I think I officially stopped caring about the Oscars when Ellen Burstyn didn't win Best Actress for Requiem for a Dream. Maybe it was before that when Al Pacino beat Denzel Washington's Malcolm X for Best Actor. Either way, I'm always stunned that people get so upset when Oscar nominations come out and their faves get snubbed. People didn't see "The Reader" getting so much love but Harvey Weinstein called it; he knew he could get the film some noms based on the film's producers, Anthony Minghella and Sidney Pollack, both who passed away recently. While that seems crass, and it is, it's also how the Oscars work. People expected "Gran Torino" to get noticed, pretty much because it was Clint Eastwood. But really, "Changeling" always looked like the better Oscar contender. Just because it wasn't that good shouldn't make people forget about it.
And while people can complain all they want, sometimes you have to give Oscar voters credit for the insight.
Continue reading " Oscars and Why I Don't Care" »
After the debacle that was Superman Returns, Bryan Singer's career had to places to go: Up Up or Away. Thankfully, Valkyrie is a solid step in the right direction. The film is well made, features strong acting, and I've always been a fan of the way that Singer and Newton Thomas Sigel capture the images of their films. Some people are thrown by Tom Cruise's lack of accent in the film but it didn't get to me and I liked the fact that they at least tried to acknowledge it.
On the downside, the film is fairly straightforward yet still relies heavily on "What's going to happen?!" suspense. The problem with this is that everyone already knows what is going to happen. It would have been tough to pull off but the film might have been better had it been crafted more as a Whodunnit. Maybe start with the plan failing and people trying to figure out what went wrong, then go through the plot and we watch, trying to figure out who is going to be the culprit who ruins the plot to assassinate Hitler.
Even still, it's an entertaining film, a solid B. There's no need to rush out and see it or put it at the top of your Netflix queue but it's the kind of film that could be a pleasant surprise if you decide to check it out some time. This film won't be Tom Cruise back on top but it at least helps salvage what's left of his image. Personally, I think he needs to get into another thriller and not focus so much on comedy (his next film "Men" is directed by Old School's Todd Phillips) but maybe he feels that he needs to soften his image and make himself more likeable before he tries to regain his standing as one of Hollywood's most bankable movie stars.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is getting heaps of praise but I have to admit, the movie really fell flat for me. The biggest issue with Benjamin Button is that I had no idea who Benjamin Button was. Yes, he was a guy who aged backwards but other than that, who was he? He kind of seemed like a bum, shifting around from one dead end job to another, in spite of his gift/curse. Why am interested in a movie about a guy who can age backwards if his aging backwards doesn't really ever seem to matter all that much?
He worked on a tugboat as a young but old-looking man. And? I'm sure he wasn't the only teenager to take to the seas in that era. He had an affair with an older woman who taught him things about the world. Great but the fact that he wasn't really as old as he seemed didn't really matter. In fact, he just looked like a sheltered or naive old man. Besides the ending of the flimsy love story (which hinged almost completely on the belief that Cate and Brad were meant to be in spite of, well, everything), the film would have been virtually the same if Button was a regular kid growing up.
Don't get me wrong, Benjamin Button was beautifully shot and a well-made film but it was hardly an intriguing story, the characters relationships were paper thin, and I really can't believe that it's one of the best movies of the year. I honestly could buy Synechdoche, NY as a Best Picture nominee before Ben Button. At least in that case I could think "Well, maybe I didn't really get it." but I understood Benjamin Button. The only thing that didn't register is why people think it's some sort of classic.
If there's one thing that should stand out from this rather forgettable movie, it's that Taraji P. Henson needs to be considered one of the top young actresses in the biz. Other than that, I really don't see this movie laying claim to anything more than a footnote in the careers of Fincher and Pitt. In fact, I think both of their movies last year (Zodiac and The Assassination of Jesse James) were better films than Button.
In the end, I think the theme of the movie overtook the story, plot, characters, and premise. And the theme just wasn't all that intriguing. It's not a bad film but I wouldn't recommend it.
2008 wasn't a good year for film. Personally, I don't think there were any "great" films this year and there were only a handful of very good flicks. So what movies best defined the year that was?
The Happening: M. Night Shymalan's ode to b-movies was one of the worst movies of the year and part of me thinks that is exactly what he was going for. The performances were so bad that I had to believe that Night told people to act poorly. People can harp on Shymalan for this but he's hardly alone. More and more we are seeing people embrace the b-movie and actually aim for camp value over quality. Back in the day, filmmakers complained that the studios watered down their films. Now, the big name directors seem to be watering down their films themselves.
If you want to blame the studios for anything, look at the marketing. The selling point for The Happening was that it was the first R-rated feature from M. Night. Really? Did they think that was what America was waiting for? A raunchier Shymalan? Actually, the answer might be yes. More and more, we see films getting lauded for pushing the envelope in terms of violence or gratuitous blood. People are now sated by a few quality action scenes. They'll gladly overlook story issues, and some times convince themselves that things made sense, while being content if the movie had a few quality action scenes.
Death Race: Some people said this movie was a comment on society and reality TV but the real commentary was that this supposed indictment of modern TV is a remake of a film that was made before the dawn of reality TV. Like many films this year, Death Race might have been trying to say something but it wasn't saying anything new. Even Oscar-bait like Milk, W., and Frost/Nixon pulled their punches and gave us the stories we knew rather than trying to make a new statement. I still believe that a film about Harvey Milk's killer, Dan White, would have been more interesting than a rehash of the Milk story which was covered better in "The Times of Harvey Milk", the Oscar winning doc made in 1985. Although, if there was a film that pulled punches, it was...
The Dark Knight: I thought the close-up of the rat at the end of The Departed was nail on the head but that was downright subtle when compared to the tell, don't show approach of The Dark Knight. A lot of people loved the film and overlooked the script issues but this was a film that said nothing but had so many long-winded monologues that people could take whatever they wanted to out of it. The movie was explicitly vague. Some fans of The Dark Knight came unglued when a writer claimed that the film was actually a defense of George W. Bush but you could easily see the film like that. While many films in the future could take a darker approach because of this film, I think just as many will follow the lead and allude to current events while never actually taking a stand on any issues yet people will still act like it was somehow profound.
Hancock: Besides being a superhero movie, this is a film that featured style over substance. The movie had little to no story, was horribly structured, but made over 200 million. And you know what, I was entertained by it. I can't say for a number of other questionable fare like Wanted, Cloverfield, Eagle Eye, 10,000 BC, etc. but more and more, scripts are being eschewed while FX are taking the priority. This isn't exactly a new development but the studios are growing more brazen and making more and more films that are about as well written as "The Hills". One of the reasons this is a going trend is the growing money in overseas box office. A film like 10,000 BC might be stupid but it still translates into 174 million overseas. Special effects don't require subtitles.
Sex and the City: Be it Carrie Bradshaw, or Twlight, or High School Musical 3, the going recipe seems to be that films aimed towards the female audience require some sort of pre-fabricated package. While studios seem happy to throw out any piece of male-oriented crap like Eagle Eye, they don't seem confident in the ladies unless the property has shown popularity in the past. "The Women" didn't exactly help things either, bombing after Nikki Finke's campaign for a wide release and being labeled by some critics as one of the worst movies of 2008.
So with Hollywood hording all of the quality dramas until the end of the year, what films seem like they are going to be the best? Click on the name of the film to see the trailer.
1. Doubt: Right now I'd put my money on this one running away with the Oscars. Multiple acting Oscars and adapted screenplay although I think they'll give Best Director to someone more Hollywood.
2. Milk: The political climate should help this film get some buzz and I wouldn't be surprised if Sean Penn got an Oscar night podium to deliver a message to the nation while winning another Best Actor.
3. The Brothers Bloom: I doubt this will get any Oscar nominations but I loved the trailer and am eagerly awaiting this caper/con flick.
4. The Wrestler: I'm interested in seeing Mickey Rourke's comeback performance and am hoping that Aronofsky has given himself a somewhat "normal" script to work with. I have to admit, I've still yet to get through The Fountain.
5. Four Christmases: I actually don't even have high expectations for this film. I just know that some time over the month of December, I'll want a light, escapist film to go see and this seems like the best bet.
6. Che: I'm intrigued but it work of mouth and reviews aren't good, it could easily be pushed aside. While I know I miss out on a lot of quality foreign films because I think this way, I can't get past the fact that one of the reasons that I go to the movies is because I don't feel like sitting down and reading. If I'm not in the mood for a book, I'm not going to be in the mood for reading in a darkened theater. It's an unfortunate way of thinking, I know, but I also think it's the way a lot of people think.
7. Valkyrie: A lot of bad buzz but it's Singer/Mcquarrie of Usual Suspects fame. The latest trailer was good enough to get me on the bandwagon.
8. Revolutionary Road: Leo, Winslet, Sam Mendes. I'm a fan of all three so I'll be ready to give this one a look. Sam Mendes could snag Best Director if this one lives up to its pedigree.
The question marks: Seven Pounds, Yes Man, Frost Nixon, The Day the Earth Stood Still
As for the others: Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Australia seem like sprawling epic romances that really have little going on to reel me in. Australia's running time is also daunting. Even if they get great reviews, I might not break down and see them. I have zero interest in Gran Torino and will also go so far to say that I'm not a Clint Eastwood fan. I liked a lot of his early stuff (and think A Perfect World is highly underrated) but I could do without most of his latest ventures, save for Mystic River. Marley and Me? Well, they got one out of two right. The Spirit looks awful. I'll probably let The Reader slip to the Netflix queue and that's about it.
I thought when I moved to Hollywood that, at the very least, I'd be able to see any movie that came out and possibly discover some hidden gems. Unfortunately, that's not so. Indie features are nowhere to be found in Hollywood. Case in point, the highly anticipated "JCVD" is nowhere to be found. Like most independent films, it's pushed out to the outskirts of town, playing in one screen theaters in West L.A. or the Valley. The film "Assassination of a High School President" found a similar fate; I'm not sure it's playing anywhere despite opening this weekend.
What's even worse is that there are no shortage of theaters in Hollywood. The Arclight has 14 theaters but in the era of Simulplexes (as Peter Bart called them) they only have 9 movies showing (and in some cases, the films are only showing during the day). The old theaters of Hollywood hey day are rundown; most of been renovated to clubs or gyms. Some are rented out as churches. The one that is still going, The Vine, is a second run theater that also shows the occassional porn.
The only option for most indie films is The Sunset Five which is in a dying little mall, has lousy theaters, and one of the worst parking structures known to man. It's one of the few movies theaters that makes you wish you'd seen the movie at home.
I guess it shouldn't be a surprise then that one of the most popular film-centric events in Hollywood is held in a cemetary.
Role Models is a funny film and also a good film. While it doesn't have the deepest of characters, it has a solid enough story and, in something that is very rare with modern comedies, it actually gets funnier as the movie goes along. There might not be many laugh out loud moments but the jokes are peppered in at a solid pace and the movie never really drags. It's enjoyable from start to finish.
Part of me wanted to put this movie at #2 on my list but I just couldn't do it. It's not THAT good of a movie. Even still, it's one of the year's best and I definitely recommend this flick.
The funny thing isn't the actual movie Zack and Miri Make a Porno. It's the fact that Kevin Smith is now making the kind of movies he mocks. If anyone else had made this film, Smith would be on a college campus right now ripping it to shreds.
It's a bad romantic comedy with a core friendship that you don't believe at all (and a budding romance that is laughably thin). It plays like a spoof of romantic comedies but if that's what he was going for, it was too close. When you hear a song from Live playing over a slow-motion "Aha, I realize how I really feel about you." moment, you think it's a spoof but then there's no punchline.
Also, they get next to nothing out of the premise. If you think about making a movie about random people making a porno, there are tons of jokes that you could think of. Zack and Miri doesn't really get much out of it at all. Only a few "Making of" jokes; the rest of the laughs are the typical Smith dialogue. There are some funny lines but not enough to make the film worthwhile (and you'd like to think Smith has developed a little bit over the years).
Craig Robinson is hands down the best thing about the movie and really needs to get a leading role in something but even he can't make this film worthwhile. Unless you are a die hard Kevin Smith fan, I'd skip this one.
Jonathon Demme has described this movie as a home movie and that a great description. It has a lot of great, real moments, some awkward interactions which people which didn't happen, and is also a little too long at parts. While I did shift in my seat at times, the film is nonetheless riveting when it's on and is one of the better films of the year. The script is honest but not cloyingly so. The moments are troubling rather than agonizing. Jenny Lumet's script is superb with one moment in particular that is completely priceless.
In my last post (about Sex Drive), I wrote about well made films that don't connect and aren't as enjoyable. Rachel Getting Married is not one of those films, for me at least. It's definitely an art film and doesn't have broad appeal and I could see many people really not connecting with the characters and their struggles. I did. It's a film that, in the end, is touching because, along the way, it wasn't trying to be so. Anne Hathaway does a great job playing the anti-hero and Rosemarie DeWitt is superb as the wronged (but possibly wrong) sister.
I don't think this movie is one that people will remember for years to come but that doesn't mean that it isn't one of this year's finest.
Sex Drive is funny. It's not a groundbreaking comedy or anything you haven't seen before. It's completely juvenile. But it's funny. James Marsden does his best Stifler and Clark Duke is great as the lothario. Honestly, there's not much else to say. It's not a great film but it's one of the few times this year that I walked out of the theater and was happy that I had paid to see the movie and had no real complaints. It looks like it's tanking at the box office but I'd be surprised if it's not one of those films that people discover on video.
As for my list, I think it mirrors something that audiences feel and Hollywood doesn't get. Yes, In Bruges and The Bank Job were better films than Sex Drive. Sex Drive is ranked higher because it was a more enjoyable filmgoing experience. Personally, I feel invigorated when I walk out of a good film. Even a flawed film like Body of Lies has my head working overtime and thinking about some of the intriguing parts of the film. With a film like In Bruges, I respected the quality of the film but I wasn't all that taken by it. It's like a pretty girl that you just don't find attractive. There's nothing really wrong with her; it just doesn't click.
In the end, I'd recommend this film if you like juvenile teen comedies. If American Pie, Road Trip, Meatballs, etc. don't float your boat, this isn't the film that's going to win you over.
When I first saw the write-up for the new movie "Push", I was scared that someone was going to take my superhero movie idea. Fortunately, it's not the same thing as mine and it's really just a rip-off of "Heroes". You have people painting the future, moving things with their mind, and they have to save the pretty girl in order to save the world. It's kind of like Jumper meet Heroes, which isn't a good thing since Jumper was bad and Heroes is corny.
Then again, my superhero idea really isn't all that new or fresh either so I'm not sure why I was worried that someone would steal my unoriginal idea.
If you don't like insider Hollywood movies, this film will be a complete bore. You should avoid it like the plague. If you do like those kinds of movie, you should add it to your Saved queue on Netflix because the movie is solid, has some great moments, but never really rises above the status of rental.
If you're Barry Levinson or a suit at Showtime or HBO, you need to try to get a series or mini-series of this film into production. There are a lot of interesting pieces in this film but Levinson and writer Art Linson only give them a cursory glance. The film would make for an Entourage meets Sopranos type show in which the producer tries to maintain his tenuous grasp on his questionable power. He's a man who people respect... only until they disagree at which point they lambast him as just a producer. He's struggling with an ex-wife he hasn't gotten completely over and a 17 year old daughter from a previous previous marriage. And instead of the "other" family being the Mafia, it's the world of Hollywood: childish actors and directors, power-crazed studio execs, back stabbing assistant focused on climbing the ladder instead of helping out/doing their jobs. There's also the issue of a Jewish producer working with rabid Arab financiers (and worrying where exactly the money is coming from). It could be an amazing show.
As a movie, everything is rushed. You get a couple of scenes with the 17 year old (played by Kristin Stewart) but there isn't much there. The relationship with his latest ex, Robin Wright-Penn, is solid but not that deep. There's some great work put in by John Turturro, Bruce Willis, and a dog (and Moon Bloodgood is her usual ravishing self in a small role) but the film never really comes together to amount to anything. Rather than being involved with Robert DeNiro's main character, you are just kind of disconnectedly sitting back and watching the mayhem.
In the end, it's a so-so movie with some great moments and a superb premise that could make for some terrific TV. Again, I'd recommend it as a rental.
I'm not going to waste a whole post on Max Payne. Plain and simple, it's the worst movie this year. Worst direction. Worst Screenplay. Worst Score. Mark Wahlberg might have even trumped his performance in The Happening because at least in that film you could laugh at him. Aside from new Bond girl Olga Kurylenko's sexy but small role, the film is a complete waste.
The film did inspire me to make a quick list of the worst scenes so far this year. This list could include some spoilers although how can you really spoil a bad movie?
So without further ado, here's the bottom 10 scenes of the year.
10. Wanted: The Truck/Car Chase
Guy Ritchie is back. And by that, I mean that Guy Ritchie has made another only slightly different version of the films that people know and really like. On the downside, the guy is still a flashy filmmaker but he seems to be stuck in his genre. On the bright side, if you've seen his forays into other genres (Swept Away, Revolver), you'll be happy to hear that Ritchie back swinging at pitches in his wheelhouse.
The movie is "cool" if not forgettable. The actors do strong work with Body of Lies' Mark Strong anchoring the project while Gerard Butler, Tom Wilkinson, and Idris Elba have fun. It's more entertaining than Body of Lies but I found the Ridley Scott film to be more interesting.
This is one of those films that makes me hate making "Best of" lists. For everything good about the film (the acting, direction), there are major weaknesses. Like any and every Iraq/Terrorist movie, the biggest flaw is that it is all means without a true end. Winning or losing this battle doesn't mean you win the war.
All things considered, I enjoyed the movie and thought Crowe and DiCaprio were great while Andy Garcia's lookalike Mark Strong gives a breakout performance. Golshifteh Farahani gives a great performance and is beyond pretty which almost makes the hastily thrown together love story work. The film is about on par with the similarly themed Traitor (a film I liked that also got very mixed reviews). It's a film that drags but is though provoking. It's average but it hits on some points that I don't believe we've seen in films before.
I fully expect "The Express" to be a better movie but "Body of Lies" is interesting enough that I'd recommend it.
"Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" will likely go down as the longest 90 minutes of the year. It was a hipster's "Superbad" except with 99% of the jokes removed (and I wasn't even a huge fan of "Superbad"). This film was agonizing to get through. Michael Cera didn't really add much and as much as I like Kat Dennings, she didn't bring much to the table either. Not that you can blame them, there was really nothing to work with.
Just plain bad. If you are going to see a movie featuring Nick and Norah, go rent "The Thin Man". I'm actually astonished right now at the movie I just saw. Wow. Just not good.
The LA Times had a nice article about T-Mac and his recent visit to the Sudan. What's even better is that McGrady's visit and the documentary that he made while down there show his personal ignorance about what's going on in the Sudan and how sometimes the best intentions aren't always in the best interest of the people. As the article explains:
"After encountering children playing soccer without a field, McGrady says he'll pay $1,000 for a new pitch only to be told that green grass isn't really the refugees' greatest need.
"A lot of the film has to deal with his being out of his element," says Rothstein. "And he realized that was maybe the most important part of the trip for him."
Currently, the celebrity/athlete political world usually revolves around soapboxes, sneakers sales, and sheer apathy. Very few celebs are willing to go out and just shed light on a situation. Instead they get up and act as if they are experts, preaching what people SHOULD think about an issue. Others follow the Michael Jordan m.o. of "Republicans buy sneakers too" and refuse to even touch politics in fear of hurting their market share. And a depressing number of others simply do not care.
While I haven't seen the film yet, the description of the film is what a documentary is supposed to be. Shockingly enough, you DOCUMENT something that happens. You don't go into it looking to prove a point. In today's political climate, the docs that usually get released are the Michael Moore variety which start with the exact story and conclusion that they want to tell but hopefully T-Mac's film will find distribution and perhaps inspire more people to investigate the world that lies outside of their comfort zone.
Hollywood news hound Nikki Finke has been championing Diane English's version of The Women for most of this year, using it as an example of how female-centric films get the shaft by Hollywood studios. In June she argued:
I'm told Warner Bros execs including movie boss and charter member of the he-man women-haters club Jeff Robinov (who keeps maintaining he was just joking when he said he didn't want to make any more motion pictures with women as the leads) recently screened The Women and didn't like it. "It's not Sex In The City. It's just not that kind of movie," a studio insider insisted to me. Puh-leeze, who indeed wants a low-budget $16.5 million chick flick written, directed and produced by one of the biz's greatest women's comedy writers of seminal Murphy Brown fame... That stars quality "name" actress like Meg Ryan, Annette Bening, Eva Mendes, Debra Messing, Bette Midler, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Debi Mazur, Joanna Gleason, Carrie Fisher, Lynn Whitfield and Cloris Leachman... That reworks the original so it takes place in the broadcasting world and an ashram-like retreat where Meg plays a fashion designer and wife and mother, Eva the skanky mistress, and Annette the deliciously two-faced BFF and so on...
As it turns out, The Women seems to be the Sarah Palin to Hillary Clinton's Sex and The City. The film currently sits at an amazing 00% at Rotten Tomatoes. Now, I'm not fan of film critics and think they've often led us astray (especially this summer) but when you reach the dregs that only a few films like Disaster Movie have been able to reach, odds are that your film just isn't very good.
Not that Ms. Finke doesn't have a point. Female-centric films are in such a decline that even most films that pass as romantic comedies today are really male coming-of-age films in which the woman is just someone waiting around for the guy to start acting his age. Unfortunately, championing stuff like The Women is nothing more than a surefire way to help the opposing argument.
But who knows, maybe the film will overcome its rating and actually make some money. Maybe women will come out and see the film, if only to spite other new releases like Burn After Reading and Righteous Kill. I wouldn't bet on it and right now, I'm guessing Warner Brothers wishes they went with their original plan and just dumped The Women.
Diablo Cody is ready to follow up "Juno" with a horror movie. Something about Megan Fox killing guys or something. Anyway, it sounds interesting and I think the horror film could play to Diablo's strengths so I'll probably be there opening weekend. (I'll also admit to being a fan of the Hole song of the same name). There's just one problem. Someone over at promotions at Fox Atomic better come up with a new poster and quick. The original one sheet for the film is basically a mirror image (minus one enlarged canine) of True Blood's poster.
Winner: Robert Downey Jr
You just know that a whole bunch of fools are going to try to pull of the Robert Downey Jr. from Tropic Thunder costume this year and make everyone really uncomfortable. Granted, a good half of the people will only feel uncomfortable is there is an actual African-American at the party (because if not, it's HIL-A-RI-OUS) but still...
Currently, the frontrunner for my Halloween costume is probably the standard vague Pimp/70's disco guy or the fat slob who has as much booze on his drenched shirt as he does in his blood stream. I went as the latter last year which actually made it hard to pick up women because whenever a woman did seem interested, all I could think was, "Christ, I'm a fat slob whose wet, sticky shirt reaks of beer. What's wrong with you that you're dancing with me?!" Needless to say, last year Halloween was just another typical weekend for the ol' SoulHonky.
Franco: The headband came later, after I literally ran into a tree.
You see it in the movie. They used the take, and I had to get stitches. We couldn't stop shooting, so we thought of the headband.
I saw The Pineapple Express over a year ago and loved it. I thought it was one of the funniest movies of the decade (a seemingly bold statement until you look at the comedies this decade). Now that its release date is almost upon us, I'm chagrined to see that it's getting some lousy reviews. Upon reading the reviews, however, I just tend to get annoyed since the critics don't make much sense. A few of them claimed they laughed a lot but didn't like the plot or cinematography. Isn't the point of a comedy to make you laugh? Another guy seemed upset that it was a buddy comedy instead of a rom-com. A third reviewer compared it to Pulp Fiction, which she apparently thought was a comedy. So to save everyone from walking into the wrong movie, here are some tips on how to watch and enjoy The Pineapple Express.
1. The film is stupid. It's a dumb buddy comedy. The plot is barely there and is, at times, very silly. You have to go in expecting an over-the-top film. It's like "Live Free or Die Hard". I liked it because I went in knowing it was over-the-top and a borderline superhero movie. "Pineapple Express" is a comedic version of that. If you are sitting there, focusing on plot holes or thinking, "Well that wouldn't happen" you aren't going to like the movie. Similarly, if you couldn't enjoy "Road Trip" because the plot was the same as "Overnight Delivery" and was hardly original, then you'll have problem with this film.
2. It is violent. What "The Dark Knight" did with superhero violence, "Pineapple Express" does with comedic violence. It's not a rake in the grass, it's a random shlub sloshing through blood and trying to shoot it out with the bad guys. Picture two stoners giggling as they watch "True Romance" while listening to The Geto Boys first album. Now imagine if those stoners then decided to combine the two into a comedy. Imagine no more because that's "The Pineapple Express".
3. Forget that David Gordon-Green directed it. If you don't know who David is, then don't worry. If you know his past works, do not compare them to "Pineapple Express". It's a completely different movie in every way, shape, and form.
4. One of the major flaws in the film is the pacing. There are two scenes near the beginning of the film that are WAAAY too long. I saw a rougher cut and hoped they would trim those scenes down but apparently they didn't. The film sputters at the start but bear with it because when it gets going, it's hilarious.
If you go into the theater with those four facts in mind, I think you'll have a great time. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride.
Stop-Loss failed to make much money this weekend and I'm sure we'll hear, once again, how Iraq movies don't do well and how America is sick of war movies. Of course, this isn't really true. The problem isn't that America doesn't want to see Iraq war movies, it's that Hollywood doesn't make Iraq war movies.
Stop-Loss, like Rendition, Lions for Lambs, and even non-iraq films like Flags of our Fathers and Charlie Wilson's War are bureaucracy movies. Most of them have more in common with films like All the President's Men and Network than the golden era war films. The older war films were essentially updated Westerns. The new war films are more like off-Broadway morality plays. Most of them are lectures, written by non-experts, about a subject that most everyone has heard enough about. To act like Americans don't realize what our soldiers are sacrificing for us is ridiculous (and is, ironically, probably only true in Hollywood). While Hollywood thinks Stop-Loss is a rule that is somehow stunning and needs to be discussed, it's probably a fact of life for most people in America's Heartland. Hollywood is making films that lecture the people who actually are living with these issues.
On top of all this, Stop-Loss was made by MTV films, starred Ryan Phillipe, and had a marketing campaign that relied heavily on Snow Patrol music and shirtless men. It's almost like they were trying to get guys not to want to see them film.
In the end, I ended up seeing "21" this weekend. I knew it wasn't going to be great and that I'd probably forget most of it as soon as the lights came up in the theater, but I also knew that I would be entertained. And that's the key. Even if Stop-Loss was effective, the best case scenario is that I'd leave the theater depressed about a situation that I really have no way of changing and is, outside of a vote for Barack Obama, completely out of my control. If I'm already so bored on the weekend that I am willing to choose between Stop-Loss, 21, and Superhero Movie, then odds are that I don't need something that makes me even more depressed.
Variety.com has a piece about a new luxury theater chain which immediately get filed in the "As Rome Burns..." file but it got me to thinking about the one chance I wish all theaters would make. It might not be plausible because of space and plumbing but I'd love for their to be a way to not miss the movie if you need to go to the bathroom. Ideally, you'd have the bathroom be right behind your theater. Over the urinals would be a window (tinted on th outside so people can't see in) and the movie audio would be pumped in. Granted, you're still out of luck if you have to drop a deuce but at least you'll be able to hear the film.
Unfortunately, I can't see this happening any time soon so until then I'll have to just keep wearing diapers to the theater.
For a while now I've been disappointed with Hollywood's remake craze because rarely, if ever, does it make sense. In most cases, the films or TV shows being remade are so old that the kids today don't know about them while the adults have outgrown them. I always thought the more successful "remake" strategy was The Ripoff. Just take a film that people loved back in the day and revamp it. "Disturbia" did that with "Rear Window". Rather than remake the movie and suddenly get people up in arms over Shia LeBeof taking over Jimmy Stewart's role, they simply altered it enough so that they could say it was an original film. "The Fast and The Furious" was nothing more than "Point Break" with cars.
Two new films have recaptured the glory of The Ripoff. The first, coming out this week, is "Never Back Down".
The film is pretty much a remake of "The Karate Kid" with underground MMA fighting replacing organized karate. The film earns extra points for getting Djimon Honsou to play the Pat Morita Mr. Miyagi role.
The other ripoff is the new Robert DeNiro/Al Pacino film "The Righeous Kill". It's basically "Magnum Force" but with the Corleone's replacing one Dirty Harry. Now some might think this is a stretch but there's one thing in the trailer that tips the scales.
The tipoff? The final line of the trailer "Nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot" is lifted straight from "Magnum Force".
Now, Hollywood doesn't always get it right, hence the asterik in the tile. They've tapped the writers of internet site Ask A Ninja to remake the cult film "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". This makes no sense to me. If you have faith in the guys from "Ask a Ninja" produce a new script. Don't have them remake a bad movie. In the end, this might actually be the Hollywood execs trying to get back at the Ninja clan for reviews like this.
One problem with the Oscars is that a lot of secrets and trivia comes from the interview room. If they want to add something to spice up the ceremony, perhaps they should add little bits of trivia on each nominated film or performer (this could be something that they play before commercial breaks instead of having an announcer or doing the little "This is what it felt like to win an Oscar" clips they did this year).
For instance, here's a note from CNN's backstage report:
Finally, a comment from “There Will Be Blood” cinematographer Robert Elswit that should give us all pause. Asked what the film used to create its “oil,” Elswit said it’s something most of us have imbibed at one time or another: “It was industrial material used by McDonald’s to thicken their milkshakes, and I’m not kidding. That’s actually true.”
“I drink your milkshake,” indeed.
While they couldn't use that exact fact without losing a possible Mickey D's sponsorship, I think there's enough interesting info out there to use. Hell, if the Oscars are really desperate, they can even use it as a reason for people to come back after the commercials. Ask a question before the break and then answer it when they come back. Cheesy, perhaps. But it's an awards show and I think that idea is better than resurrecting Debbie Allen's interpretive dance pieces.
Rain is in the forecast for the Oscars and it's a good thing.
Perhaps now Hollywood will realize what it feels like to be an audience member this decade. Each week at the box office, it's seems like it is the same thing; a load of crap with, if we're lucky, a quality, depressing film thrown in. Now I like dark turns as much as the next film snob but Tinsel Town has turned into Dismal Town. The top writers/actors/directors often turn to the edgier fare and pretty much everyone has given up the idea that you can make a feel-good movie that not loaded in schmaltz.
This is one reason that I think Juno has a chance to pull off the upset. It might not be a throwback to the Golden Era but at least it's a film that doesn't make you leave the theater unhappier than when you walked in. Should it win? Probably not, but it's the Oscars and when has merit ever mattered?
Still, as much as I like a good anti-hero, I think it's time Hollywood started doing their best to churn out some happier films. Hell, they might even find that Middle America will go to some of these top films if you give them something to really root for/feel good about.
Sticking with the deja vu theme I apparently have going here, has any actor ever repeated themselves as much as Will Ferrell? He started with the arrogant, out-of-touch star in his own mind in Anchorman, then added sports and changed the accent in Taladega Nights, then changed the sport in Blades of Glory, and now is going back to the 70's and going with basketball with Semi-Pro. He basically played the same character in Bewitched (replacing sports with a self-referential Hollywood send-up) and now he's basically re-making that film but about a different TV show. The premise for his latest, a "Land of the Lost" remake, reads: "Ferrell stars as an arrogant, womanizing movie star cast in a remake of the Sid and Marty Krofft series, only to discover that real Sleestaks (Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller) exist among us." After that, Will will finally revisit the overgrown child of Elf, this time replacing being displaced by Santa with being displaced when your mom marries someone with another childish adult (played by John C. Reilly) in Step-Brothers.
Part of me feels like Will doesn't work off scripts as much as he has a couple of Mad Libs which he uses as a diving board for his improv.
Then again, I can't exactly complain because I've seen most of Ferrell's movies in the theater and will likely be at Semi-Pro next weekend.
Imagine you are a parent who's been eagerly awaiting the Super Bowl. Now imagine that your child comes home on Friday bouncing off the walls about some Hannah Montana movie. And not just any movie but a movie that the kid has to see in the theaters because it's in 3D. And because it's the already huge Hannah Montana, your child HAS to see it this weekend or else she'll be the only one at school who didn't see it. Are you really going to risk your Sunday sanity by saying no? You probably already let your daughter down once by not being able to score tickets to the actual concert, do you really want to have your child whining and crying when you're trying to watch the Super Bowl? And if you are a spouse, are you not going to appease your child rather than sitting around watching a game you have no interest in?
This is the epitome of counterprogramming. You pit kids against parents (and even dividing the parents in some cases), make seeing it in the theaters a necessity, and have it based on a property that is already huge so that peer pressure will be raging. This is how you make just under 30 million while showing a film on only 683 screens. It should be interesting to see how much staying power the Achy Breaky Offspring has. Unless the 3D is very impressive, I can't imagine many parents (who've already spent money on the CD's) being willing to take the kids to see the film again.
This week's box office should also probably teach Hollywood the lesson that nobody is really all that interested in seeing Jessica Alba act. In fact, she couldn't even match the box office of last year's Super Bowl horror film "The Messengers". She's a pin-up girl, not a screen attraction. Part of me thinks that if you switch Lake Bell and put her in "The Eye" and Alba in "Over Her Dead Body" the box office would have been pretty much the same. Honestly, the biggest draw this weekend after Hannah Montana was the laughing shark of "Strange Wilderness" because that is pretty much the ONLY reason anyone went to see that film which somehow managed to make 3 million dollars.
Venturing into the next month, let's see how 2008 stacks up with 2007. As I noted in the previous entry, this coming weekend features a horror film (The Eye) just like last year's top new release (The Messengers). And honestly, I think 14 million (which is what The Messenger's opened with) might not be such a bad haul for the Jessica Alba film.
The top film in the second week of February in 2007 was Norbit ($34m). In fact, this weekend has usually been a week for a big comedy: The Pink Panther (2006), Hitch (2005), Barbershop 2 (2004). With three of the four latest films featuring African-American leads, Universal Studios figured that it was the right time to release Martin Lawrence's "Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins". The other big release this week is "Fool's Gold" starring Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson. I bet you'll never guess what film debuted at #1 this weekend in 2003? Yep, McConaughey/Hudson's "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days".
The other release of note this weekend in 2007 was "The Lives of Others". That critically acclaimed film failed to find an audience so perhaps that is why this year's anticipated foreign language film "City of Men" isn't being released until the 4th weekend of the month.
The top three debuts in the third week of February were: Ghost Rider ($45), Bridge to Terabithia ($22m), and Music and Lyrics ($13m). And as luck would have it, the three releases this third week of February are actioner "Jumper", children's fantasy book adaptation "The Spiderwick Chronicles", and rom-com "Definitely Maybe" (I guess since they didn't have a rom-com about a former brit-pop singer, they decided to name it after a brit-pop album). And if "Jumper" can't make 40 million, Fox is going to be upset. Not only did Ghost Rider make that much last year but it's how much Daredevil made in 2003.
Surprisingly, February is going to be without Tyler Perry. His first two films were debuted at #1 the third weekend of February in 2005 and 2006 and then, last year, "Daddy's Little Girls" opened in the second week of the month. The box office for the films has been dropping so Hollywood has decided to go absolutely insane and move Tyler Perry's new film... to the third weekend of March.
For the third week of 2007, conspiracy theorists will have their thirst quenched again. Replacing "The Number 23" is the assassination conspiracy film "Vantage Point". "Reno 911: Miami" came out to decent numbers last year so it seems like a good time to release Larry the Cable Guy's silly cop film "Witless Protection". In 2006, Michael Gondry did well with his limited late-February release of "Dave Chapelle's Block Party" so Michel and Mos Def are back (with Jack Black replacing Black Thought) in "Be Kind Rewind". Charlie Bartlett is a bit of a wild card but it makes sense. There hasn't really been a good high school released yet so it could have that niche
If Hollywood actually made films featuring black women, this would likely be the place they put it. The only new films to debut at #1 in the last decade have been Madea (2005 and 2006) and Aaliyah (Queen of the Damned). Before that, the last new film to debut #1 was Jackie Chan's Rumble in the Bronx.
The final weekend of February is where things start to break down. Yes, Christina Ricci (Black Snake Moan) is back (this year in Penelope) and Will Ferrell returns to the late-February release that made him a star in 2003 (Old School) but Semi-Pro isn't a great comparison to Wild Hogs. And while you could say both films are talky period dramas about young lovers in peril, I'd say that you were really reaching when comparing "Zodiac" to "The Other Boleyn Girl"
In the end, there's one last gasp of deja vu. The first week of March, which was won by "300" last year, is the weekend in which "10,000 BC" opens. (And if you want to really reach, "Shutter" opens the next weekend, the same time that "Shooter" opened last year). But after that, 2008 will thankfully be allowed to carve out its own identity.
While I have to admit being depressed that "Meet the Spartans" managed to win the box office and rake in 18 million dollars, I can't say that I'm surprised. January is filled with dumb movies and dumb movies can easily make 18 - 20 million dollars when there's nothing else new coming out. In fact, this year is starting off almost exactly like 2007 did.
Week #1
2007: Night at the Museum $23m, Pursuit of Happyness $12m, Children of Men $10
2008: National Treasure 2: $20m, Juno $15m, I Am Legend $15m
So the first week was owned by holdovers and the order is the same: family friend at #1, critically acclaimed surprise succes at #2, and the not-so-typical actioner #3. While comparing the Ellen Page-led "Juno" to the Will Smith drama might be a stretch, they are both films that many people feared wouldn't find an audience.
Week #2
2007: Stomp the Yard $21m, Night at the Museum 17m, Pursuit of Happyness $9m
2008: The Bucket List: $19m, First Sunday $17, Juno $13m
The biggest difference between these two years is that the film that moved to a major release fared better. The Bucket List moved into 3000 theaters in its third week of release and took the box office. In 2007, Dreamgirls (after its fifth week of release) played in 2000 theaters but only mustered a 4th place finish. Also, National Treasure: Book of Secrets didn't have the legs that Night at the Museum had (and fell behind Juno).
Week #3
2007: Stomp the Yard $12m, Night at the Museum $12m, Dreamgirls $8
2008: Cloverfield: $40m, 27 Dresses $23m, The Bucket List $14m
Aside from Bucket List/Dreamgirls holding down the third spot, this week seems very different but it shares some similarities. To start, the new big release of this week in 2007 was, like Cloverfield, a horror film. The Hitcher simply didn't draw in anyone. And the counter-programming romantic comedy came a week early this year and fared better than 2007's Catch and Release (which only opened in half the theaters of 27 Dresses).
Week #4
2007: Epic Movie $18m, Smokin' Aces $14m, Night at the Museum $9
2008: Meet the Spartans: $18m, Rambo $18m, 27 Dresses $13m
Brain-dead comedy #1 and brain-dead actioner #2. Jennifer Garner's Catch and Release opened at #5 in 2007 taking in $4700 per theater while Diane Lane's Untraceable came in #7 with $4700 per theater. Also this week, the Oscar nominations helped art films jump to #8 (Pan's Labrynth $4.7m; There Will Be Blood $4.8m). The Departed got an expanded release (good for $3 million) as did Michael Clayton this year (good for 2 million) while The Queen (2007) and Atonement (2008) both brought in 4 million. Babel saw a slight bump in its theater count to earn 2.5 million in its 14 week while No Country for Old Men saw a similar bump in both theater count and money in its 12th week. 2008's fourth week also saw the debut of a Sundance Film Festival entry How She Move, which disappointed ($4m) about as much as Alpha Dog ($6m) which opened a couple of weeks earlier in 2007.
And what about Week 5? What will Hollywood put up against Super Bowl weekend? Well, the big release is a horror film (The Eye), like last year (The Messengers $14m). Last year also featured the debut of Diane Keaton in "Because I Said So". Needless to say, I'm sure the studio wishes they had held Keaton's "Mad Money" to this weekend rather than going up against "Cloverfield" and "27 Dresses". Replacing it is the crappy-looking romantic comedy "Over Her Dead Body" and goofball comedy "Strange Wilderness" along with the Hannah Montana concert film (only opening in 680 theaters).
---
So there are two lessons to be learned here. The first is that heavily-advertised crap movies will be a decent bet to open with 15 - 20 million. Going back through the decade, January is littered with crap that lands in that range (Snow Dogs, Just Married, The Recruit, Final Destination 2, Hostel, You Got Served, The Butterfly Effect, etc.). Usually you they'll take home 30 or 40 million overall (a recognizable name actor might add around 10 millon to that gross).
The other lesson that SHOULD be learned but simply won't be is the fact that slow releasing Oscar candidates at the end of the year is a great way to insure your film gets lost in the shuffle. There might be one or two films that breakthrough but most fall by the wayside and manage 30 - 50 million (which is barely more than the crap films that are dumped on the public in January).
Unfortunately, Hollywood isn't going to learn that any time soon because this January is going to be the biggest on record, crossing the 800 million mark for the first time ever. The best January had been in 2002, when three films made over 50 million dollars for the month and the total box office was just under 700 million. This year, 6 films have made over 50 million (with 27 Dresses knocking on the door at 45 million). On the bright side, Juno is the #1 film of the month, making 72 million. The other films are: National Treasure: Book of Secrets, Cloverfield, The Bucket List, Alvin and the Chipmunks, and I Am Legend. Needless to say, despite Juno being #1, I think Hollywood is more likely to be making more National Treasure's and Chipmunk movies in the future than smart comedies.
This was one of the more amazing theater experiences I've had. At the end of the film, the entire audience gave out an collective groan, followed by a pause, and then a shared laugh as people starting to talk about how terrible the film was. The movie played like a high school rendition of Godzilla (imagine Jason Schwartzman's character in "Rushmore" enacting Godzilla and you have the best idea) narrated by Bill Paxton's character in Aliens.
Although I have to admit, the previews alone took me out of this movie. Some Karate Kid meets Fast & The Furious movie got the ball rolling in the wrong direction. Of course, things didn't get better once the movie started. The main characters all acted like they were tweens. Two people totally had sex and its a huge scandal. Mind you, the main character is the VP of an unnamed company and everyone is supposed to be a few year (at least) removed from college. The reactions of the characters to any traumatic event are either unrealistic or simply not there at all. Honestly, a monster is stomping through New York and the main characters all seem pretty cool, calm, and collected throughout.
This movie is absolutely ridiculous. If you are expecting a stupid monster movie with two scares, some bland acting, nonsensical characters, and a ridiculous plotline, this movie is for you. But I still wouldn't recommend it.
Things You Should Know Before Viewing: If you still are going to see it, here's what I think you need to be ready for before viewing. First and foremost, it's a dumb b-movie. It doesn't elevate the genre above horror movie cliches. Check any common sense at the door and expect only Slasher flick intelligence from your characters. Expect the opening party scene to be too slow, too long, and too boring. Forget anything you've seen in "The Descent", "Godzilla", or most any other monster film and you'll be frightened. Imagine the characters are actually high school kids. Then I think you might be able to at least accept the film but I'm still not sure you'll enjoy it unless you have zero expectations.
This weekend the 2008 film year truly begins. Some legitimate releases hit the theater and it's time to take a look at what Hollywood has to offer this fine January.
The Definites:
None. There's no one film that I'm really amped up to see. But then again, it's January, the month in which studios try to avoid releasing actual quality movies.
The Maybe's
- The Air I Breathe: A lot depends on the reviews. It appears to be a compilation of stories and has a cast of Kevin Bacon, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Brendan Fraser, Forest Whitaker, Emile Hirsch, and Andy Garcia. And no, I'm not sure what I meant by naming the cast. Intriguing but not 15 dollars and two hours of my life intriguing.
- Tropa De Elite: A film about Brazil's elite police force? Sounds like it be could be City of God meets The Shield. Sounds promising.- Cloverfield: Not that I'm expecting this movie to be all that good but I'll probably get roped in to seeing it. I'm not a fan of JJ Abrams so I'm preparing to be underwhelmed. If my friends want to go, I'll probably see it but it's one of those films that I'd gladly let slip through the cracks and just wait to see on DVD. If only I had been even underwhelmed.
The Maybe If I'm Really Bored
- 27 Dresses: I like romantic comedies, what can I say. Well, I can say that this doesn't look very good so I'm in no rush to see it.
- Taxi to the Dark Side: The documentary about U.S. torture in Afghanistan seems very intriguing but I have to be honest, it's not something I can see myself making time for on the weekends (or plopping down to see after work).
The Probably Not's
- U2 3D: It should be in the No Way category but I'll move it up a notch out of respect for the band.
- Mad Money: I really like heist films. But I'm not sure I like them this much. And as much as I like Diane Keaton, I'm not really a fan of either Katie Holmes or Queen Latifah.
Teeth: A horror-type thriller about a girl with teeth (or something) in her vagina. Unless I get really depressed about being single and need to find some sort of bright side, I doubt I'll make it to this one.
- Rambo: I loved most of the Rocky movies but I didn't see Rocky Balboa. I don't think I've actually seen a Rambo movie (aside from First Blood) so I don't see myself spending a couple of hours watching a leather-faced Stallone relive his past glories.
- Trailer Park Boys - The Movie: I wasn't aware that there was a Trailer Park Boys anything else. Oh well. But if it gets good reviews, perhaps I might check it out.
- Untraceable: When the trailer of an action thriller is slow and dull, it's probably a sign that you should skip it. And cyber-terror movies very do much for me.
The No Way's
- 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days: "The description is a drama about a woman who assists her friend to arrange an illegal abortion in 1980's Romania." I think I'll find a way to pass on this.
- Cassandra's Dream: Woody Allen, Colin Farrell, and Ewen McGregor. Three high profile names whose movies I usually find disappointing. Yes, two negatives make a positive but THREE negatives have it right back at a big fat minus sign.
- Day Zero: Interest The Same.
- Alice's House: If it gets good reviews, I'll put it on my Netflix queue. Probably at the bottom of my Netflix queue.
- How She Move: Why Me Care?
- Meet the Spartans: Ugh. Not only will I not see this but I am rooting for it to fail.
I'm going to break up my film reviews into two categories: reviews (in which I'll say what I think and who I'd recommend the film to) and responses (breakdown of the film, which would include spoilers). This is a response so if you haven't seen "There Will Be Blood", you might not want to continue.
As I waited for the theater light to dim and the film to begin, I couldn't help but eavesdrop on a conversation a group of people sitting behind me were having. They were talking about their cross-country trip and going over many of the crazy places they'd been. One of the "funniest" was somewhere in New Mexico where they saw people, including some Native Americans, doing their grocery shopping at a gas station. I thought the story was depressing but the group behind me giggled as they mocked the people for buying marshmallows for sustenance. I could only shake my head as, finally, the lights went down and the film began.
The movie started and I have to admit, I never cared. Perhaps the travelers behind me had stirred up my lack of faith in humanity but I simply didn't get into the movie. I never saw any hope in the characters. I never thought Daniel (played amazingly by Daniel Day-Lewis) had an ounce of good in him. I never believed Eli Sunday was pure of heart. I never thought there was any love between Daniel and H.W. or Daniel and his "brother". I was simply watching evil men do evil things and end up where you'd expect them to in America. Day-Lewis had everything but still woke up in the gutter of his own creation. Sunday would renounce his God if he thought it meant Earthly salvation. To me, the film was not much different than the story I overheard earlier; I was observing people who didn't just have misplace values as much as they didn't even understand that their values (and emotions) belonged elsewhere.
And this is perhaps by biggest complaint about the movie. Yes, it was superbly acted and an almost perfectly constructed metaphor for the ills of capitalism and its bastard offspring, big business and sham religion, but do we really still need those metaphors? Shouldn't we be updating Upton Sinclair rather than simply repeating his storm warning, a cry to which we've most certainly turned a deaf ear? People understood the metaphors of the film but they only saw it as far as it affected others and not as it continues to infect all of our lives. "There Will Be Blood" was a tremendous piece of art. Many film critics and cinemaphiles already place it high upon a pedestal, a most ironic place for a socialist adaptation to end up. If there's no real argument being made, what's the purpose? Isn't it just watching two people crumble under the weight of their own misplaced desires? And if that is all there is, how much better is that to the story the travelers told before the film? Is admiring a well-crafted tale about the fall of the well to do any better than laughing at a crude story about the less fortunate?
If you know the names, you know this is no contest. Uwe Boll is famous for making crap while J.J. Abrams has built his name with shows like Felicity, Alias, Lost and with films like Mission Impossible:3 (which I didn't love but it was much better than anything Boll has done). The suits at Fox 2000, however, seem to like their chances against J.J. more than Uwe.
The Fox romantic-comedy "27 Dresses (starring Katherine Heigl, James Marsden, and Judy Greer) was slated to open on January 11th against Boll's new film as well as the Veggietales' "Pirates Who Don't Do Anything" and Ice Cube's "First Sunday". The film has been testing well so the studio decided that the wise move was to move it back a week so they could take advantage of the long weekend for Martin Luther King Jr. Day. On its own that makes sense but what makes the move curious is that the much-hyped "Cloverfield" opens that same day, as does "Mad Money", the crime caper starring Queen Latifah, Diane Keaton, and an actually attractive looking Katie Holmes. While I know that Hollywood focuses on the opening weekend, I can't help but think that, if the film is as good as the studio thinks, it would make more sense to come out on the 11th and help build word-of-mouth. We shall see.