Reservations about 'Narnia'
Watching the latest "Narnia" film last night, it struck me how thoroughly bland the four kids in the film are.
Which is in sharp contrast to most kid-friendly franchises. The "Harry Potter" kids are crystal clear characters with distinct personalities that function together. Johnny Depp brought oodles of character to the "Pirates" movies, as did Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom, although to a far lesser extent.
Another kids film that has bland characters, though, is "Speed Racer." Which is now the biggest flop of the year, hands down.
This is just one of the worrisome aspects of "Narnia" when it comes to box office. Another is it rode to its initial glory on three things: 1) a Christian tie-in, 2) a superb villain (Tilda Swinton as the White Witch) and perhaps most importantly 3) its release as a kid-friendly film over the holidays when theaters are stuffed with would-be Oscar contenders ("Alvin and the Chipmunks" made more than $200 million this year in the same slot).
This time out Swinton only has a cameo and the holidays are seven months away. Plus the whole Christian thing may have left people shaking their heads last time. A talking lion? That's the tie-in?
The good news for "Narnia" is absolutely no one cared about "Speed Racer," and the whole world has already seen "Iron Man," so there's not that much competition out there, at least until "Indiana Jones" next week.
So maybe it will still be the mega-blockbuster everyone (including me) has been expecting. I personally found it a bore, but then aside from Swinton I found the first one a bore as well, so my opinion is irrelevant.
One other "Narnia" reservation, though: The running time of two hours 24 minutes. When did kid movies turn into endurance tests? "Speed Racer" probably would have bombed either way, but its absurd length certainly worked against it.
Somewhere around "The Lord of the Rings" and the rise of the "Potter" films, kids movies started getting longer. "LOTR" had the substance and magic to sustain things, Potter had a built-in audience that would sit there for 24 hours. But "Pirates," "Narnia" and others are carrying the trend too far, and "Speed Racer" fell into the indulgence trap. It pushed down on the gas when it should have hit the brakes.
So, my estimate for "Narnia"? I'm thinking $70 million, which won't be a huge success but won't be a flop either. How it does once Indy arrives will be the test.
Of information and Indy
This is a movie thing, but it's also a journalist thing, and mostly it's a future-fear thing.
The New York Times, that most venerable of newspapers, had a story this past weekend about reviews popping up on the internet trashing the new Indiana Jones movie.
Now I don't seriously believe reviews posted by nobodies on the internet are going to effect the $624 kajillion that the new Indy movie is going to make at the box office any more than I believe my own review will effect the $624 kajillion the new Indy film will make.
This is Indiana Jones' world and the rest of us just live in it.
While we're living in it, though, we may want reconsider where we get our information and just what qualifies it as information.
The Times was essentially reporting rumors. There was no proof that any of these reviewers had actually seen the Indy movie, and none of the reviewers were using their real name. The Times said one anonymous reviewer claimed to be someone in the theater business.
Is this possible? Absolutely.
Is it any way true? Who knows?
And yet the Times runs this piece about a bad review, which of course starts bad word of mouth, even though no one has verified that our anonymous reviewer has even seen the movie.
I'd like to say this is a rare instance, but the fact is it's not. More and more newspapers are reporting information garnered from an internet source, using the excuse that said info was indeed posted at XYZ internet site.
The problem, of course, is that fake facts take on a reality of their own through sheer repetition. Perhaps you recall Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (also reported in the Times).
I ran into this problem recently when a TV station in Minnesota reported -- giving no source -- on its webite that Clint Eastwood would soon be shooting a movie here in Michigan.
Soon everybody was reporting that the TV station had reported this, but nobody -- at least for a number of hours -- had come up with any official source to back this up.
The old standard used to be the "child molester" test. If you were reporting something you simply substitute the words child molester for the facts you're reporting and if it holds up, you're fine. If not, don't print it. For example:
Fred G will be shooting his new movie in Detroit.
Fred G is a child molester.
As opposed to:
Fred G will be shooting his new movie in Detroit, according to Fred's production company and Linda B of the Michigan Film Office.
Fred G is a child molester, say Michigan state police and court records from the 1980s.
The big problem being that if you say Fred G is a child molester enough, even if he's not he's going to have that reputation. So you damn well better have some strong proof that Fred G is a child molester.
No one's saying Indiana Jones is a child molester. But they are saying his new movie stinks, although they won't say who they are. And what's worse is a major newspaper is carrying forth this message without even knowing who said it.
Hey, Indy's not going to sweat it. And the Times is hardly alone in doing this sort of stuff. What scares me is we all seem to be losing our sense of what can rightly be called information and what should be labeled propaganda or libel.
This kind of stuff is already being used to twist the public mind politically (apparently Barack Obama has been the target of mass e-mails stuffed with lies). That it's leaking over into pop culture -- or flooding over -- may seem less weighty but it's no less worrisome.
Yes, it's the modern age. Creepy, huh?
"Speed Racer": Wrong turns?
"Speed Racer" is going to find itself between a rock and a soft place this week.
With virtually no public recognition beyond anime geeks -- all 17 of them -- the kid-friendly flick comes out of the gate climbing uphill against "Iron Man," which has a PG-13 rating but plays fairly broadly across family lines. Few people are going to keep their 10-year-olds from seeing the Iron guy, and he'll likely rack up another $50 million this weekend.
So "Speed" should open with maybe $30 million. And that might be enough for some word-of-mouth success if this wasn't May and the film had enough time to build family friendly buzz.
But next week "Narnia" (the aforementioned soft place) arrives and all the families that might have considered "Speed" will instead opt for the known thing. Which should leave "Speed" spinning its wheels as the first high profile flop of summer.
One more thing racing against "Speed" is its length: If the Wachowski brothers seriously wanted to make an airheaded kiddie flick, why did they make a 126-minute airheaded kiddie flick? Ninety minutes would have served theaters and the audience far more efficiently.
My guess is the somewhat inexplicable success of the bloated "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies (can anyone recall what went on in the final two films? Did anyone really care?)will inspire too-lengthy indulgence in kid-targeted blockbusters for a while, to no good end.
On the other hand, "Speed Racer" on IMAX may be the year's great mindless sensory overload sensation, drawing the stoner crowd hoping to blind themselves senseless. It is, after all, very much the post-post-modern film, more a brain-pounding experience than a true narrative film.
And for all I know that's the future and the future's now. But I'm guessing the character and story of "Iron Man" still top the mindless fireworks of "Speed Racer." We'll know by Sunday.
Patrick Dempsey: You can go home again (maybe)
There are things which common wisdom says you can and can't do in Hollywood.
As of last week it appears Patrick Dempsey may be doing one of those things you can't do.
And aside from the natural joy generated whenever anyone does something they supposedly can't do, Dempsey's success may show that the decades-old unwritten and thoroughly arbitrary laws of TV and movie stardom are eroding.
Dempsey, you see, is a one-time young film star who saw his luster fade. He then resurfaced on a hit TV show, "Grey's Anatomy," which in turn made him a bigger celebrity than he ever was in film.
This is not all that rare. Kiefer Sutherland ("24") had the same kind of career revival. So did Charlie Sheen ("Two and a Half Men"). Heck, think Burt Reynolds in "Evening Shade."
What's rare is that Dempsey seems to be having some success when it comes to returning to movies.
His romantic comedy, "Made of Honor," scored a respectable $14 million last week, making it the number two box office movie.
His prior film role to that was as the male romantic lead in "Enchanted," the fairy tale from last November which earned $340 million worldwide
True, Amy Adams was the driving force behind "Enchanted," and $14 million is nobody's idea of a blockbuster.
Still, film actors who've "fallen" to TV aren't supposed to be able to go back again. Yet Dempsey appears to be doing just that.
Obviously it's about time. The list of television actors who've gone on to distinguished film careers ranges from Clint Eastwood to Meg Ryan to George Clooney, Johnny Depp, John Travolta, Michael Douglas and Billy Bob Thornton.
Want more? Tim Allen, Jessica Biel, Pierce Brosnan, Jennifer Aniston, Steve Carell... the list goes on.
And recently more bonafide film actors have made the transition to TV, most notably Holly Hunter ("Saving Grace") and Glenn Close ("Damages," "The Shield").
Still, how many film actors have moved to the tube and then back to the top of the box office charts? If there are any examples, they're rare.
Maybe Dempsey's success marks the beginning of a new era in which talent flows easily between the mediums.
Or maybe it just says this guy's so good-looking he can do anything he wants.
Either way it opens up possibilites. And possibilities are usually worth opening up.
Moviegoing: Your patriotic duty
Whether it's a recession or depression or downturn or just one big ugly mess of a time in the world, Hollywood may well profit over the next few months.
Traditional wisdom (and some slim economic evidence)says that people turn to movies in times of stress. And man, with the economy, the war, the presidential race and those Miley Cyrus photos, we've got stress.
Does this mean "Iron Man" will break box office records this weekend? Of course not. It will be happy to pull half of what "Spider-Man 3" grabbed in the same spot last year, say $75 million.
And in truth it's doubtful the overall box office this summer will top last year's, since it was catapulted by the perfect May storm of sequels to Spidey, Shrek and Pirates.
"Iron Man" will do well, and both "Narnia" and Indy should be monstrous. "Speed Racer" and "Sex" may not be sure things.
But money will be made, and should keep being made all summer long, since pretty much every week brings at least one potential blockbuster.
Think of all the movies we'll all be able to go see thanks to our stimulus checks. We can help the economy (or at least the Hollywood economy) by paying good money to sit in a theater and watch a movie that makes us forget just why this country needs stimulus checks in the first place.
Think of going to see the new "Hulk" movie as your patriotic duty. And be sure to salute the ticket takers as you enter the theater.
Of hobbits and Hellboy
"Hellboy II" must be something.
Why? Because Peter Jackson just signed HB director Guillermo del Toro to direct the two Hobbit prequels. That is pretty much as big an assignment as a director can get. Here, let me hand you the prequels to a billion dollar franchise.
Safe to say Guillermo will never have to flip burgers for a living after he's done with these movies. Actually, he'll probably never need to work again.
Which makes me think Peter liked HB2 pretty seriously.
I'm not sure if audiences are going to like it as much as Jackson but I myself am already drooling.
The previews I've seen have been both confounding and tantalizing.
Tantalizing because del Toro's famed sense of visual invention seems to be on full display in the film, which involves an alternate universe of mythic creatures aching to take over earth.
Confounding because Hellboy doesn't even show up until halfway through the trailer. It's like they're trying to hide the fact that it's a comic book movie.
The idea, obviously, is to suck in the "Pan's Labyrinth" artsy crowd, and then mention in passing that, oh, yeah, it's also a summer comic book blockbuster.
My guess is the art of the film will be perfect while the marketing is confused. And that's what makes del Toro such a great director: He's working simultaneously in high and low culture, seeing them as one. But it makes his product too complex for easy sales.
I hope I'm wrong, I hope HB2 makes $300 million. But no matter what, it obviously helped del Toro land The Hobbit movies, and it's going to be fascinating to see what he does with those.
How many stars does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Jackie Chan can't open a movie on his own.
Jet Li can't open a movie on his own.
Michael Angarrano sure can't open a movie on his own.
So they open one together. Welcome to post-star-driven Hollywood.
The success of "The Forbidden Kingdom" last week was moderate at best and most likely will prove short-lived. But it does reflect the modern screen-sharing formula that's taking over.
Sure, Harrison Ford will be Indiana Jones and Christian Bale will be Batman and Steve Carell will be Maxwell Smart this summer, all star turns of one magnitude or another.
But name me one of the stars of Narnia. Check out the individual efforts of the stars of Speed Racer. And does anybody know who the voice talent for Wall-E is?
For that matter, Sex and the City stars four people and none of them would be left to open a film on her own. That's pal power.
At this point almost no one other than Will Smith can open a film all by their lonesome. Even Harrison Ford will be leaning on Shia LaBeouf and Cate Blanchett with Indy.
In truth this may be a good thing artistically. Gone are the vanity projects and shallow stud studies that undermined so many of the bloated careers of the '80s and '90s. Instead of the star being the focus, the working of the film as a whole becomes the top priority.
Which is as it should be.
SNL: The girl's club
Over the decades "Saturday Night Live" has traditionally been a boys club.
Chevy Chase to John Belushi to Bill Murray to Eddie Murphy to Mike Myers, Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler, dudes have been the stars.
Think of it: Even the secondary dudes -- Chris Kattan, Rob Schneider, Dan Aykroyd -- landed big movie deals. Not so with the ladies.
Name all those great Jane Curtin films. Or Jan Hooks movies. Or Ana Gasteyer movies. Those women had at least as much going on as Chris Kattan (nothing personal, dude).
Well, all of that has changed in the last few years. The show's last dominant male - Ferrell -- left. And it's first female head writer, Tina Fey, also became both it's most potent Weekend Update anchor in a generation and then its most successful alumni in the world of TV.
Well, Fey may be gone, but her influence certainly isn't, and this year "Saturday Night Live" has been all about the girls, with Amy Poehler emerging as potentially the biggest breakout star since Ferrell. And at the same time Poehler is peaking, Kristen Wiig is sizzling in the wings, with full-of-promise Casey Wilson right behind her.
True, the dudes still outnumber the ladies by quite a bit. And most of them are good enough (Kenan Thompson can be pretty shaky at times). But aside from Andy Samberg, who seems to be connected directly to the YouTube generation by umbilical cord with his Digital Shorts, none of them are breakout talents.
And it seems unlikely any of them other than Samberg has a future in film.
Meanwhile Poehler and Fey have "Baby Mama" opening next week. It only took 30 years for the women to emerge from "SNL," but they are definitely here.
The challenge, as always, will be to keep finding talent. Because Poehler can't be around much longer. Still, it's nice to see things balancing out, even if it did take way too long.
Can reality come back?
Here's how hot documentary movies were a couple of years ago: Fourteen of the top 30 box office successes in the genre were made between 2004 and 2006, including such hits as "Fahrenheit 9/11," "An Inconvenient Truth," "March of the Penguins," "Super Size Me" and "Mad Hot Ballroom."
Here's how cold documentary movies have been since the release of "Truth" halfway through 2006: Only one film has cracked the top 30.
And that was Michael Moore's "Sicko," which was so branded with his persona -- he has made three of the genre's top five films -- that it was likely perceived as more a Michael Moore film than a documentary.
What happened? Did reality suddenly get a whole lot less appetizing?
Possibly, since a good number of documentaries released over the past near-two years have had to do with the Iraq War, the most reliable box office poison currently on the market.
There were also likely a few too many films which imitated the eco-concerns of "Truth" and depended on the animal magnetism of "Penguins." As a result, jewels such as the brilliant videogame odyssey "King of Kong" were lost in the shuffle.
Still, doc filmmakers aren't giving up and the proof of that will be readily available in art house theaters over the coming months.
A new doc attack begins this weekend with the local release of "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?" from cheeky "Super Size Me" auteur Morgan Spurlock, as well as the giddyap thoroughbred racing film "The First Saturday in May."
After that we'll get "Young@Heart" on April 25, the highly praised film about a bunch of senior citizens who learn to perform rock songs. And "Standard Operating Procedure," acclaimed director Errol ("The Fog of War") Morris' film about the Abu Ghraib controversy, on May 30.
If any of these films actually strikes a nerve with moviegoers -- and really, how can "Young@Heart" miss? -- the floodgates may open for countless other docs-in-waiting in the coming months. But if they all tank, it may signal the end of an era for the venerable form.
As it stands, most documentaries go straight to television or DVD anyway, never winning theatrical release. The films are comparatively inexpensive to make, but even when they do hit it big in theaters, the definition of "big" comes into question.
"Sicko" holds the number three position on the all-time list, and it only made $24 million. Compare that to "Spider-Man 3," the top film in 2007, which brought in $336 million.
It's comparing apples to oranges, some will say, but apples make it into movie theaters and oranges show up on HBO or your Netflix list.
The value of documentary films is indisputable, even if it is a bit hard to pin down just what constitutes a doc these days, with films exhibiting ever-stronger points of view and abandoning any pretense of objectivity.
Still, the stark power, humor and emotional revelation involved in the use of real-world images can't be denied.
The battle to keep those images a part of the movie going experience continues this week. At a theater near you.
The all-time top 10 box office documentaries:
1) "Fahrenheit 9/11" (2004) $119.1 million
2) "March of the Penguins" (2005) $77.4 million
3) "Sicko" (2007) $24.5 million
4) "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006) $24.1 million
5) "Bowling for Columbine" (2002) $21.5 million
6) "Madonna: Truth or Dare" (1991) $15 million
7) "Winged Migration" (2003) $11.6 million
8) "Super Size Me" (2004) $11.5 million
9) "Mad Hot Ballroom" (2005) $8.1 million
10) "Hoop Dreams" (1994) $7.8 million Source: boxofficemojo.com
Bet on it
"Iron Man" is going to be gigantic.
Yes, I've seen it; no this is not a review. Just a statement of fact. It is possibly the most efficient comic book film ever made. And boy, by May 2, audiences are going to be absolutely starving for a big action blockbuster. Try and recall the most recent truly good one... it's been a while.
I still think "Narnia" will likely beat it at the box office (because of the kiddie audience), but both should top $300 million.
The box office has been pretty awful of late, and I doubt that's going to change in the next couple of weeks. But "Iron Man" will blow things up in a major way.
And by the by, expect most of summer to be over before summer even really begins. May holds "IM," "Indy" and "Narnia," plus "Speed Racer" and "Sex City," even though I don't expect either of those to go hog wild.
Spidey, Supe, Batboy: Serious competition is on the way.
