how sweet it looked. But once that’s over and the credits roll, please stay to the end. 90% of my screening had cleared out and missed an absolute money tag at the end.

Fede Alvarez’s Evil Dead delivers an eventful rendition on an original classic. The new Evil Dead gives more depth and takes the story to some new, welcome places. It’s definitely a worthy remake and a nice introduction for younger people to this legendary cult series. This is definitely a movie to see with a packed late night weekend crowd on opening weekend. Even if you’re desensitized to gore, you’ll appreciate the practical work done and squeamish cries from the people sitting in the row behind you. This film isn't ashamed of the genre its in and makes no apologies for it. Believe the chainsaw buzz, this film is bloody fun!

Grade: B+

Follow me on Twitter – www.twitter.com/@btpeters

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos

Brandon Peters ranks the Evil Dead films...

2013-04-03T15:30:00.000-07:00

RANKING THE EVIL DEAD

Well, this is the shortest rankings I’ve done so far. If I did French Connection or John Carter, there could be shorter ones. I really love the Evil Dead franchise. I think it’s a perfect trilogy as is right now. All three films are great on their own level. I’m not against additional films in the series or the remake that’s being done. The remake has a heavy hand from Sam Raimi AND Bruce Campbell, so I trust it. And the fact that they both WANTED to do the remake is encouraging. My only worry is that it’s a good film, but I’m hoping its not overhyped. There’s a lot of crazy praise happening for it. I feel I’m someone pretty well versed in horror/desensitized, so it takes a lot to genuinely scare me. And you got to make your over the top gore count for narrative and character to give it that impact you want from me. I’m excited for it though, I really am.

Now…lets RANK

ARMY OF DARKNESS

This one gets third-place due to pace. While the runtime is right in line with the others, it does feel a bit longer when watching it. There feels like just a bit of extended set up for the big battle. There’s also the feeling that the film is just kinda hanging out. Granted a lot of it is going through the tropes of the series, but some of them may be too similar to warrant going through them again. All that said, this is the most quotable of the series and just a damn fun movie. When watching them close together or in a marathon, this one falls third, but on its own on a random night, its king.

EVIL DEAD II: DEAD BY DAWN

Yes, this is a retread, but it’s done with such a different tone and under different circumstances. Its funny, its scary, its campy, it’s a great party movie (http://www.thecodeiszeek.com/2010/10/evil-dead-drinking-game.html). The film has a tour de force of splatstic horror by Bruce Campbell. Everything up until Bruce meets up with the rest of the cast is absolute GOLD. This is why we love Bruce Campbell.

THE EVIL DEAD (1981)

Yes, I prefer the first one. I’m big on the straight up horror with the insanity played for the uneasy disturbing factor. The scene at the end where everything goes crazy on Ash is the best of its kind since The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). Its just wild, uneasy and has you uncomfortable and on edge. If you couldn’t tell by my passionate piece on it, I kinda am attached to this one. I love low budget films in the horror genre like this. They always seem to turn out far better than the ones a lot of money is thrown at. And most of our “legends” in the genre are of this ilk. But yet, its 2013 and studios still don’t see to know this. Using the super low budget helps to create innovative and creative decision making on set rather than piling on a few more dollars. Its what separates the gifted from the stooge.

Okay…Evil Dead is in the Necronomicons. Always great to revisit this series. I guested on Out Now With Aaron & Abe for a couple commentaries on Evil Dead 1 & 2 if you’re interested in hearing me discuss the series further. (Find them here http://www.hhwlod.com/out-now/blog)

“Join Us” Next Time as I infuse my next retrospective with a buster load of NOS

Follow me on Twitter – www.twitter.com/@btpeters

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos

Brandon Peters's Evil Dead franchise retrospective part V: Drag Me to Hell (2009)

2013-04-03T12:46:00.000-07:00

Brandon Peters has returned! Leading up to the April 5th release date of the new Evil Dead remake, Mr. Peters will be doing his voodoo with the Evil Dead series. He continues with a bonus look at Drag Me To Hell. For those who want my original theatrical review, go HERE. Otherwise, without further ado...

Drag Me To Hell

2009

Director: Sam Raimi

Starring: Alison Lohman, Justin Long, David Paymer, Lorna Raver, Dileep Rao

Rated PG-13 (I watched the Unrated cut)

You tricked me, you black-hearted who-o-o-o-o-ore! You b-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-itch!

~Goat

If you’re question why I covered this film in my EVIL DEAD retrospective series, then you’ve never seen Drag Me To Hell. And if you haven’t seen Drag Me To Hell, stop reading, go out and Netflix or BUY it (it's like $5 at Fry’s). You've been missing out on one of the best horror films of the previous decade.

Welcome back. So yeah, you can see how Drag Me To Hell is a sister film to the Evil Dead series. This film is almost as if the deadites vacationed away from the woods. Jason took Manhattan, what if the deadites went to LA? This film perfectly melds the horror and scares of the original Evil Dead along with the gross outs and laughs of Evil Dead 2/Army of Darkness. We even get the car! What you get in this film is genuine and plot focused jump scares and eerie/suspenseful quiet moments that keep you on your toes along with scenes that make you want to puke and scenes that go over the top and make you laugh. I honestly feel like I went on Double Dare after watching this film. So much, blood, goop, bugs and mud to keep things dirty.

The film has a wonderfully sympathetic protagonist in Christine. Alison Lohman is sent through the ringer in this film. A lot of stunt work, wrestling, getting covered in blood/goop and just getting down and dirty. It’s an insanely physical role. Its very similar to what Bruce Campbell was put through in the Evil Dead series. And this poor girl is put in a difficult situation, makes a difficult choice because she is pressured to and has to pay this ultimate price for it. Raimi does a fantastic job of making us feel for this girl feeling pressure in her life from all sorts of angles not involving curses. The only thing that isn’t a challenge is her boyfriend who is in for the long haul and is dedicated to being there for her no matter her faults/shortcomings. The only problem is she really wants to go out of her way to impress him when we all know she really doesn’t need to.

I feel like every Halloween we need to be talking about Drag Me To Hell. While the evil in the film is heavily similar to the Evil Dead franchise, it's quite a thrilling original horror film that delivers on many levels. My only qualm is that some of the CG is fun, but looks fake (should have gone fully practical). And how is this movie rated PG-13? Man, the things they get away with now... While I watched the Unrated cut, it was the same length as the PG-13 cut…so I don’t know what all was different. Anyhow, see Drag Me To Hell if you haven’t. It's the Evil Dead movie you'd been clamoring for before even this remake came to fruition.

I tried to get my wife to watch this, as she doesn't like horror movie and this would have been extreme for her. I wanted to take joy in her jumps and getting totally grossed out. Cuz, if you can't watch something like this for the first time, its most fun to watch it with someone who is seeing it for the first time.

“Join Us” next time as I rank the EVIL DEAD franchise

Follow me on Twitter – www.twitter.com/@btpeters

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos

R.L. Shaffer: On seeing Jurassic Park 20 years ago...

2013-04-02T12:49:00.000-07:00

This is the second of a handful of essays regarding your first (and second and/or third) viewing of
Jurassic Park twenty summers ago, as we brace ourselves for the film's 3D IMAX rerelease this Friday. I'm sure every single one of my readers has such a memory so feel free to share them in the comments section below.

Memories of Jurassic Park:

By R.L Shaffer

I was a mere 12 years old when I first visited Jurassic Park.

From the very first teaser (seen above) I was hooked. As a self-professed lover of dinosaurs (or dino-sars as Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcolm pronounced it), it would be my duty to see any film about these mysterious creatures. I didn't know what I was going to get, either, but if director Steven Spielberg was going to take me there, I was more than willing to enjoy the ride.

It’s hard for me to think about Jurassic Park without remembering the film’s competition, the underrated action flick, Last Action Hero. For some reason my cousin and I ended up choosing sides as to which film would be the big hit of the summer. I picked Jurassic Park. He picked Last Action Hero. It started innocently, but quickly escalated. And like the HD DVD vs. Blu-ray debate of yor, we endlessly discussed and sometimes even argued our points, right down to which fast food restaurant (commercials below) got the rights to promote which film, and what that meant for the ultimate box office. For the record, Last Action Hero’s promotion sported some nifty cups. I still wish I had one, though I imagine it would be all gross and sticky by now, decaying from years of sugar abuse.

Obviously, we all know how the competition between these films turned out. Last Action Hero opened one week after Jurassic Park and under-performed, tucked deeply under the shadow of Spielberg’s latest hit. Jurassic Park, on the other hand, would quickly become a worldwide box office sensation, adored by children and adults alike, spawning two sequels, a 3D re-release that’s upon us now and a fourth chapter on the way.

I can’t really remember the first time I saw Jurassic Park. It was all a blur. I believe I saw the film with my mother and a few friends. It was the last day of school and my sixth grade class was going to take a day trip to Sea World Ohio. Mother nature, purportedly a fan of Jurassic Park, decided otherwise. A torrential storm broke out, not unlike the one you see in the film, and the trip was quickly cancelled before we even got on the road. The kids were sent home with their parents and my mother took me and a few friends to see Jurassic Park.

The rest is gone.

I can’t remember what the theater looked like, what it smelled like, how full it was or what my reactions were to what I had just seen. All I can remember was my unholy obsession with the film for the rest of the summer. I read Michael Crichton’s book several times. I read movie magazines that focused on the film. I played the games. I read junior novels, activity books, comics - you name it. If there was a Jurassic Park logo on it, I probably had it. I couldn't get enough of the film. I saw it three or four times in the theater that summer, at least, always sharing the experience with new friends.

Alas, my cousin, still bitter over the upset of Last Action Hero, decided to skip out on Jurassic Park. He was a stubborn brute and wasn't going to contribute to that film making any more money. He saw Last Action Hero two or three times instead. A noble effort for a solid early meta action film. But it just wasn't Last Action Hero’s time. That time would come later, as fans (like myself) would discover the film on home video and transform the Schwarzenegger yarn into a bona fide cult hit.

Believe it or not, Jurassic Park actually ran in theaters for two summers. There was the original June 1993 run, and some theaters were still playing the picture the following summer, ahead of it’s early fall 1994 VHS release. Finally, after many attempts, I wore my cousin down and got him to see Jurassic Park during this run.

This was the Jurassic Park experience I truly cherish. It was as if my mind had fogged out the other memories just so I could recall this one, and only this one. It was as if I was meant to experience the film with my cousin. After all, I knew he would love the film. And he did.

We walked in and immediately saw that the theater was empty. We waited for other patrons to arrive, but they never did. It was just us. The film started and the sounds echoed off the walls through the empty theater adding a disturbing chill to every thrilling sequence. I felt like the world had ended and we were the last people on Earth to watch Jurassic Park on the big screen. And what an experience it was!

We initially sat in the center of the theater, for the optimum DTS surround sound experience. After the opening moments of the film, I suggested we make our way down to the first row. We opted to lay on the floor. After all, why not? The place was empty. It was our theater. Our rules, tacky floor be damned. So there we laid, tucked beneath the mammoth silver screen, munching on buttery popcorn and sweet soda while enjoying the frights, fun and science fiction of Jurassic Park.

My cousin was marveled by the film, and almost ashamed he had missed it the summer of 1993. It’s almost ironic that he got to see the film in a similar fashion to how Danny Madigan got to experience Jack Slater IV in Last Action Hero. Alas, no raptors jumped out of the screen, though sitting that close it seemed like they would. And now in 3D, they just might.

Afterward my cousin apologized. It was probably the first argument or debate I recalled winning, but it was a bittersweet victory. Sadly, he has not watched Last Action Hero since theaters. He feels scorned by the film, which is a shame. Today, he is a Jurassic Park man, and he’s looking forward to taking his children to see the film in theaters on April 5th. I can only hope he’ll sit down in the front row and relive those fond memories while creating new ones with his kids.

Brandon Peters's Evil Dead franchise retrospective part IV: Army of Darkness (1992)

2013-04-02T10:21:00.004-07:00

Brandon Peters has returned! Leading up to the April 5th release date of the new Evil Dead remake, Mr. Peters will be doing his voodoo with the Evil Dead series. He continues with a look at Army of Darkness. As only a casual Evil Dead fan, this was an extra-special treat as this isn't a film series that I've memorized by heart. This was as informative for me as I hope it will be for you. So without further ado...

Army of Darkness

1992

Director: Sam Raimi

Starring: Bruce Campbell, Embeth Davidtz, Ian Abercrombie, Marcus Gilbert, Richard Grove…also Bridget Fonda and a line-less Linda, Night of the Living Dead remake’s Patricia Tallman as a deadite and Wedding Singer’s Angela Featherstone as an S-Mart girl

Rated R

Good. Bad. I’m the guy with the gun.

~Ash

With the success of Darkman, Sam Raimi was finally able to bring to life his vision of Ash fighting deadites in medieval times. Originally titled The MediEvil Dead, the film was the first in the series to be backed by a major studio. However, the film is still done on the cheap. Bringing the comedic aspect of Evil Dead 2 to the forefront this time around, Raimi unleashes an insanely fun, quotable film featuring an encore performance by Bruce Campbell and a tribute to the comedy and adventures Sam Raimi enjoyed growing up.

Army of Darkness treats us immediately to another recap. This time it features new footage mixed in with footage from Evil Dead 2. This time around Linda is cameo’d by a young Bridget Fonda, which is pretty fun. We also learn that Ash worked at a department store prior to taking his long weekend vacation to the cabin in the woods (zing). If Army of Darkness 2 actually comes to fruition, I can only hope the tradition of re-shooting and retelling the events of the first film is kept around and had fun with.

The film finally progresses this story far away from the cabin. This doesn't stop it from keeping around the series tropes. A lot of the acts we loved in the first to film are revisited in creative ways here. The mirror is here, the quick cut workshop montage, the crazy breakdown, all present. This time the scare factor is at an all time low. Maybe it’s the setting (I really doubt it), but the horror is played for scenery and monsters. Everything’s a little cartoon/comic book-esque in presentation.

Replacing a lot of the horror, but keeping with the insanity is even more of the physical comedy tour de force by Bruce Campbell. Its clear why we love this guy, and this movie just gives us ultimate Ash. He’s in full schmuck mode, acting arrogant as he feels he is an advanced being and above all people in the kingdom because he comes from the future. Most of this derives from his new-found confidence in Evil Dead 2, this time taking him overboard, creating his own conflict and leading to his own peril. The villain is “Bad Ash” who comes directly from him. Ash puts everyone in danger in this film, but learns to take the reigns, become a leader and fix best he can what he created. In the beginning he’s only wanting to go home and get away from everybody, but in the end, he wants to leave, but he wants to make sure the kingdom is a better place than when he got there.

Sam Raimi pays a lot of tribute in this film. We get a Gulliver’s Travels segment, some more 3 Stooges love and the final battle is a massive love letter to Ray Harryhausen. The finale is also done in a very fun, swashbuckling fashion akin to something like Princess Bride meets Jason & the Argonauts. Its quite the spectacle for the type of low budget movie it is. Once again, a low budget does not stop Raimi. He goes incredibly ambitious and acts as if he’s got the budget twice of what he has. Skeletons are given a surprise amount of detail and character during the battle. Its quite a joy and charming to watch.

While production went smoothly, Universal butted in during post production. The film’s original ending was scrapped as Universal wanted an upbeat happy ending. Raimi found Ash to be a schmuck and wanted the ending to reflect as such. In a weird choice, the ending overseas was Raimi’s original and domestically Universal go their ending. If we’d have Raimi’s original ending of Ash awakening to a desolate future, I’m sure we’d have seen an attempt at an Evil Dead 4 before now. The S-Mart ending seemed to be a nice wrap up. Which do I prefer? I think I slightly lean toward the S-Mart ending. Its more fitting in the tone of the film and feels more complete to the journey taken in Army of Darkness. As a young lad I thought the idea of the ending I couldn't have was cooler. Its fun, but…what if we never saw a continuation to this?

Army of Darkness might be the “for everyone” entry in the Evil Dead franchise. Yes, it’s the third film, but its probably the most easily accessible from general audiences. A person who isn't in to horror or doesn't get horror comedy could easily dig this movie. Its not very graphic at all and has a much lighter tone. I’m not gonna say kids should be watching it, but I'd say if you got a target age for you kid to watch horror movies, you get start them a year or two earlier than that on this. It's a fun time, and you'll definitely be quoting Ash, trying mock his voice or ripping him off with your own property (looking at you Duke Nukem). It's just as an enjoyable romp as the previous entry and caps off what is currently a trilogy, making three highly enjoyable parts and pretty much a perfect trilogy.

“Join Us” next time for: A bonus piece on a film I consider a “sister movie” to the Evil Dead franchise

Follow me on Twitter – www.twitter.com/@btpeters

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos

Press Release: Finding Dory swimming into theaters 11/25/15.

2013-04-02T09:25:00.000-07:00

STILL SWIMMING!

Disney•Pixar’s “Finding Dory” to Dive into Theaters

November 25, 2015

Ellen DeGeneres, the Voice of the Beloved Blue Tang Fish in 2003’s “Finding Nemo,” Shares Plans for the All-New Big-Screen Adventure

BURBANK, Calif. (April 2, 2013) – When Dory said “just keep swimming” in 2003’s Oscar®-winning film “Finding Nemo,” she could not have imagined what was in store for her (not that she could remember). Ellen DeGeneres, voice of the friendly-but-forgetful blue tang fish, revealed details today about Disney•Pixar’s “Finding Dory”—an all-new big-screen adventure diving into theaters on Nov. 25, 2015.

“I have waited for this day for a long, long, long, long, long, long time,” said DeGeneres. “I’m not mad it took this long. I know the people at Pixar were busy creating ‘Toy Story 16.’ But the time they took was worth it. The script is fantastic. And it has everything I loved about the first one: It’s got a lot of heart, it’s really funny, and the best part is—it’s got a lot more Dory.”

Director and Pixar veteran Andrew Stanton takes audiences back to the extraordinary underwater world created in the original film. “There is no Dory without Ellen,” said Stanton. “She won the hearts of moviegoers all over the world—not to mention our team here at Pixar. One thing we couldn’t stop thinking about was why she was all alone in the ocean on the day she met Marlin. In ‘Finding Dory,’ she will be reunited with her loved ones, learning a few things about the meaning of family along the way.”

According to Stanton, “Finding Dory” takes place about a year after the first film, and features returning favorites Marlin, Nemo and the Tank Gang, among others. Set in part along the California coastline, the story also welcomes a host of new characters, including a few who will prove to be a very important part of Dory’s life.

“Finding Nemo” won the 2003 Academy Award® for Best Animated Feature; the film was nominated for three additional Oscars® (Best Writing, Original Screenplay; Best Music, Original Score; Best Sound Editing). It was also nominated for a Golden Globe® Award for Best Motion Picture–Comedy or Musical. In 2008, the American Film Institute named “Finding Nemo” among the top 10 greatest animated films ever made. At the time of its release, “Finding Nemo” was the highest grossing G-rated movie of all time. It’s currently the fourth highest grossing animated film worldwide. The film has more than 16 million Likes on Facebook, and Dory—with more than 24 million—is the most Liked individual character from a Disney or Disney•Pixar film.

DeGeneres’ distinctive comic voice has resonated with audiences from her first stand-up comedy appearances through her work today on television, in film and in the literary world. Her syndicated talk show, “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” is in its 10th season and has earned 38 Daytime Emmy® Awards. DeGeneres has won 12 People’s Choice Awards and the Teen Choice Award for Choice Comedian for three consecutive years. Additionally, her show won two Genesis Awards and a GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Talk Show Episode. For her unforgettable turn as Dory, DeGeneres was nominated for an MTV Movie Award for Best Comedic Performance.

The conformist rebellion of Spring Breakers...

2013-04-02T06:30:00.000-07:00

There is something oddly safe and reassuring about the alleged shocking content found in Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers. It is something so explicitly fashioned to be viewed as 'outrageous' yet its actual onscreen content would presumably only be shocking to those who are somewhat, pardon the simplification, sheltered or easily hot-n-bothered. It contains moments of overt sexuality and moments of stark violence, but nothing that wouldn't be out of place in a more conventional action picture. The fact that the very idea of former Disney starlets (and a current ABC Family Channel star) running around in bikinis and engaging in "Girls Gone Wild" type behavior is considered "controversial" or "outrageous" is perhaps a dangerous sign of our current puritanistic attitudes. The film, at least from a marketing standpoint, seems intentionally designed to give an outlet for "serious" critics and/or journalists to have their cake and eat it too.

That doesn't mean I think it's a bad film. It's a decent film that errs only in having too much time to ramble after making its primary point quite efficiently. But in terms of being "shocking", it's akin to watching Ren and Stimpy on Spike TV. Ren and Stimpy as a kids' cartoon on Nickelodeon is arguably shocking and daring in concept and execution. Ren and Stimpy on an adult television network with no real boundaries or content restrictions negates much of its taboo appeal. The idea of four young college-age women, no matter their kid-friendly backgrounds, engaging in R-rated behavior in an R-rated film that is technically intended as an art house release shouldn't be anything other than normal. I do think there is something to be said about the sheer number of younger (mostly female, it would seem) viewers who reacted with moral outrage or disgust at these actresses playing these characters, as if they had a moral obligation to only play squeaky clean protagonists. But that's a whole different essay and a whole different can of worms.

I do think that the presence of James Franco is the saving grace of the picture, both thematically and commercially. Like the Genie in Aladdin or The Joker in Batman: The Mask of the Phantasm, this larger-than-life overwhelming character shows up to give the film a proverbial shot in the arm just when it needs it most. Without Franco's over-the-top figurehead, the film is merely four young women randomly misbehaving for 85 minutes. But Franco provides pure entertainment value to break up the relative monotony of the women doing shots, engaging in sexually aggressive behavior, and randomly dancing at various parties. Franco's "Alien" also provides audiences (especially male film critics, I'd argue) the major male character to latch onto, the key I'd argue which allows male critics to take the film more seriously than it if merely focused on four 'girls gone wild'.

I could ask why the overt sexualization of the females in Spring Breakers gets a critical pass while the more implicit sexualization of the five young women of Sucker Punch causes all of its subtexts to be ignored, but I will merely say that both films are (to varying degrees) flawed pictures about women with interesting gender-related ideas at their core. Personal preferences aside, I will give more credit the more entertaining and less repetitive action fantasy that preaches its thesis under the guise of a big budget blockbuster versus the one that has the protective sheen of 'art film'. As for Korine's ultimate message, it is two-pronged. I'd argue its core idea, that young women in today's society finding themselves attempting to achieve an ideal that is actually a pointless and demoralized reveling in debauchery, isn't too far off from any number of male sex comedies that play with the same notion.

But this is where the film's casting gimmick pays off. What Korine is arguably also commenting on is what we, as a society, consider to be young girls becoming young women. When the likes of Britney Spears or Miley Cryus wish to be taken seriously as adult artists, they don't necessarily make more adult-skewing music but rather become well, more overtly sexualized creatures for public consumption. Ashley Benson's character on the soapy but amusing Pretty Little Liars deals with any number of 'adult' issues in regards to her friends, her family, and her relationships. Vanessa Hudgens had to make adult decisions in all three of the High School Musical films, be it juggling what she wanted to do versus what was expected of her culturally and socially, or attempting to balance personal feelings versus academic and professional goals. Yet those roles are considered 'kid fare' compared to their 'insert male fantasy here' characters in Spring Breakers, playing nearly interchangeable young girls who exist purely to be ogled by male moviegoers and/or be 'tut-tut'ed by moralists.

Young women are taught by society at large to express their alleged adulthood not by actually pursuing adult interests or increasing their foothold in society but merely by more overtly acknowledging or exploiting their sexuality in a fashion purely intended to carnally impress the men around them. Former child stars signal their would-be adulthood merely by being, to be crude about, 'more sexy'. Child stars who get starring vehicles or meaty supporting roles when they are too young to be "appropriately" sexualized get tossed into the token girlfriend box as soon as it's considered okay to lust after them. Along with a more generalized societal condemnation of what constitutes 'freedom' or 'utopia' for young women, Korine makes a strong case against the whole 'no longer a girl, not yet a woman' shtick that's so prevalent in pop culture and general society as well.

I wish Spring Breakers were a better film, as its clear that Korine didn't really have the story material for a feature-length picture. But the ideas trump the tedium and as such the film is worth sampling, even if I think it errs by so efficiently establishing its thesis so early on that much of the film is merely hammering home the core message again and again. Like any number of allegedly shocking pictures, it's somewhat conservative in nature, arguing for a certain return to 'morality'. Korine doesn't explicitly judge his female protagonists other than to point out the societal failings of what 'the American Dream' has become for young women today. It's a film where its worthwhile messaging makes up for an admittedly slipshod and even occasionally dull narrative. But the idea that its onscreen contents should be seen as 'shocking' or 'outrageous' is I'd argue more a sign of pundits wanting to write about their alleged shock as a way to put up posts with hit-friendly pictures from the film than anything actually contained in the motion picture. It's actually a criticism of social rebellion in a safe, relatively non-challenging fashion.

As a thesis, Spring Breakers is worthwhile. As a cutting edge or dangerous piece of cinema, it's merely rebellious in a conformist sort of way.

Scott Mendelson

Brandon Peters: On seeing Jurassic Park 20 years ago...

2013-04-01T08:16:00.000-07:00

This is one of two of three essays regarding your first (and second and/or third) viewing of Jurassic Park twenty summers ago, as we brace ourselves for the film's 3D IMAX rerelease this Friday. I'm sure every single one of my readers has such a memory so feel free to share them in the comments section below.

Jurassic Park Memories

Brandon Peters

Yes, that photo supporting the article is ridiculous…but I just kinda “had to” use it. Hilariously, its one of those images that sticks in your head from the movie.

Jurassic Park was one of those films that comes along once every 8-10 years that just restores your faith and fulfill the magic of seeing a film in a theater to the highest level. There was an absolute joy and “level up-ing" of my love for cinema after viewing this movie. An event movie in the greatest sense. And man, was there a craze following it.

Leading up to the film, I remember a teaser of a cave excavation where a guy with one of those flashlight mounted hard hats uncovers a mosquito encased in some sort of amber rock. The logo was everywhere, but I’m not sure if I saw too much dino action in trailers when I was that age. The buzz was that there were computer animated dinosaurs and not puppeteering. I was excited for this new wave of movie making with computer graphics. Little did I know how it would dominate in the future, most of the time be lackluster, fail to be innovative and be highly discernible from what’s real. But I digress, there was none of that in Jurassic Park.

My grandmother took my cousin Crystal and I to Jurassic Park opening week. I don’t believe we went opening weekend. My grandma and my uncle Mark always took me to the cool movies when I was little. If there is anywhere to give credit as to how I turned out as a film fanatic/buff/expert/historian or how I was given my initial push and encouragement, ALL the credit in the world goes to those two (even if we missed half of Masters of the Universe and you told me we missed five or five minutes, Uncle Mark. I forgive you). My parents, eh, I was subjected to some of the most generic movies bottom dweller movies and every John Travolta and Tim Allen movies that weren't Pulp Fiction or Galaxy Quest (though I did see Jurassic Park a second time with them).

Anyway – JURASSIC PARK! This was a wowing experience. Everything was larger than life. The dinosaurs looked frigging real. I argue they still hold up just as well today. It really looked as if you could touch them. I was frankly, very unfamiliar with the cast. I knew Wayne Knight, and that was the extent of it. And he annoyed me on Seinfeld and I didn't like him here. So, while I was very frightened of the dino involved in his death scene, he got what he deserved for two characters he played. I liked Ian Malcolm, and loved he scene stealing. John Hammond just seemed too devious to be trustworthy. Alan Grant was a worthy hero, but maybe it was the two kids who helped take that journey to another level of intensity for me. One of them was close enough in age to me. It worked. And normally kids dropped into a horror situation is a kiss of death, but Tim and Lex are one of the few times that it works. It may be because they never go over the top extravagant or have them or the script try to steal scenes.

Jurassic Park proved to be a special effects extravaganza and an intense summer thrill ride all at the same time. I akin the experience to people in the 70’s seeing Star Wars for the first time on the big screen. In my own lifetime I equate it to seeing Tim Burton’s Batman, The Matrix and Avatar. It’s a movie that just BEGS and DEMANDS it be seen on the big screen.

I’m going to embarrass myself now. After our show, my grandmother took us to Pizza Hut (where she always had a glass of Blush with her pizza, haha). Once the pizza was devoured she dropped me off at home. Well, I came home to an empty house. I believe my little sister had a little league softball game that night. There I was, home alone in a quiet house. I was in our basement and for some damn reason, I felt like the raptors from Jurassic Park were going to pop out and get me. Every time the air started to run or the house creaked or something shut off, I got a little chill. Oh yeah, all the lights went on. I dunno why, but that kitchen sequence, the raptors and that damn dino that killed Nedry were nasties that were just as real as the “now they’re coming to get you” feeling you get from a Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers when you’re young. So there you have it public, I was scared of raptors...

The lasting effects were pretty phenomenal. This was just a widely popular and accepted film. I remember for the next year or two, any time there was a slow day in school or whatnot, they popped Jurassic Park in. It was everywhere. I guess it became so popular it became that cool movie to “hate” for cinema snobs. I admit I got tired of all the hoopla for it and may have shown some disdain. But I’d like to slap ‘past Brandon’. Its still a damn fine movie and holds up perfectly. Its one of the few movies I watch and am transported back to many memories and feelings of the first time I saw it.

EXTRA:

Jurassic Park spawned two sequels and I recently revisited them.

The Lost World I loved when it first came out theatrically (saw it opening weekend and then once the following week). Then I got older, thought it was dumb. But now revisiting it for the first time in maybe 10 years, I found it holds up quite well. Learning more about film and seeing more films in that time has given me a much bigger appreciation for it and I think its held up much better over time. Yes, the gymnastics girl sneaking aboard and 'gymkata’ing' the raptor is DUMB AS HELL. But, like Aaron Neuwirth’s favorite scene in Live Free Or Die Hard, get rid of that and its fine. It goes for a completely different type of movie, a King Kong type throwback kind of tribute. And I think it greatly succeeds. Its an insanely watchable an fun film. Its got a bit of silly story surrounded by some great action sequences and fun actors. I wonder if they didn't want to overdo themselves with the dinosaurs in this as a lot of it is at night and you don’t see dinos much or their full bodies. Still this film is a lot of fun. Not even close to the first one, but a very entertaining old school movie in the form of a summer popcorn movie.

Jurassic Park III feels like a little one off story that happens to bring back two characters from the first one. The film isn’t interested in showing off the island and really we don’t need it. It feels off a half step, but that’s likely because it’s a different director. It seems to fill in the holes with dinosaurs/sequences missing from the first two films (pterodactyls!). It’s a point A to point B movie (think The Warriors on Jurassic Park), and succeeds in being such. It’s got a bit of an abrupt and “times up, lets go” ending, but its still an enjoyable film. I prefer The Lost World, but I’m sure many like this better. And I’m not going to say you’re wrong. I think Jurassic Park is actually a pretty good entertaining series. If you go into both sequels not expecting to match up to the first one (which, why would you?), you’ll be fine. I’m sure Lost World and III have their haters, but I’m not one of them.

Follow me on Twitter – www.twitter.com/@btpeters

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos

Weekend Box Office: GI Joe: Retaliation tops Easter weekend while The Host tanks.

2013-03-31T08:49:00.001-07:00

It was a crowded Easter weekend at the box office, as three new releases and a couple strong holdovers did battle over the frame. Opening on Thursday to take advantage of Good Friday (IE - no school!).

G.I. Joe: Retaliation opened with a relatively solid $51.7 million over the four-day frame, for a $41.2 million Fri-Sun gross. Any way you slice it, this is a slightly lower figure than the $54 million Fri-Sun debut of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra back in August 2009. Yes that film opened in late summer but this film had 3D-enhanced ticket prices, so it's basically an even comparison. The sequel/reboot was scheduled to open in late June of last summer only to be pulled and rescheduled so that the film could be converted to 3D in order to theoretically boost foreign grosses. One can only wonder whether Paramount possibly cut off its nose to spite its face, sacrificing a prime summer slot when the buzz was hottest only to achieve an arguably lower debut than it might have achieved had it opened when intended. G.I. Joe: Retaliation probably won't cross $120 million in America, which in normal circumstances would be very bad. More likely, Paramount knowingly sacrificed domestic strength for international muscle, which is yet another sign of the times. The current worldwide total is estimated to be about $132 million, so it's nearly halfway to the first film's entire $300 million worldwide total. Assuming it has anything resembling legs, Paramount's risky bet may have paid off. The new film cost less ($130 million) and the first film ($175 million), so presuming the rescheduling didn't massively add to the marketing and distribution costs, equaling or surpassing the first film's total ($150 million domestic and $150 million international) still counts as a single if not a double depending on the overall result.

The next big opener was the fourth Tyler Perry film to open over Easter weekend over the last several years. Tyler Perry's Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor opened to a strong $22.3 million. For Tyler Perry films that don't involve Madea, this is his second-biggest such debut after Why Did I Get Married Too? ($29 million), although the final figures may put it just behind the first Why Did I Get Married? ($21.3 million). There's not much else to say about this one. Yes, its somewhat of a departure for Perry (it's a straight sexually-charged melodrama with little-to-no comedy), but he still has a strong fan base as long as the budgets remain under $20 million, as this one again did. The film played 70% female and 79% over-25. Those stunt casting of Kim Kardashian did little other than cost him a token amount of credibility any number of critics (both pro-Perry and anti-Perry) called it possibly his worst film. Still the man is nothing if not financially consistent. This is his tenth $20 million opener since 2005. And it will probably sink like a stone and still make it to $45-55 million just as most of his pictures have done. Tyler Perry Presents We The Peoples opens on May 10th, and we should expect similar results.

The last wide opener was The Host, the second of two 'next Twilight' contenders to under-perform this year. While the shockingly good Beautiful Creatures sadly didn't even cross $19 million domestic on a $60 million budget (it has $57 million worldwide), Open Road spent $40 million on the adaptation of Twilight author Stephanie Meyer's The Host and got just $11 million over opening weekend for their efforts, or about what Beautiful Creatures opened with. The reviews were terrible even from those who liked the Twilight Saga and Saoirse Ronan is not a household name beyond film nerds (writer/director Andrew Niccol isn't a 'name' either), so it looks like the 'new-wave young-adult-lit blockbuster' trend is 0/2 thus far. Lily Collins stars in The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones this coming August, so we'll see if it can do what these other two pictures could not. Otherwise, my prediction/hope that these kind of films would become a new form of cheaper 'blockbuster' that catered to females as much as superhero films catered to males might have been premature.

The main limited release was the Ryan Gosling/Bradley Cooper/Eva Mendes drama The Place Beyond the Pines. The sprawling father/son saga debuted on just four screens and wracked up an impressive $67,536 per screen. Hopefully this means Focus Features will expand this one in the coming weeks. The Croods held strong in its second weekend, buoyed by the holiday Friday. It dropped 4 0% for a solid $26 million second weekend and a $88 million ten-day total. Comparatively, How to Train Your Dragon opened with $43 million and dropped 33% for a $29 million second weekend and a $92 million total. In terms of the various fall Dreamworks animated releases, its ten-day total is actually ahead of A Shark Tale ($87 million) and Puss In Boots ($75 million) and basically tied with Megamind ($88 million).

Considering how many unknowing teenage moviegoers proclaimed it the worst movie ever, the fact that Spring Breakers didn't drop like a rock is impressive. It was down 43% with a $2.7 million weekend and a $10 million cume. Olympus Has Fallen fell a hearty 54%, taking damage from G.I. Joe: Retaliation. Still, the $70 million action thriller now has $54 million and should flirt with $85 million before it finishes up its domestic run. Oz: The Great and Powerful pulled in another $11.6 million for a new cume of $198 million domestic and it flies past $400 million worldwide. The Call now has $39 million, Admission has just $11 million after ten days and The Incredible Burt Wonderstone has just now crossed $20 million in its seventeenth day after dropping 70% this weekend.

That's it for this one folks. Join us next time for nostalgia theater, as the two wide releases are a remake of Evil Dead and a 3D-reissue of Jurassic Park. Are you planning on seeing Jurassic Park again in IMAX 3D or is your 2D Blu Ray good enough for you?

Scott Mendelson

Happy Easter from Mendelson's Memos (and a herd of killer rabbits heading this way)!

2013-03-31T06:41:00.001-07:00

Yes, I'm Jewish and I married a Jew, but that hasn't stopped me from having to endure the various Christian holidays, specifically the commercialized portions. So off to Easter brunch I go this morning, which explains why my box office write-up is a slightly more succinct than usual (a good thing?). While I have a back-log of movies to catch up on at the moment (Room 237, The Man With the Iron Fists, etc.), I'm severely tempted to spent Easter night watching this absolutely classic for what seems to be the perfect occasion.

Scott Mendelson

Brandon Peters's Evil Dead franchise retrospective part II: Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn (1987)

2013-03-29T11:45:00.003-07:00

Brandon Peters has returned! Leading up to the April 5th release date of the new Evil Dead remake, Mr. Peters will be doing his voodoo with the Evil Dead series. He continues with a look at Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn. As only a casual Evil Dead fan, this was an extra-special treat as this isn't a film series that I've memorized by heart. This was as informative for me as I hope it will be for you. So without further ado...

Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn

1987

Director: Sam Raimi

Starring: Bruce Campbell, Sarah Berry, Dan Hicks, Kassie Wesley, Ted Raimi

Rated R

We just cut up our girlfriend with a chainsaw. Does that sound “fine”?

~Ash’s mirror image

The second installment of the Evil Dead trilogy is the bridge between the first film and Army of Darkness in terms of tone. Whereas the first film was a straight horror film, the 2^nd adds a level of humor while still able to maintain jumps, scares and intensity. This film is definitely one of the earlier and most notable films in the splatstic sub-genre of horror. The film also serves as pretty much a big budget remake of the first film.

Evil Dead 2 starts the tradition of retconning the events of the first film. It drops three characters from the original and changes Ash’s trip to a romantic getaway. We get a Cliff’s Notes version of the first movie’s deadite attack and transformation. It keeps some of the things the same, gives Ash’s girlfriend Linda a some actions other characters took and settles down the climax linking us right up to Ash’s possession cliffhanger the first film ended on. The things we didn't see in the recap are saved to replay throughout the rest of the film. One could easily watch this film without seeing the first one, and it probably plays a lot better to novice eyes than someone who’s seen the original. This entry does crank up the humor (always loved the eyeball popping up and shooting into the woman’s mouth). It also fills in time with establishing a much richer mentality and setting up Army of Darkness.

Sam Raimi originally didn't want to tackle a second Evil Dead or tackle it so soon. His second film fizzled financially and critically, so he went straight back to the well. He wanted to make what became Army of Darkness for this second story, but he didn't get the cash to be able to pull it off. So instead, he went this route, setting it up so that hopefully he could return back to the Evil Dead and actually make it the next time around. While there’s a spike in insanity, humor and gore in this film, there’s also an amping up of the Raimi. There is all sorts of camera work and Three Stooge homages going on in the film.

Evil Dead 2 also throws a call back to another horror franchise of the time. Freddy Krueger’s glove appears in the background of the tool shed in the film. It’s the actual one too. Here’s how this plays out. In the cellar of the cabin in The Evil Dead, there is a ripped poster for The Hills Have Eyes (a Wes Craven film) as an homage to The Hills Have Eyes having a ripped Jaws poster in the background. A Nightmare On Elm Street then responded by having Nancy watching The Evil Dead in that film. And here we have Evil Dead 2’s response. The next step, I believe, was the Necronomicon appearing in the Voorhees house in Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday. So if you were EVER wondering, this is where Ash fits into all the Freddy Vs. Jason Vs. Ash hub bub.

Speaking of Ash, here he is. This Ash is a bit more confident in himself before his girlfriend turns. He’s also more of that “schmuck” type that Raimi always refers to him as. Once he’s greeted with our new cast he takes shape, rising above and wanting to face evil. However, he’s just doing it because he’s watching out for himself. As we see at the end when he’s called on to fulfill a prophecy and realizes its him, he’s quite upset and disappointed.

We get some new characters in this film. And aside from Annie, they’re all pretty much fodder for the deadites. And because Annie is tied to the events of the first film (her father was the one on the recording) and is a force to help fight, its quite shocking that she is killed at the film’s climax. The other characters serve for goofiness, possession, death and to relive events of the first film.

If you’re not familiar with Evil Dead 2, its pretty much the same approach Terminator 2 took to making the sequel. Figuring that the first film, while praised and reasonable a hit, was likely not seen by the masses, you basically wanna put more money into it. You try and hit broader audience with a bigger, flashier version of the goods, retelling the story with a little added depth and in the end progressing ever so slightly further. Its effective in that it can introduce a larger amount of people while also completely satisfying fans and newbies at the same time.

Evil Dead 2 is a very fun time, and I wish I would've had the opportunity to see this film at a midnight screening in a theater packed with horror junkies. That would've been quite a treat. The film has a bigger budget, but still maintains that feel of someone not having the money to do everything they want, but going for it anyway. There’s a lot of fun moments and definite crowd-pleasers in this film. Watch it by yourself, watch it with a big group, you’re bound to have a good time.

“Join Us” next time for ARMY OF DARKNESS

Hail to the King, baby!

Follow me on Twitter – www.twitter.com/@btpeters

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos

Movies I love more than anyone else: Meet the Robinsons.

2013-03-28T17:25:00.001-07:00

This is the next entry of a reoccurring feature of sorts, spotlighting the movies that aren't just my favorites, but films that I probably hold in higher esteem than anyone else out there in the critical community. Next up is a film that celebrates its sixth-anniversary this Saturday. But I saw it six years ago today at a press screening. No, I'm not talking about Blades of Glory, but the inexplicably wonderful Meet the Robinsons. I walked into said press screening for this one knowing almost nothing about it, save for a few pieces of promotional art and something about musical 'wiseguy' frogs. I distinctly remember walking out of the press screening, my eyes more than a little watery, and immediately calling my wife to inform her that I had just wasted a Wednesday afternoon. I had just seen something truly special and she was going to have to accompany me for a repeat viewing as soon as possible.

It was that kind of remarkable discovery, a completely unexpected masterpiece during a time when Disney animation of the non-Pixar variety had fallen into a bit of a rut. Six years later, it is perhaps my favorite film of the prior decade and in a just world would stand alongside the Katzenberg Waking Sleeping Beauty era as one of Disney's modern crown jewels. At the time, what stood out about Meet the Robinsons was how unassuming it was. It was not a fairy-tale story, it was not a talking animal comedy, and it was not a would-be animated epic of any kind. The closest thing to a celebrity voice was Angela Bassett and Adam West in supporting roles, with the rest of the characters voiced by actual voice over artists. It was a somewhat under-the-radar release, the "Disney output" contrasted with the far more prestigious Pixar film from that year, Ratatouille. Like the Pixar films of the era, it concerns someone who yearns to live dangerously even when merely existing would bring less strife.

Its tale of a young orphan scientist is at its core a human drama, rooted in the need to be loved by someone... anyone, and the need to belong. It spins a dizzying time-travel adventure and introduces an entire futuristic family of pointedly wacky but utterly grounded human beings. It earns solid laughs both through character interaction (young "Goob"'s encounter with the evil Bowler Hat Guy is kinda wonderful) and through attempting to apply logic to its farcical scenarios ("But I don't need a duck..."). If the middle act contains most of the frantic action, the first act unblinkingly looks at the pain of orphan-hood and the third act is all about the therapeutic power of forgiveness. Once all is revealed, the Bowler Hat Guy, introduced as the clownish villain (voiced by director Stephen J. Anderson), becomes the most sympathetic character in the film, a bitter man who cannot let go of a perceived wrong committed many years ago. Without going into details, he is given a final moment of incredible heartbreak and pathos. Despite mostly playing the buffoonish foil, Bowler Hat Guy is one of the more complex and three-dimensional villains in the Disney library.

Our hero is young Lewis, an orphaned young man who must learn to make peace with his past in order to embrace a possible happy ending. His adventures in the future of course leads to various insights and revelations, but the story is firmly rooted in Lewis's journey, one that makes this a worthwhile double-bill with Pixar's Up. While Up concerns a suicidal old man who discovers that he still has something to live for at the end of his life, Meet the Robinsons concerns a young man desperately trying not to give up as he faces one disappointment after another in the opening years of his existence. The film resolves its plot threads in a satisfactory fashion, one rooted in the time travel semantics of its story and one rooted in Lewis's inherent intelligence. Meet the Robinsons also contains one the of the greatest epilogues that I can remember, a stirring and emotionally powerful montage set to Rob Thomas's "Little Wonders". At the time, it was a powerful affirmation of the idea that there was an eventual pot of gold at the end of a long-fought rainbow. Today it's merely a happy ending for a character who has grown and damn-well earned the chance to make the right choices. Long-story short, if you're not welling up just a little by the end of the film, I'm not sure I want to know you.

"Keep Moving Forward!" It's the motto of the Mr. Robinson, the patriarch of the futuristic clan and it encapsulates the film's theme as well. The origins of this phrase provides a lovely grace note to the very end of the picture, one that is oddly fitting for the time in which it was made. 2007 was right in the middle of a dark period for Disney, during that 2003-2009 period when Pixar was king, Dreamworks was nipping at Disney's heels, and the death of 2D animation had left the original Disney animation house somewhat at a loss at how to distinguish itself in a field where it was once uncontested. The film was not a massive box office success (it earned $169 million worldwide), ironically offering top-notch 3D work a couple years before that became a selling point. As a random point in Disney's filmography, it is sadly a blip on the radar, and if it is remembered twenty years from now it will be solely because of essays like this. But Disney kept moving forward, as now Pixar and Dreamworks must keep moving forward through their current growing pains.

Meet the Robinsons is not the most monetized of the modern Disney films. Lewis and Bowler Hat Guy merchandise does not fly off the shelves and there was (fortunately?) never a direct-to-DVD sequel despite initial plans for such. It will never be a major part of the Disney brand, but it deserves its moment in the sun. Meet the Robinsons remains one of the great modern Disney cartoons both because it is great and because it was so unassuming. It has wonderful characters, a genuinely witty and intelligent script, moments of unexpected goodness and moments of thrillingly scary action. It is the very definition of, to quote that other Disney animated feature, a diamond in the rough. I'd argue that the imaginative and thoughtful Meet the Robinsons is every-bit worth the label of 'Disney Classic' as the likes of The Lion King or Finding Nemo. I wasn't writing regularly at the time and I still regret not having a platform to spread the word when the film came and went six years ago. On the other hand, like a number of films "I love more than anyone else", my feelings toward it are surely enhanced just a bit by the fact that everyone else missed it the first time around. Six years later, you still have a chance to correct that mistake.

Scott Mendelson

Review: G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013) fixes what wasn't broken and breaks it possibly beyond repair.

2013-03-27T13:12:00.003-07:00

G.I. Joe: Retaliation
2013
100 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

It's no secret that I'm a fan of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (review). It's big, colorful, and filled with over-the-top action performed by larger-than-life heroes and villains. The first 90 minutes (I have issues with the finale) is basically, as I said back in 2009, what might happen if someone gave the 7-year old me to go play with my G.I. Joe action figures and gave me $175 million to spend on the resulting play-drama. But for whatever reason fan-boys and critics carped about the last picture, calling it too ridiculous and too silly for a, um, G.I. Joe movie. So now four years later, we have a somewhat stripped down and more 'realistic' sequel to Stephen Sommers's outlandish original. Jon Chu was under orders to make it cheaper and basically more 'grounded' than the last picture, and I suppose he has succeeded. G.I. Joe: Retaliation can best be described as G.I. Joe meets Act of Valor. I don't mean that as a compliment.

The film is both a reboot and a sequel, mostly because the cliffhanger at the end of Rise of Cobra was too juicy to ignore. But despite a few returning characters and a plot revolved around the idea of Zartan impersonating the President of the United States, this looks and feels absolutely nothing like the original picture. I will admit that G.I. Joe is an old enough property to have gone through many variations and that the version I prefer (the 80's cartoon show) may not be the one you like best. But even if we agree that this version is more rooted in the 80's Larry Hama comics (of which I've only read a handful), the resulting film is by-itself a near-train wreck. There is barely a narrative, with so little plot and character work tossed out between the mostly mundane action sequences that one can presume that they shot the film without a full script and never bothered to play catch-up. There is barely a full film here, with - for example - nearly a full reel designated to a prison break that seemingly drags on forever (Walton Goggins has a token amount of fun as the warden).

The film straddles the line between being a GI Joe adventure and being a Dwayne Johnson action vehicle that happens to exist in a GI Joe sandbox. Johnson is fine, although he's having less fun in this film than you'd expect. The first 25 minutes are halfway decent. Johnson sharing surprisingly strong chemistry with Channing Tatum (returning as Duke) while Jonathan Pryce has a wonderful scene conversing with himself as "Zartan as President" and the actual imprisoned Commander-in-Chief. But once the proverbial shit hits the fan (I'm being vague for the zero of you who don't know what happens), the film struggles to actually build a story until we wait for the inevitable confrontation between the Joes and the forces of Cobra.

We have dull interludes of Johnson and his compatriots attempting to decipher what we all know if we saw the last movie while moving from cheap interior set to cheap interior set. Aside from one center-piece action sequence set on a snowy mountain, pretty much all of the action is painfully mundane and weirdly small-scale. Said ninja showdown is indeed impressive, but it is so shoe-horned into the film that two full scenes of awesomely stupid exposition delivered terribly by RZA are required to justify its inclusion in the narrative. Shockingly, this sequel flirts with making the same major mistake that Rise of Cobra did, namely neutering one of its major villains for the sake of alleged thematic elements. Aside from The Rock being The Rock, none of the heroic Joes have much personality. Adrianne Palicki gives a better performance than her material deserves while I couldn't tell you anything else about the other Joes. Even Bruce Willis, knee-deep in "I don't give a shit" mode, bores himself and us silly and proves a useless addition to the team.

The film has the potential to be a satire of how the rest of the world sees America, but it punts the ball at every opportunity. It opens with an offhand line about how the President's approval numbers have gone up since he started blowing stuff up and the picture ends with Cobra revealing their existence and their agenda while armed with the awesome power of the American military industrial complex. But the film doesn't really play with these ideas, and it's one of those films where the film's marketing is more intelligent and thoughtful about its subject matter than the final product (a major city gets destroyed for narrative purpose other than having a cool five-second effects shot in the trailer). The notion of the United States government actually becoming a genuine force for megalomaniacal evil ends before it can really begin, which is either a failure of nerve or imagination. There is plenty of material here for a commentary on how the world views the 'World Police' mentality of America, but not a moment is allotted for this kind of subtext.

Ironically, for a film that was delayed for a year in order to convert it to 3D for foreign markets, the film is less of an international spectacle than the first picture. Our heroes aren't larger-than-life super-soldiers from around the world but basically US soldiers who do what US soldiers generally do. The film flirts with manifest destiny in allowing the Joes to wantonly slaughter anyone in the world without regard to sovereignty. While the film tries to be a more 'realistic' version of G.I. Joe, it still has ridiculous moments like the one where the evil President openly and publicly flirts with and then borderline sexually harasses someone he believes to be a reporter with no thought to potential scandal. It also pays no heed to the after-affects of the US president being impersonated by a genocidal super-villain and the obvious after-shocks that would be felt here and abroad.

In the end, G.I. Joe: Retaliation is a stupid film that ignores the potent ideas seemingly right at the surface in favor of unimaginative action and bland characters. There are moments of amusement (I like how Palicki figures out that the President is not the President and there is a pretty fun third-act moment of chicken involving nukes) and that mountainside ninja fight-scene is impressive if somewhat repetitive (hey look, another ninja just fell to their death). But much of the character interaction and even much of action bores while lacking the gee-wiz factor of the original picture. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is no action classic (although I'd argue the mocked 'super-suit' chase through Paris is a fantastic action sequence) and G.I. Joe: Retaliation is not a complete failure. But G.I. Joe: Retaliation was handed a surplus of storytelling potential and squandered it to no good end and for no real purpose. The production feels cheap and the writing feels lazy and halfhearted. Yo Joe? No, Joe. No Joe at all...

Grade: C

PS - The 3D is pretty terrible, with random objects pushed into the foreground even when they aren't supposed to be the center of attention. If you've ever tried watching television with a cat sitting in front of the television, you'll know what G.I. Joe: Retaliation looks like. But at least that random sign on Bruce Willis's lawn is totally coming right at you!

The Wolverine gets two halfway decent trailers...

2013-03-27T09:21:00.002-07:00

After two days of ridiculous teasing in the form of "tweasers" and the like, Fox finally dropped the actual trailer, perhaps rewarding movie nerds for their patience with two trailers, a domestic cut and a longer, slightly superior international one. This doesn't look like it's going to reinvent the comic book movie, but it looks like a halfway decent, if highly generic, action star-vehicle. The train scene looks pretty neat and having this take place after X-Men: The Last Stand allows for a token amount of suspense, although even a seemingly de-powered Wolverine isn't going to die at the end of a movie titled The Wolverine. Anyway, James Mangold's The Wolverine opens on July 26th. As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

Brandon Peters's Evil Dead franchise retrospective part II: The Evil Dead (1981)

2013-03-27T07:43:00.001-07:00

Brandon Peters has returned! Leading up to the April 5th release date of the new Evil Dead remake, Mr. Peters will be doing his voodoo with the Evil Dead series. He continues with a look at The Evil Dead. As only a casual Evil Dead fan, this was an extra-special treat as this isn't a film series that I've memorized by heart. This was as informative for me as I hope it will be for you. So without further ado...

The Evil Dead

1981

Director: Sam Raimi

Assistant Editor: Joel Coen

Starring: Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Hal Delrich, Betsy Baker, Sarah York

Rated R

Now the sun will be up in an hour or so, and we can all get out of here together. You, me, Linda, Shelly. Hmm... Well... not Shelly.

~Ash

Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead is one of the kings of cult classics and one of the best horror films to grace the screen. A super low-budget feature with the drive and ambition of one many times its budget, The Evil Dead holds its own and is able to keep hold, not fall apart and stand the test of time. The film flies by with genuine scares, gore effects and camera techniques truly feeling like a master learning his craft.

Sam Raimi was able to muster up $90,000 of his desired $150,000 (insert Veronica Mars Kickstarter joke here) to go out and shoot his horror film, Book of the Dead (the original title). A native of Michigan, Raimi and crew headed south to Tennessee to shoot the film. It was a grudging and sometimes brutal shoot for the cast and crew being out in the middle of nowhere. Injuries went untreated, people crammed up in rooms in the cabin you see in the film to sleep and actors has to stuff massive contacts into their eyes to get the demon eye effect to work right.

Little did they know, all their work would turn into a franchise that has spawned sequels, a remake, an INSANE amount of home video releases, multiple video games, figures and comic books. I don’t think the film hit its massive following or big time cult popularity until the 90's. For some reason, it feels that as soon as the internet became more public, people started discovering that there were more people than just them that liked The Evil Dead. Personally, I was the kid that was showing it to my classmates and such in school growing up, but only knew like 2 other people who’d heard of and liked it. I just feel that with the internet came the mass influx of Evil Dead love and tie-ins. Like it was a big shock that one was not alone in their love of this franchise.

While the film has its share of continuity errors (who doesn’t notice Hal Delrich’s haircut changing back and forth) and some blurred shots, there’s some really impressive and effective work being done that makes you not care at all about it. The Evil Dead is one of those movies that make you yell ouch and feel pain that isn’t happening to you. The scene in which Linda gets stabbed with a pencil STILL makes my ankle hurt to this day. This movie is still pretty gory by today’s standards too. There’s a LOT of blood in it. A lot of blood. But unlike some other gore-fests, it all works for laughs and terror. It feels a part of the story at hand and not an exploitation (which I’m sure was the intent anyway).

Compared to the following to films of the series, Ash is a bit of a different character in the original. He’s a complete ‘fraidy cat pacifist who is stunned by all the deadites and such. He cowers at the thought of being heroic. It isn’t until he’s pushed to the very limit and completely endangered that he steps up to the plate. And even then he’s not the hard-assed B-movie hero we quote so often. As a matter of fact, there’s nothing here to quote from him. I still enjoy this Ash. But it’s the following 2 films that give us the iconic Ash that graces t-shirts, video games and dialogue in our pop culture.

The females in this film get all the fun parts. Well, I’m not sure if it was fun to go through them. There was a rigorous and brutal makeup process involving massive contact lenses going into their eyes to give the effect. They could only be worn for 10 minutes at a time and the eyes couldn’t breathe while they were in. However, in the finished products, all of them get to shine and nasty demon baddies. They’re all portraying evil insanity in many different was. Each is a memorable deadite and brings the creeps, some dark humor/laughs and plenty of menace. They are honestly more of a highlight than Ash is in the film. They quite frankly steal the show. While we root for Ash to survive the night, one can’t help but enjoy being terrorized by these demon women.

Of the films in the series, this is the only one truly dedicated to being a straight faced horror film. This one truly holds a special place for me as it truly scared the bejesus out of me when I first saw this as a kid (and many viewings after). I had to tape it off of late night television (we’ll touch on that in a sec) and I watched it on a weekend night, after my parents had gone to sleep, in a darkened living room sitting super close to the TV. This movie terrified me. It was dark, had great jumps, scary ass demons and had those sheer moments of insanity (that at a young age were scary, uncomfortable, unnerving and not enjoyable in a humors/devious sort of way that it is now). Growing up in Indiana, maybe it was the fact that it genuinely looked Midwest, that I knew places nearby that looked and felt exactly like this setting added to its terror. Also, the fact that the film ends with the evil announcing that its still ever present leaves you with that “oh shit, its still out there!” hook akin to a John Carpenter film. My next thought would be, oh crap, now I have to travel across this dark room to turn the lights back on and then go to bed and sleep in the dark. This is just the thrill I loved putting myself through, growing up a horror film junkie. If the film did this to me, it was a success. And The Evil Dead was a pretty big success at that.

I mentioned taping it off TV. Aside from Army of Darkness, the first two films in this series were challenges to find growing up in the Midwest (Fort Wayne, IN). Video stores didn’t have them, Suncoast (where most of us movie collectors got our fix back in the 90's) wouldn’t be able to order them because it was out of print, or the video rental store would charge you an astronomical price to order it. There was no eBay or anything like it to find a used copy. Because of that, I didn’t get to see the 2^nd film until the Anchor Bay VHS release in 1998. Now, I may have had the opportunity before that, but after exhaustive searches and letdowns, young Brandon may have given up. Nowadays these films are EVERYWHERE and have a multitude of releases. Feel grateful, young ones. I’m not going to be that modern geek hater that acts like I’m better than you because I had to go on elaborate searches or try hard to find VHS tapes…no…I’m the guy that says we (and you younger ones especially) are lucky today. It’s awesome that these titles are available on Amazon or a click away for us. Why is that a bad thing? Films were meant to be seen by all and by whoever wants to see them, not selfishly kept away. Call me “fake” or not true to my geek heritage for saying that, but I’m happy with who I am and am happy to share this movie and my love for it with whomever also enjoys it, regardless of looks, weight, hygiene, dress code or background knowledge.

The Evil Dead is one of my favorite horror films and films in general of all time. Watching it can always give me that nostalgic feeling of the film that terrified me many moons ago. It’s still a very enjoyable, fun and scary watch today. I can only hope that somewhere out there a young boy/girl up late at night is popping this in for the first time, unaware of what’s to come and has the same experience I did when I watched it for the first time.

“Join us” next time: EVIL DEAD II: DEAD BY DAWN

Follow me on Twitter – www.twitter.com/@btpeters

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos

White House Down gets a conspiratorial trailer...

2013-03-26T17:32:00.000-07:00

Well, color me intrigued. Sony is making smart choices here, selling this second Die Hard In the White House movie not as a pulpy action flick but as a large-scale disaster movie. It puts the film squarely in the realm of director Roland Emmerich and successfully differentiates itself from Olympus Has Fallen. Also of note, other than the larger scale seemingly on display (this is the more expensive version, natch), is the opposing narratives. While Olympus Has Fallen concerned a certain xenophobic 'scary foreigners will try to destroy America!' plot line, White House Down seems to be going for the more conspiracy-minded 'we did this to ourselves by betraying our morals' or what-have-you. It also teases plot twists and surprises beyond the action template, making viewers wonder what terrible secrets will be revealed and who and what actually caused the onscreen carnage. So yeah, I think the world is big enough for two White House-under siege movies. White House Down opens June 28th, 2013. As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

On the "morality" of cinematic action-movie massacres...

2013-03-26T14:24:00.001-07:00

There is a moment at around the twenty minute mark of Olympus Has Fallen where a giant airplane piloted by evil North Koreans shoot down an American fighter jet which then crashes not in the water or in an empty parking lot, but smack-dab into a suburban home. Considering the time of day the scene takes place, there's a pretty good chance whomever lived there was probably home at the time and was instantly burned to a crisp. That moment would have jolting enough, but the attack sequence that kicks off the plot goes on for a good twenty minutes, offering countless innocent bystanders being bloodily gunned down in the streets, along with others being crushed by falling monuments and blown up by various explosions set off during the White House siege. This isn't even counting the bazillion Secret Service agents who are slaughtered in the attack sequence, including a moment where enemy soldiers walk around the White House plugging wounded agents in the head (onscreen) for the crime of not being quite dead yet. Half of me was rather impressed by the rather horrifying onscreen body count. Half of me was debating whether to be offended or bothered by it.

As an action sequence and an orgy of violence, Olympus Has Fallen is pretty high up there in sheer carnage and no-punches-pulled bloodshed. It's the highlight of the film and is arguably worth seeing for the collage of escalating chaos alone. But for a film that was supposed to be a 'turn your brain off at the door' rollicking good time, this was some rather disturbing violence on display. Point being, does violence of this nature and/or magnitude belong in a movie that is supposed to be 'harmless popcorn entertainment'? And, without going into the would-be morality (that's a whole different can of worms), can a certain level or type of violence actually make a popcorn action film less enjoyable and/or null the would-be happy ending?

Obviously this is a huge grey area. What constitutes lightweight action fare versus more serious-minded entertainment? I might argue that The Peacemaker is an ahead-of-its-time action thriller that seriously deals with the concept of international blow-back and thus justifies its nuked Russia. You might say it's a silly George Clooney/Nicole Kidman action picture and nothing more. You may say Rambo is a brainless splatter-fest while I would argue it's Stallone's Unforgiven. Obviously your critical opinion of the film affects your thoughts on its high level of gruesome and gut-punching violence. So for the sake of this argument, let's presume that the films were dealing with are "officially" pure mass-market entertainments.

Would Die Hard have been less enjoyable had Hans Gruber actually succeeded in blowing up that roof *with* all of the hostages still standing on it? Is part of the reason that Raiders of the Lost Ark remains a timeless good-time action classic is that pretty much every single person who dies during its 111-minute running time is a 'bad guy'? Is it cheating to have Mission: Impossible II end up a completely happy note while basically forgetting that Dougray Scott crashed a passenger jet into a mountain as phase one of his otherwise-thwarted evil plan? One of the things I've always liked about Katheryn Bigelow's action pictures (up to an including Zero Dark Thirty) is that they refuse to ignore the tragedy of their "stock action movie violence". Keanu Reeves may eventually catch up to Patrick Swayze in Point Break, but once his surfer-bank robbers have shed innocent blood, any hope for a truly happy ending is out the window.

Any number of action films (Dirty Harry, Lethal Weapon, The Terminator) have the decency to either keep the collateral damage to a minimum or at least end on a less-than-completely happy ending, even if its just a token acknowledgment of what everyone went through. A random example, but Martin Campbell does it right in Vertical Limit, ending on a makeshift memorial for the lost souls who trekked up a mountain and never came back. If you want to craft an insanely violent action picture, you ought to at least have the decency to not shrug off the bloodshed during the film's would-be happy ending, as if the lives lost don't mattered because the bad guy died or someone important got rescued. You want to open Drop Zone with a mid-air prison break on a commercial jet where passengers are riddled with bullets and sucked out of the plane? Fine, but don't end your movie on a punchline which completely ignores the rather large numbers of people that Wesley Snipes absolutely failed to save.

It's not a deal-breaker and it's not a zero sum game. I still enjoy Mission: Impossible 2 and Drop Zone has more wrong with it than just its cruel streak. Wanted was a terrible movie even before the "hero" indirectly killed dozens (hundreds?) of innocent bystanders by indirectly causing a train crash. There are any number of good-to-great action pictures that involve massive and/or arbitrary casualties that mostly shrug it off at the end (Star Wars, nearly every Renny Harlin film, nearly every James Bond film). Air Force One tries to have it both ways, acknowledging the carnage in the early portions of the film but basically waving it away at the climax for a super-mega happy ending just because Harrison Ford got out of the plane. The finale of Speed has Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves making out on a crashed subway train completely oblivious to the bullet-riddled Richard Schiff that is probably right next to them (a completely gratuitous murder in a film that otherwise avoids gratuitous violence), yet it's still one of the best action films of the last twenty years or so.

Olympus Has Fallen briefly acknowledges the horror of its opening siege only to completely forget about it in the latter half of the film, to the point where (slight spoilers) a rather terrible act of violence right at the end is utterly ignored once its established that the President is still alive after all. It's an admittedly minor nitpick. I hesitate to dig any deeper into the cultural implications of action films that treat mass slaughter as 'no big deal' violence since part of the reason we enjoy action films is to enjoy the violence on display. But it's something that has occasionally bugged me over the years, as if the filmmakers aren't really paying attention to their own body count when they construct their super-mega-happy ending.

I have no profound conclusions about this. But I do know that I was bothered by the casual way in which random bystanders were sucked out of an airplane in Drop Zone and now I'm somewhat bothered by the mostly consequence-free carnage in Olympus Has Fallen. It's an imaginary and subjective line, but arguably there should be some kind of proverbial line in the sand when it comes to casual carnage in 'just for fun' action pictures. Or maybe I am just a little too empathetic for my own good. You decide...

Scott Mendelson

The Wolverine gets two hilariously terrible posters...

2013-03-25T11:02:00.002-07:00

Well if you're not going to make a great poster, you might as well go the other route and make a piece of marketing art so terrible that everyone will *still* be talking about it all day. There isn't much more to say other than to point and laugh. The trailer drops on Wednesday. Anyway, enjoy...

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (03/24/13) part II: Olympus Has Fallen rises while Admission fails and Spring Breakers amuses.

2013-03-24T08:52:00.000-07:00

No matter what you think of the film, the $30.5 million debut of Olympus Has Fallen this weekend is very good news for those who want their action films to be R-rated. With Arnold, Sly, and Jason all flaming out and only the terrible A Good Day To Die Hard opening well, we needed an original R-rated action film to reestablish their viability. I may be forgetting something, but this this is among the top R-rated action openings for a non-sequel since the $50 million debut of Wanted back in June 2008 (possible exceptions: Inglorious Basterds which opened with $37 million in August 2009 and the sci-fi drama The Book of Eli which debuted with $32 million in early 2010). The film is easily Film District's biggest debut ever, with a solid A- from Cinemascore and a strong 3.0x weekend multiplier. The concept is a pretty obvious winner, so obvious that I'm amazed it hasn't been done before (yet it's only the first of two, with White House Down opening this summer). The obvious appeal of the narrative plus a game cast of recognizable players (Gerald Butler, Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart, Angela Bassett, Melissa Leo, etc.). It'll take a hit next weekend from G.I. Joe: Retaliation, but it should recover due to the fact that it's one of the most insanely violent R-rated action films this side of Starship Troopers and thus will provide the kind of carnage that a PG-13 G.I. Joe movie cannot. Hopefully this finally gets the undervalued Antoine Fuqua onto the various 'hot lists' next time a studio goes hunting for a tent pole director.

Not fairing so well was the terribly-marketed Admission. Remember when I wrote a couple weeks ago that you needed stars *and* concept these days? Well, Universal's film had stars like Tina Fey and Paul Rudd but barely even tried to sell what the movie was about. So you get a $6.4 million opening weekend, or just over a third of what Baby Mama and I Love You Man opened with this time in 2008 and 2009 respectively. The film only cost $13 million so it may break even in the end, but again, you can't just throw stars on the poster and scream "generic romantic comedy!". The film is actually more complicated than the marketing was willing to suggest, which of course is a good thing for the movie but a bad thing for a thirty-second TV spot. To be fair, Baby Mama was sold as a genuinely feminist comedy that also starred Amy Poehler and it came out before Fey became known to much of "Red State America" as the woman who helped destroy Sarah Palin's vice-presidential aspirations via uncanny impersonation. I have no idea whether that hurt her appeal among more conservative moviegoers but it certainly didn't help. We have to remember that very few people watched 30 Rock so for many general moviegoers, Tina Fey isn't one of the hottest/smartest/funniest women on the planet, but merely that SNL lady who does that Sarah Palin impression and also was in Mean Girls nine years ago (that she wrote it is obviously less well-known about the general populace).

In one of the more amusing developments of the last few years, a would-be art house film (allegedly) about the cultural failings of a society that tells young girls that sexual and moral debauchery is something to aspire to is now somewhat of a mainstream hit. Harmony Korine shrewdly cast tween favorites Ashley Benson, Selena Gomez, and Vanessa Hudgens in a proverbial Girls Gone Wild: The Movie which both guaranteed a flurry of free media attention and a deluge of fans who had no idea what they were in for. Sure there were countless walk-outs and outraged tweets all weekend, but the $2 million film still pulled in $5 million on 1,100 screens. This is a big win for newbie distributor A24 which took a big risk in expanding the film so quickly after its $90,000 per-screen debut on just three screens last weekend. There was no guarantee that media attention would translate into mainstream interest, but in a relative sense, it did just that this weekend. As I always say, go big or go home, and A24 went big and thus went home (sorry, I switched to a baseball metaphor). The picture has $5.4 million thus far and could well top $15 million even with a massive drop next weekend as the word of mouth is already hilariously awful.

In holdover news, Oz: The Great and Powerful is still holding strong. A 46% drop this weekend was inevitable for obvious reasons, but the film still has $177 million domestic and $178 million overseas for a $356 million total. Stoker sadly flamed out in expanded release, earning $356,000 on 275 screens. See it soon before it's gone! Snitch topped $40 million which is a big win for the Dwayne Johnson action vehicle, especially with G.I. Joe: Retaliation likely to make that much in its first two days. The Incredible Burt Wonderstone dropped 58% on account of being terrible, giving it a ghastly $17 million after ten days. The Call felt the heat from Olympus Has Fallen and dropped 49% for a $8.7 million weekend. That's still good for $31 million in ten days for the better-than-you'd-expect $13 million programmer. Identity Thief has $127 million while Jack the Giant Slayer has a mere $59 million, with little help on the way overseas (at this rate, it'll just barely cross $150 million).

That's it for this weekend. Join us next time for G.I. Joe: Retaliation (review Wednesday), Tyler Perry's Confessions of a Marriage Counselor, and The Host.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office (03/24/13) part I: The Croods isn't Dreamworks' comeback because they weren't in free-fall.

2013-03-24T07:47:00.000-07:00

What a difference three years and an deflated expectations make. Three years ago this weekend, Dreamworks had to eat a token amount of crow when How To Train Your Dragon opened with *just* $43 million. Coming off the $59 million debut of Monsters vs. Aliens a year prior and elevated expectations due to the "new-found" popularity of 3D, the film was written off initially as a slight disappointment with the hopes that strong reviews and word-of-mouth would keep it alive. Of course, the film had insane legs and eventually ended up with $217 million domestic, but that's another story. Now, coming off the somewhat disappointing Rise of the Guardians ($303 million worldwide), a series of company lay-offs, and the delaying and/or cancellation of a few projects (like Me and My Shadow), Dreamworks is now trying to sell the (estimated as of this writing) $44 million debut of The Croods as a comeback and/or a massive win for the company. But not only is this not a comeback, but I would argue that Dreamworks doesn't have anywhere to come back from and that the perception of their failing after a single disappointing film is indicative of the fall-out of our obsession with rise/fall narratives where they don't belong.

A debut lower A Shark Tale back in 2004 ($47 million), Megamind in 2010 ($46 million), and Madagascar in 2005 ($47 million, part of a $60 million Memorial Day weekend) is now a raging success and a sign of Dreamworks's comeback? Right... Heck, adjusted for inflation (and not factoring in 3D prices), this is a lower debut than Bee Movie ($37 million in 2007). What this means is that me thinks that Dreamworks really needs to stop being a publicly traded company. They took a massive hit back in 2005 when Madagascar didn't open like Shrek 2 (shocker!) and even before Rise of the Guardians opened to just $23 million during the Fri-Sun portion of Thanksgiving, purely because it was expected that the film would disappoint (self-fulfilling prophecy?). What we really have here is an animations studio whose last eight films have earned an average of $526 million worldwide on around $150 million a pop. Yes Rise of the Guardians and Megamind ($321 million) weren't mega-smashes but that's what the safety of can't-miss sequels like Kung Fu Panda 2 (also written off as a flop even after it grossed $665 million word wide) and Madagascar 3 ($742 million worldwide or more than any other Pixar film save Toy Story 3 and Finding Nemo).

Rise of the Guardians allegedly lost $100 million, which is very bad, but Madagascar 3 earned them at least $200 million after production and marketing ($145m production, $145m marketing if not much less, gives you $452m divided by two = $226m) and before after-theatrical revenue. The idea that Dreamworks needs to completely change how it does business and/or 'do soul searching' after a single somewhat disappointing title is frankly moronic. Sure their sequels have done better than their originals of late, but that's pretty standard in the industry, and The Croods cost $135 million, or on the lower-end of what Dreamworks spends on these films. This is the same 'one strike and your out' mentality that made everyone believe that Pixar somehow needs a 'comeback' after Cars 2 "only" made $559 million and Brave "only" made $535 million. This will surely happen again when a Marvel film inevitably doesn't quite set the box office world on fire. By the way, we talk about mere $500 million+ worldwide grosses while Marvel's biggest earner outside the Iron Man franchise and The Avengers is Thor with $449 million worldwide. Even the Iron Man franchise has earned *just* $623 million worldwide and $585 million worldwide respectively, or about in line with an upper-end solid Dreamworks animated film. One whiff following a string of successes merely means that you can't hit a home run every time.

I'm disappointed that Dreamworks felt the need to lay off 350 of their 2,200 employees, and I think it was the wrong call in the long-term. I was looking forward to seeing Me and My Shadow (which was to be a mix of computer animation and hand-drawn animation) and whatever might of become of the Peabody and Sherman film (which is still on calendar for March, 2014 for now). But one relative box office disappointment, especially one that wasn't as parent-friendly as the likes of The Croods and was badly marketed to boot, should not bring a company to its knees after a string of highly profitable ventures. The Croods received an A from Cinemascore and a hearty 3.7x weekend multiplier. It will surely have strong weekday business due to Spring Break and it's the only animated film in the marketplace until Fox's Epic on Memorial Day. By the way, Fox is now the distributor for Dreamworks Animation, taking over from Paramount, so it's all-but-assured that the strong overseas numbers will continue unabated. A domestic total of around $150 million and a global total of $450-$550 million isn't out of the question, at which point we'll all start wringing our hands over Turbo, their apparent "Cars with Slugs!" racing film due July 17, 2013.

Dreamworks has slowly built a solid slate of marketable characters which they have only just begun to monetize in the ways that Disney does as a matter of course. When they have two expensive disappointments in a row, then we can all panic. When the next Madagascar film only grossed $400 million worldwide, then we can panic. But for now stop with the doomsday predictions and for goodness sake, especially those who trade on Wall Street, take a moment to do some box office research before you initiate a fire-sale for a company whose two films in 2012 earned a total of $1.055 billion worldwide.

Scott Mendekson

Warner Bros. already has the ingredients for Justice League, and the keys to making it unique and groundbreaking...

2013-03-23T07:49:00.000-07:00

So here's the $250 million question... Even if Warner Bros. eventually gets its proverbial act together and finds a decent script and a willing director how exactly do they make Justice League more than just 'the one that came second'? Warner Bros. is now in the unenviable position of trying to follow up what is basically the superhero team-up film that everyone always wanted to see. Oh sure, you can argue that Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman are bigger and more iconic characters than Thor or Iron Man, but Marvel did the work and kudos to them for herding the necessary cats in order to make it happen. The irony is of course that Warner Bros. and DC Comics already have the ingredients to make Justice League matter in a movie world that has already seen The Avengers. They have the ingredients, and the manner in which they mix them will potentially allow Justice League to be different enough and unique enough to stand on its own. They just have to be willing to do what Marvel has so far been unwilling to do, which is to focus on heroes that aren't quite the ones you'd expect to take center stage.

Okay, for a moment, let's presume that the rumors about Chris Nolan taking over the DC Comics film universe is true. And let's also presume that, as has been reported, the rumors about Christian Bale returning to the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman is not true. Well, my issues with how it would screw with the seemingly stand-alone Dark Knight trilogy aside, they have an entire continuity built on Nolan's Bat-trilogy. If they want Joseph Gordon Levitt to don the cape and cowl in Justice League, they merely have to ask "not Tim Drake" to do so. Sure the iconic Bruce Wayne vs. Clark Kent relationship will be lost, but frankly I'd wager that most general moviegoers wouldn't give a flying crap about that. The idea of actually seeing Levitt don the Batsuit will arguably be a marketing tool in-and-of-itself. Warner Bros. has what is allegedly a very successful Superman film on the horizon, so you've got your two biggies taken care of. Frankly, even if they didn't have Man Of Steel, they still had a viable Superman in Brandon Routh. Superman Returns earned more money, in 2006 and in 2D, than Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, and Thor domestically (and more worldwide even than Thor when inflation is factored in), and what complaints people had with the movie had nothing to do with the central performance, but I digress.

And you've got Martin Campbell's Green Lantern. But everybody hated Green Lantern and it lost a ton of money, right? Well, yes, but you still have that film, which already establishes the origins and general playbook of the Green Lantern corps. You've already got your Hal Jordan in the form of Ryan Reynolds, which means you're actually as well-off as Marvel was prior to The Avengers. Marvel had prior films centered around Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America before The Avengers dropped. Since they basically ignored The Incredible Hulk (where the only explicit continuity reference involved a deleted scene), you basically had two Iron Man films, a Thor picture, and a Captain America origin story. Comparatively, DC Comics will have three Batman films, a Superman picture, and a Green Lantern film. And in terms of peripheral characters, The Avengers was basically 'three characters who appeared in Iron Man plus two supporting characters from Thor'. DC Comics already has the same pool of characters to pick from. You've got Jim Gordon and Alfred Pennyworth from the Batman films, whomever they want to use from Man of Steel (think Lois Lane or Dr. Hamilton, played by Richard Schiff) and the likes of the entire Green Lantern corps (think a cameo from Sinestro still on the side of light) and/and Dr. Amanda Waller (Angela Bassett) from Green Lantern.

Or better yet, use Hal Jordan as one of those side characters in order to introduce a new Green Lantern like Jon Stewart (played by, I dunno, David Oyelowo?) who exists in the same world as the previous Green Lantern film. That allows you to keep the continuity of the previous film without being saddled with a Green Lantern that wasn't very popular with audiences. So you've got your previously established films which could conceivably be a unified universe, complete with established superheroes and a viable supporting cast to pick and choose from to help create an interlocked world. So how do you make Justice League different from The Avengers? Before I get to that, DC Comics and Warner Bros. has to just go and make a Flash movie. Make it a street-level, blue-collar superhero adventure centered around Wally West, use two of the "Rogues" as your baddies (like Mirror Master and Boomerang) while casting big stars in those comparatively small roles, keep the budget under $120 million, and just do it between now and whenever Justice League comes out. Just take that David Goyer script that allegedly is ready to roll and get to it. Now you'll have four pre-established superhero mythologies that can be alleged to take place in the same world. So now you've got your Justice League. But now here's the secret:

Tell it from Wonder Woman's point of view. Cast Lynn Collins (great pick, Aaron) and make her the audience's surrogate ala Wolverine and Rogue in the first X-Men film. That's the one thing Marvel hasn't done yet and that's the one thing that will make it different and unique among the big-ticket superhero films. Make it a Justice League movie not centered around Batman or Superman, but around Wonder Woman, a (gasp) female superhero, as your entry-character. She'll be the newbie arriving to Earth to help save it from whatever hell has been unleashed. And since it's a crowded movie that must run under 2.5 hours, you can get away with doing whatever origin story must be told in a brief 2-5 minute flashback and worry about the details in a stand-alone Wonder Woman film. Doing it this way allows Warner Bros. to have its cake and eat it too. They don't have to worry about the alleged lack of commercial appeal of a Wonder Woman movie, since she'll be supported by Batman and the gang. You can get all the free press from crafting the first mega-budget superhero movie centered around a female without taking the (again, alleged) commercial risks that come with that. Justice League can establish Wonder Woman in a character worthy of her own franchise, just as The Avengers was able to do with Bruce Banner after two somewhat unsuccessful attempts. This also allows you to take the best parts of the superb 2009 DCAU animated movie (the large-scale action sequences and the moments of angry feminism) without basically remaking the film as your first Wonder Woman picture.

You also have the option, if you use Jon Stewart, of having Ryan Reynolds cameo as the retired Lantern who quickly explains the Lantern mythology and who may or may not show up in the final battle and who may or may not perish in the big fight. You get your big character death without marring the future franchise possibilities. A Justice League movie centered not around Batman and Superman but around Wonder Woman and/or Jon Stewart's Green Lantern would indeed be somewhat of a social ground-breaker and would indeed qualify as something different from The Avengers on the basis of its character focus alone. It would beat Marvel Studios to the punch in two areas, both in having a major African American superhero on the big screen (Blade was produced by New Line, natch) and by having a major superhero adventure centered around a female protagonist. Point being, to paraphrase the wonderful Wizard of Oz, DC and Warner Bros. have had a Justice League movie inside them all along. They already did the ground work without realizing it and now they just have to stick the landing by knowing how best to cook the ingredients they have already accumulated. Tell the story from Jon Stewart's POV and/or from Princess Diana's. Use the world of Chris Nolan's Batman films to bring audiences in even if Bale decides to opt out (or hell, have him cameo as Bruce Wayne to announce that he'll be secretly funding the team's exploits from here-on-out). Use the supporting characters from The Dark Knight, Man of Steel, and Green Lantern (plus whatever Flash movie gets made) to establish an interconnected universe.

Warner Bros. already has the material to make a Justice League movie that can justify itself amid the sea of comic book adventures. The question is whether they can make the smart choices. So what do you think? Does any of this have a shot in hell of happening? Is it better to completely start over with Batman or merely acknowledge the Nolan trilogy as a way of establishing past tense and possibly your new-found Batman? How should DC/Warner Bros. deal with Martin Campbell's already established Green Lantern mythology? Sound off below.

Scott Mendelson

Brandon Peters's Evil Dead franchise retrospective part I: Within the Woods (1978)

2013-03-22T11:07:00.001-07:00

Brandon Peters has returned! Leading up to the April 5th release date of the new Evil Dead remake, Mr. Peters will be doing his voodoo with the Evil Dead series. He begins not with a retrospective review of the first Evil Dead film, because that would be too easy. No, first he's giving us a look at Within the Woods, the 1978 short film that Sam Raimi made in order to get funding for The Evil Dead. As only a casual Evil Dead fan, I've frankly never heard of this one, so this was as informative for me as I hope it will be for you. So without further ado...

Within The Woods

1978

Director: Sam Raimi

Starring: Ellen Sandweiss, Bruce Campbell, Scott Spiegel

Not Rated

You're only cursed by the evil spirits if you violate the graves of the dead. We're just gonna be eating hotdogs.

~Bruce

Sam Raimi's desired vision for The Evil Dead could not come to fruition unless he had more money than he could come up with himself. So, in 1978, he decided to make a short film, as sort of a trailer to hope to scare up the money to make the full film (yes, that was a pun, sometimes I just can't help it). Raimi's movie premiered in front of a midnight screening of Rocky Horror Picture Show to a good reception and he was able to acquire most of the his desired budget to make The Evil Dead.

Within The Woods brings forth a lot of shots, effects and story elements found in its big brother feature film. Although this one plays out more of a monster/slasher type horror than it does supernatural. And that’s mainly because of the money. Future Evil Dead stars Bruce Campbell and Ellen Sandweiss take lead in this little horror story. In this rendition, we have a female survivor/protagonist and Campbell’s “Bruce” is the deadite villain of the story. Instead of the book of the dead, this film gets its evil from the old disturbing of the Native American burial ground routine. Campbell takes the dagger (similar to the one in The Evil Dead films) from the grounds and through that he is apparently beaten and possessed wanting to kill everyone in distance while saying “Join us!”

The only copy I've seen of this film is of the poorest quality. You can definitely watch it, but its hard to make out things out. The only sources I've seen looks to be an old, worn out, chewed up VHS tape (go ahead hipsters, tell me how much better and more fun VHS is than Blu-ray). Some of the effects looks interesting because, well, I can't really see much. I'd kind of like to see their cheapness as it might add a sense of charm to it. As poor as the quality is, you can still make out Sandweiss’ distinct nose just fine. It's only a half hour, but could have been much shorter. This short actually does nail some moments quite well, especially the final shot. If you’re an Evil Dead fanatic and haven't seen this, definitely give it a look (as hard as it might be to see). I believe you can find it on YouTube.

“Join us” next time for: THE EVIL DEAD

Follow me on Twitter – www.twitter.com/@btpeters

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos