11 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
Lionsgate's The Possession gets a poster aping a key image in the Haunting In Connecticut poster...
[Ljava.lang.String;@7f5aad08
10 Temmuz 2012 Salı
9 Temmuz 2012 Pazartesi
In mainstream films, dead moms don't count...
To contact us Click HERE
I had originally planned to do a spoiler-filled discussion of the various things that vexed me about The Amazing Spider-Man, but frankly my heart just isn't in it. The film is obviously a victim of severe post-production tinkering (Devin Faruci laid it out here) and it just feels petty to further attack a film that A) I've already panned in 1,500 non-spoiler words and B) is more a disappointing mediocrity than an outright travesty. Instead, I'd like to use the film's release to discuss something that has bothered me for at least the last several months, something I made a brief note about during the run-up to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. If you've seen The Amazing Spider-Man (and this isn't a spoiler if you haven't), you'll know that Peter Parker's emotional trauma is partially centered around the fact that his parents abandoned him when he was a young child and then died soon after. But as the film progresses, it's clear that Peter's journey and Peter's discoveries center almost exclusively around his father (Campell Scott). His mother (Embeth Davidtz) gets barely a line of dialogue and no real character to play. And that's the pattern, it would seem. Be they dead at the start or be they dead by act one, dead fathers are often fleshed out characters while dead mothers are, at best, pictures on the bookshelf.
When Mufasa falls off a cliff at the halfway point of The Lion King, it's a devastating moment for both Simba and the audience, since Mufasa is a full-blown supporting character who is basically the second-lead for the first third of the picture. Yet the countless dead mothers in prior and future Disney animated films (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Finding Nemo, etc.) merit at best a cameo in the prologue before being bumped off before the title card comes up (Bambi is the rare exception, where the doomed mother sticks around long enough to be mourned). Even The Princess and the Frog, another rare animated feature to spotlight a dead father and a living mother, makes a point to keep the deceased dad in the audience's minds throughout the narrative, including a climactic flashback that concludes Tiana's character arc. The recently deceased mother of Super 8 merits a photo and a name, while the dad in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is played by a major star (Tom Hanks) who has a supporting role throughout the drama despite dying on 9/11 in the opening moments. Bruce Wayne loses both of his parents in Batman Begins, yet it is only his father (Linus Roache) who gets a real character to play and more than one or two lines. It is his father whom Bruce Wayne holds as a role model and his father who Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) and Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) constantly refer to when discussing Bruce's actions and his moral worldview. Martha Wayne is played by Sara Stewart, but that's all I could tell you about her.
The dead dad and his impact on the hero's journey is obviously a classic one. But the odd thing is that even when both parents are dead, the focus is almost exclusively on the father. Peter Parker doesn't get caught up in a journey learning about his parents, but rather one learning about his father's life and his father's work. While it's implied that both of his parents are scientists (otherwise why would both parents have to ditch their son?), we end The Amazing Spider-Man knowing absolutely nothing about Mary Parker. And while The Descendants tries its best not to utterly villainize the comatose wife/mother (Patricia Hastie) while husband George Clooney comes to terms with her adultery, nor do they bother to give the character any actual lines or actual scenes save a brief silent moment on a boat just prior to her life-threatening accident. You can be sure that if the story revolved around a brain-dead husband and the wife and kids who cope with his flaws, the film would give at least a couple juicy flashbacks to the doomed husband/father. It's the difference between having the mother die in the opening moments and vanish from the film (Slumdog Millionaire) and giving the father a juicy supporting role that actually wins Christopher Plummer an Oscar in Beginners. Heck, Captain Kirk's living mother (Jennifer Morrison!) in Star Trek gets less screen-time than his doomed father (Chris Hemsworth).
There are occasional exceptions to be found. The Harry Potter series always emphasized the life of Lily Potter while detailing James Potter's school days. While Magneto loses both of his parents in a concentration camp in X-Men: First Class, it's clearly the death of his mother that scars him the most. But the general rule still applies. When both parents are dead, it's the father's influence that is most felt from beyond the grave. And while dead mothers are often mentioned but rarely seen, dead fathers often have featured roles pre-and-post death in their childrens' stories. Both March Webb (should be return to direct the Amazing Spider-Man sequel) and Chris Nolan (depending on if The Dark Knight Rises even remembers Martha Wayne) have a chance to buck the trend, and it will be interesting to see if either filmmaker takes or took the opportunity to expand the character of that 'other' dead parent. While losing a father may be some kind of alleged rite of passage in classical storytelling, losing a mother shouldn't be either ignored or used merely as a cheap ploy for emotion. If there is another Spider-Man film in this current universe, it would be nice if Peter remembered that he had a mother too.
Scott Mendelson
I had originally planned to do a spoiler-filled discussion of the various things that vexed me about The Amazing Spider-Man, but frankly my heart just isn't in it. The film is obviously a victim of severe post-production tinkering (Devin Faruci laid it out here) and it just feels petty to further attack a film that A) I've already panned in 1,500 non-spoiler words and B) is more a disappointing mediocrity than an outright travesty. Instead, I'd like to use the film's release to discuss something that has bothered me for at least the last several months, something I made a brief note about during the run-up to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. If you've seen The Amazing Spider-Man (and this isn't a spoiler if you haven't), you'll know that Peter Parker's emotional trauma is partially centered around the fact that his parents abandoned him when he was a young child and then died soon after. But as the film progresses, it's clear that Peter's journey and Peter's discoveries center almost exclusively around his father (Campell Scott). His mother (Embeth Davidtz) gets barely a line of dialogue and no real character to play. And that's the pattern, it would seem. Be they dead at the start or be they dead by act one, dead fathers are often fleshed out characters while dead mothers are, at best, pictures on the bookshelf.When Mufasa falls off a cliff at the halfway point of The Lion King, it's a devastating moment for both Simba and the audience, since Mufasa is a full-blown supporting character who is basically the second-lead for the first third of the picture. Yet the countless dead mothers in prior and future Disney animated films (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Finding Nemo, etc.) merit at best a cameo in the prologue before being bumped off before the title card comes up (Bambi is the rare exception, where the doomed mother sticks around long enough to be mourned). Even The Princess and the Frog, another rare animated feature to spotlight a dead father and a living mother, makes a point to keep the deceased dad in the audience's minds throughout the narrative, including a climactic flashback that concludes Tiana's character arc. The recently deceased mother of Super 8 merits a photo and a name, while the dad in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is played by a major star (Tom Hanks) who has a supporting role throughout the drama despite dying on 9/11 in the opening moments. Bruce Wayne loses both of his parents in Batman Begins, yet it is only his father (Linus Roache) who gets a real character to play and more than one or two lines. It is his father whom Bruce Wayne holds as a role model and his father who Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) and Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) constantly refer to when discussing Bruce's actions and his moral worldview. Martha Wayne is played by Sara Stewart, but that's all I could tell you about her.
The dead dad and his impact on the hero's journey is obviously a classic one. But the odd thing is that even when both parents are dead, the focus is almost exclusively on the father. Peter Parker doesn't get caught up in a journey learning about his parents, but rather one learning about his father's life and his father's work. While it's implied that both of his parents are scientists (otherwise why would both parents have to ditch their son?), we end The Amazing Spider-Man knowing absolutely nothing about Mary Parker. And while The Descendants tries its best not to utterly villainize the comatose wife/mother (Patricia Hastie) while husband George Clooney comes to terms with her adultery, nor do they bother to give the character any actual lines or actual scenes save a brief silent moment on a boat just prior to her life-threatening accident. You can be sure that if the story revolved around a brain-dead husband and the wife and kids who cope with his flaws, the film would give at least a couple juicy flashbacks to the doomed husband/father. It's the difference between having the mother die in the opening moments and vanish from the film (Slumdog Millionaire) and giving the father a juicy supporting role that actually wins Christopher Plummer an Oscar in Beginners. Heck, Captain Kirk's living mother (Jennifer Morrison!) in Star Trek gets less screen-time than his doomed father (Chris Hemsworth).There are occasional exceptions to be found. The Harry Potter series always emphasized the life of Lily Potter while detailing James Potter's school days. While Magneto loses both of his parents in a concentration camp in X-Men: First Class, it's clearly the death of his mother that scars him the most. But the general rule still applies. When both parents are dead, it's the father's influence that is most felt from beyond the grave. And while dead mothers are often mentioned but rarely seen, dead fathers often have featured roles pre-and-post death in their childrens' stories. Both March Webb (should be return to direct the Amazing Spider-Man sequel) and Chris Nolan (depending on if The Dark Knight Rises even remembers Martha Wayne) have a chance to buck the trend, and it will be interesting to see if either filmmaker takes or took the opportunity to expand the character of that 'other' dead parent. While losing a father may be some kind of alleged rite of passage in classical storytelling, losing a mother shouldn't be either ignored or used merely as a cheap ploy for emotion. If there is another Spider-Man film in this current universe, it would be nice if Peter remembered that he had a mother too.
Scott Mendelson
A look at the six-day opening weekend for The Amazing Spider-Man. Has Sony established a new franchise or merely temporarily dodged a bullet?
To contact us Click HERE
There are a number of ways to judge the six-day $137 million debut of The Amazing Spider-Man (review). First of all, in all but the most unlikely of circumstances, a film grossing $140 million in its first six days ($62 million over the traditional Fri-Sun weekend) is a pretty big financial success. For the record, the film played 44% 3D and 10% IMAX. The film earned an A- from Cinemascore and played 75% over 12 years old and 25% families with kids under 12. Of the over-12 audience, it played 54% were male and/or over 25 years old. Of the under-12s, 73% were under 10 years old and 65% were boys. While final figures won't drop until Monday, the six-day weekend puts in between 25 and 30 among the biggest six-day totals. It's the fourth-biggest Fri-Sun debut of 2012 and the second-biggest of summer. On the other hand, as far as Spider-Man films go, it's actually pretty weak sauce. Spider-Man 2 opened on this same holiday weekend back in 2004, earning a then-record $180 million in its first six days (with $88 million over the traditional Fri-Sun weekend, among the top-five opening weekends ever at that time). The first Spider-Man film (audio commentary) opened in May 2002 to a then-record $114 million Fri-Sun debut, earning $144 million over its first six days of play, three of those days falling in the middle of the school year no less. As for Spider-Man 3, it also broke the Fri-Sun record back in May 2007 ($151 million) before earning $176 million in its first six days. So factoring in inflation (Spider-Man - $196m, Spider-Man 2 - $229m - third best six-day of all time, Spider-Man 3 - $202m) and the 3D ticket-price bump, The Amazing Spider-Man sold far fewer tickets than its predecessors over its first six days of release. Point being, the Sam Raimi trilogy set box office records, while The Amazing Spider-Man merely exists as another relatively large-scale blockbuster amid a sea of preordained blockbusters.
But you say, the reboot was rebuilding the brand from the ground up and it had to deal with the general dissatisfaction from Spider-Man 3. You might even say that this film was playing the same kind of long-ball that Warner Bros. played with Chris Nolan's Batman Begins seven years ago. That would be true, which accounts for the alleged $220 million budget for The Amazing Spider-Man, an allegedly cheaper reboot that nonetheless cost as much as Spider-Man 2, $100 million more than Spider-Man in 2002, and only about $50 million less than Spider-Man 3. Batman Begins cost $150 million back in 2005, or far more than Batman ($45 million), Batman Returns ($80 million), Batman Forever ($100 million), and possibly Batman and Robin (officially $110 million, but allegedly as high as $200 million). But Batman Begins did three things that The Amazing Spider-Man did not. First, it did not so explicitly differentiate itself from the prior Burton/Schumacher series so as to bring about a desire to see a whole new batch of Spider-Man stories told in this specific universe (Star Trek and Casino Royale pulled this off as well, to a lesser degree). Second, it did not fully whet the appetite for an inevitable sequel while in turn telling a closed-ended story that stood on its own (the film is full of dropped plots and loose ends that were either cut during post-production or intentionally left open for the next chapter). In short, it was nowhere near as good as Batman Begins and Casino Royale nor as crowd-pleasing as Star Trek. I'd argue that Sony is in no better position now then if they had just let Sam Raimi make his Spider-Man 4 (or conversely, let Marc Webb make whatever Spider-Man movie he wanted instead of forcing an origin and/or cutting the film to ribbons in post-production).
Third, and even if you disagree with the above two points (I'm aware there are moviegoers who preferred The Amazing Spider-Man over Spider-Man and/or Spider-Man 2), this one is objective: It failed to come even close to the opening weekend/week totals of its predecessors. Batman Begins may not have exploded over opening weekend in the vein of Spider-Man or The Matrix Reloaded, but it earned $72 million over its first five days (it opened on a Wednesday). That was actually a record for the Batman series at that point, ahead of Batman ($57 million), Batman Returns ($60 million), Batman Forever ($66 million), and Batman and Robin ($52 million). Even Batman Begins's unadjusted Fri-Sun total ($48 million) was ahead of Batman ($42 million), Batman Returns ($46 million), and Batman and Robin ($43 million), coming just below Batman Forever ($52 million). Star Trek plowed past the prior Star Trek films over its debut weekend, out-grossing all but the top two entries (Star Trek: First Contact at $90 million and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home at $109 million) in just the first 3.5 days ($79 million). The Amazing Spider-Man didn't cost any less than the average Spider-Man film while grossing significantly less over its debut weekend even with 3D-inflated ticket prices. If it were a traditional sequel, it would be a most troubling debut. Since it's being treated as a 'part one', slack should perhaps be cut, especially considering how much the overseas market has grown even in the last few years, partially thanks to the foreign popularity of 3D. This could be a case like the far inferior Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, which grossed below the series norm ($240 million) in America only to do huge 3D-inflated business overseas and cross $1 billion worldwide. At the end of this weekend, after about a week-and-a-half of international play, the film has earned $338 million worldwide, which points to a $650-$750 million worldwide total offhand. So yeah, come what may, it's a hit.
So what does this performance mean in the long run, for this film, for the would-be Spider-Man series, and for franchise reboots as a whole? Since 2001, the big July 4th openers (Scary Movie 2, Men In Black 2, Terminator 3, Spider-Man 2, War of the Worlds, Superman Returns, Transformers, Hancock, and Transformers 3) have generally made between 1.9x and 2.1x their six-day totals (Cats and Dogs, The Devil Wears Prada, and Ice Age 3 did better while The Twilight Saga: Eclipse and The Last Airbender couldn't even reach 1.8x). So presuming The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't end up having significantly better or worse legs, that puts its domestic total between $260 million and $287 million. The film should hold up pretty well over the next weekend, since there is only one new wide release, Ice Age: Continental Drift. But The Amazing Spider-Man officially becomes past-tense come July 20th, when The Dark Knight Rises debuts. If the third Nolan Batman film is anywhere near as good as the buzz is suggesting (it screened to a handful of lucky bastards on Friday, and I won't see it until a few days prior to opening), I can't imagine anyone giving two bits about Marc Webb's loose remake of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. So whatever money it's going to make must be made in the next two weeks. Also, with a $35 million on opening day, it's actually a lower multiple (3.9x) than pretty every major July 4th long weekend multiplier save The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. Now if it does $270 million domestic and $400-$500 million overseas, it's still a pretty big hit. But the question is whether or not Sony successfully restarted their crown jewel comic book franchise.
Come May 2014, will fans and general audiences line up for The Spectacular Spider-Man (or whatever it's called) with the same relative fervor that they lined up for even The Bourne Supremacy (a $52 million opening coming off the $29 million debut of The Bourne Identity) or Iron Man 2 ($128 million debut off of the original's $100 million opening weekend)? One cannot presume a Batman Begins-to-Dark Knight level upsurge in respective opening weekends, although Paramount is probably expecting one for Star Trek 2 next summer. Other than fans who desperately want to see (SPOILER…) Emma Stone fall off a bridge and get her neck snapped (or the pie-in-the-sky fantasy of a Sinister Six team-up film), are there a huge number of Spidey fans who are exceptionally gung-ho about seeing this universe’s version of The Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus or even Venom? And the other untapped villains aren’t exactly the stuff of general audience fandom (Rhino! Electro! Mysterio!), unless they team up in part three. The inevitable sequel won’t explode out of the gate ala Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest or The Dark Knight (unless they cast Johnny Depp as Dr. Octopus) and that's a problem unless Sony can keep costs down. I’d argue that Sony may have won the battle with The Amazing Spider-Man (it’s not a flop by any means), but they may have lost the war.
Scott Mendelson
For the rest of the July 4th box office, go HERE. For prior July 4th weekends, go 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.
There are a number of ways to judge the six-day $137 million debut of The Amazing Spider-Man (review). First of all, in all but the most unlikely of circumstances, a film grossing $140 million in its first six days ($62 million over the traditional Fri-Sun weekend) is a pretty big financial success. For the record, the film played 44% 3D and 10% IMAX. The film earned an A- from Cinemascore and played 75% over 12 years old and 25% families with kids under 12. Of the over-12 audience, it played 54% were male and/or over 25 years old. Of the under-12s, 73% were under 10 years old and 65% were boys. While final figures won't drop until Monday, the six-day weekend puts in between 25 and 30 among the biggest six-day totals. It's the fourth-biggest Fri-Sun debut of 2012 and the second-biggest of summer. On the other hand, as far as Spider-Man films go, it's actually pretty weak sauce. Spider-Man 2 opened on this same holiday weekend back in 2004, earning a then-record $180 million in its first six days (with $88 million over the traditional Fri-Sun weekend, among the top-five opening weekends ever at that time). The first Spider-Man film (audio commentary) opened in May 2002 to a then-record $114 million Fri-Sun debut, earning $144 million over its first six days of play, three of those days falling in the middle of the school year no less. As for Spider-Man 3, it also broke the Fri-Sun record back in May 2007 ($151 million) before earning $176 million in its first six days. So factoring in inflation (Spider-Man - $196m, Spider-Man 2 - $229m - third best six-day of all time, Spider-Man 3 - $202m) and the 3D ticket-price bump, The Amazing Spider-Man sold far fewer tickets than its predecessors over its first six days of release. Point being, the Sam Raimi trilogy set box office records, while The Amazing Spider-Man merely exists as another relatively large-scale blockbuster amid a sea of preordained blockbusters.But you say, the reboot was rebuilding the brand from the ground up and it had to deal with the general dissatisfaction from Spider-Man 3. You might even say that this film was playing the same kind of long-ball that Warner Bros. played with Chris Nolan's Batman Begins seven years ago. That would be true, which accounts for the alleged $220 million budget for The Amazing Spider-Man, an allegedly cheaper reboot that nonetheless cost as much as Spider-Man 2, $100 million more than Spider-Man in 2002, and only about $50 million less than Spider-Man 3. Batman Begins cost $150 million back in 2005, or far more than Batman ($45 million), Batman Returns ($80 million), Batman Forever ($100 million), and possibly Batman and Robin (officially $110 million, but allegedly as high as $200 million). But Batman Begins did three things that The Amazing Spider-Man did not. First, it did not so explicitly differentiate itself from the prior Burton/Schumacher series so as to bring about a desire to see a whole new batch of Spider-Man stories told in this specific universe (Star Trek and Casino Royale pulled this off as well, to a lesser degree). Second, it did not fully whet the appetite for an inevitable sequel while in turn telling a closed-ended story that stood on its own (the film is full of dropped plots and loose ends that were either cut during post-production or intentionally left open for the next chapter). In short, it was nowhere near as good as Batman Begins and Casino Royale nor as crowd-pleasing as Star Trek. I'd argue that Sony is in no better position now then if they had just let Sam Raimi make his Spider-Man 4 (or conversely, let Marc Webb make whatever Spider-Man movie he wanted instead of forcing an origin and/or cutting the film to ribbons in post-production).
Third, and even if you disagree with the above two points (I'm aware there are moviegoers who preferred The Amazing Spider-Man over Spider-Man and/or Spider-Man 2), this one is objective: It failed to come even close to the opening weekend/week totals of its predecessors. Batman Begins may not have exploded over opening weekend in the vein of Spider-Man or The Matrix Reloaded, but it earned $72 million over its first five days (it opened on a Wednesday). That was actually a record for the Batman series at that point, ahead of Batman ($57 million), Batman Returns ($60 million), Batman Forever ($66 million), and Batman and Robin ($52 million). Even Batman Begins's unadjusted Fri-Sun total ($48 million) was ahead of Batman ($42 million), Batman Returns ($46 million), and Batman and Robin ($43 million), coming just below Batman Forever ($52 million). Star Trek plowed past the prior Star Trek films over its debut weekend, out-grossing all but the top two entries (Star Trek: First Contact at $90 million and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home at $109 million) in just the first 3.5 days ($79 million). The Amazing Spider-Man didn't cost any less than the average Spider-Man film while grossing significantly less over its debut weekend even with 3D-inflated ticket prices. If it were a traditional sequel, it would be a most troubling debut. Since it's being treated as a 'part one', slack should perhaps be cut, especially considering how much the overseas market has grown even in the last few years, partially thanks to the foreign popularity of 3D. This could be a case like the far inferior Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, which grossed below the series norm ($240 million) in America only to do huge 3D-inflated business overseas and cross $1 billion worldwide. At the end of this weekend, after about a week-and-a-half of international play, the film has earned $338 million worldwide, which points to a $650-$750 million worldwide total offhand. So yeah, come what may, it's a hit.
So what does this performance mean in the long run, for this film, for the would-be Spider-Man series, and for franchise reboots as a whole? Since 2001, the big July 4th openers (Scary Movie 2, Men In Black 2, Terminator 3, Spider-Man 2, War of the Worlds, Superman Returns, Transformers, Hancock, and Transformers 3) have generally made between 1.9x and 2.1x their six-day totals (Cats and Dogs, The Devil Wears Prada, and Ice Age 3 did better while The Twilight Saga: Eclipse and The Last Airbender couldn't even reach 1.8x). So presuming The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't end up having significantly better or worse legs, that puts its domestic total between $260 million and $287 million. The film should hold up pretty well over the next weekend, since there is only one new wide release, Ice Age: Continental Drift. But The Amazing Spider-Man officially becomes past-tense come July 20th, when The Dark Knight Rises debuts. If the third Nolan Batman film is anywhere near as good as the buzz is suggesting (it screened to a handful of lucky bastards on Friday, and I won't see it until a few days prior to opening), I can't imagine anyone giving two bits about Marc Webb's loose remake of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. So whatever money it's going to make must be made in the next two weeks. Also, with a $35 million on opening day, it's actually a lower multiple (3.9x) than pretty every major July 4th long weekend multiplier save The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. Now if it does $270 million domestic and $400-$500 million overseas, it's still a pretty big hit. But the question is whether or not Sony successfully restarted their crown jewel comic book franchise.
Come May 2014, will fans and general audiences line up for The Spectacular Spider-Man (or whatever it's called) with the same relative fervor that they lined up for even The Bourne Supremacy (a $52 million opening coming off the $29 million debut of The Bourne Identity) or Iron Man 2 ($128 million debut off of the original's $100 million opening weekend)? One cannot presume a Batman Begins-to-Dark Knight level upsurge in respective opening weekends, although Paramount is probably expecting one for Star Trek 2 next summer. Other than fans who desperately want to see (SPOILER…) Emma Stone fall off a bridge and get her neck snapped (or the pie-in-the-sky fantasy of a Sinister Six team-up film), are there a huge number of Spidey fans who are exceptionally gung-ho about seeing this universe’s version of The Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus or even Venom? And the other untapped villains aren’t exactly the stuff of general audience fandom (Rhino! Electro! Mysterio!), unless they team up in part three. The inevitable sequel won’t explode out of the gate ala Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest or The Dark Knight (unless they cast Johnny Depp as Dr. Octopus) and that's a problem unless Sony can keep costs down. I’d argue that Sony may have won the battle with The Amazing Spider-Man (it’s not a flop by any means), but they may have lost the war.
Scott Mendelson
For the rest of the July 4th box office, go HERE. For prior July 4th weekends, go 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Weekend Box Office (07/08/12): Savages debuts well, Katy Perry does not, as holdovers get holiday boost.
To contact us Click HERE
I've already allotted five paragraphs to The Amazing Spider-Man, so it's time to discuss the other films. There were two other wide openers this weekend. Oliver Stone's Savages debuted on Friday of the holiday weekend, proving to be relatively successful counter-programming. The $45 million hard-R drug thriller earned $16.2 million. Considering most of the stars (Blake Lively, Salma Hayek, Taylor Kitsch, Aaron Johnson, and Benicio Del Toro) are not box office draws, the director was the main attraction here. While supporting player John Travolta probably helped a bit, this was Oliver Stone's unofficial return to gritty, adult-skewing genre fare. World Trade Center, W., and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps were exactly kids flicks, but the unapologetic auteur behind Platoon, JFK, and Natural Born Killers hadn't been seen since Any Given Sunday back in 1999 . As such, it stands as the third-biggest debut of his career, behind World Trade Center ($18 million) and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps ($19 million). With a C+ from Cinemascore (it's arguably worse than that, sadly, highlighting boring youngsters over entertaining grownups while being a good 50% longer than it should be), it won't be reaching the heights of Platoon ($138 million) or the $70-$75 million range of Any Given Sunday, JFK, World Trade Center, and Born on the Fourth of July. Coming anywhere near the $50 million mark (Natural Born Killers) will count as a win for Universal, which probably should have moved this one to July 13th after they moved the unexpectedly successful Ted to June 29th.
The other wide debut was the 3D concert documentary Katy Perry: Part of Me. The $12 million Paramount production earned $7.1 million over the Fri-Sun portion of the weekend and $10.2 million since debuting on Thursday. The analysis on this one is simple. It's performing like Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience ($12 million debut/$19 million total) and Glee: The 3D Concert Movie ($5 million debut/$11 million total) as opposed to Michael Jackson: This is It! ($32 million 5-day debut, $72 million total), Justin Bieber: Never Say Never ($29 million debut, $72 million total), and Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds ($31 million debut/$65 million total). Katy Perry's documentary effort is earning strong reviews and an A from Cinemascore, so it may end up with a token amount of legs. Best bet is that it will end up between $20 million and $25 million. The film played 81% female and 72% under 25, so it was probably a great place to pick up a date in a certain age range (or depending on how old you are, get arrested). In holdover news, Ted dropped just 40% for a $32.5 million second weekend. Fueled by the holiday as well as strong word of mouth, the terrific comedy now has $120 million after ten days. So far, it's tracking ahead of The Hangover ($32 million second weekend, $104 million after ten days), but it's too early for those kind of comparisons quite yet. Pixar's Brave held firm in weekend three, earning $20 million and ended weekend three with $174 million. Among Pixar titles, that's the fifth-best 17 day total, behind only Finding Nemo ($191 million), The Incredibles ($177 million), Up ($187 million), and Toy Story 3 ($289 million). It will face its next test on July 13th, when Ice Age: Continental Drift (which has already racked up $198 million overseas) debuts in America.
Magic Mike dropped a hearty 60% over the holiday frame, for a $15.6 million second weekend. But Steven Soderbergh's $7 million male-stripper drama has already grossed $72 million, meaning it will outgross Contagion ($75 million) in a couple days and become Soderbergh's sixth-biggest grosser. Madea's Witness Protection used the holiday as somewhat blunt the usual quick-kill nature of Tyler Perry's films. It still dropped from $26 million to $10 million, but the summer weekdays helped give it a ten-day total of $46 million. There is an outside chance that it could surpass $63 million to become Perry;'s second biggest grosser ever, behind Madea Goes to Jail ($90 million). Madagascar 3 is still hanging in there, having now come within a nose of the original film's $197 million domestic gross. Worldwide, it's racing towards $475 million. Speaking of worldwide, Snow White and the Huntsman ($148 million domestic) has crossed $350 million worldwide. Prometheus now has over $300 million worldwide. Finally, despite my earlier concerns, Focus Features' expansion of The Moonrise Kingdom worked like a charm (I was wrong...) as the film crossed $26 million to become Wes Anderson's second-biggest grosser ever. Woody Allen's From Rome With Love expanded over the holiday, earning $3.5 million for a $5.2 million total. Two worthwhile indies, Safety Not Guaranteed and Bernie (both worth seeing) are still chugging, with $2 million and $7 million respectively. And finally Beasts of the Southern Wild expanded to 19 screens and earned $19,789 per each theater. The near-masterpiece sits with $745,000 thus far.
That's it for this weekend. The sole wide release next weekend is Ice Age 4: Continental Drift, as most of the geek crowd will be at Comic Con and/or breathlessly anticipating The Dark Knight Rises. Until then, take care.
Scott Mendelson
I've already allotted five paragraphs to The Amazing Spider-Man, so it's time to discuss the other films. There were two other wide openers this weekend. Oliver Stone's Savages debuted on Friday of the holiday weekend, proving to be relatively successful counter-programming. The $45 million hard-R drug thriller earned $16.2 million. Considering most of the stars (Blake Lively, Salma Hayek, Taylor Kitsch, Aaron Johnson, and Benicio Del Toro) are not box office draws, the director was the main attraction here. While supporting player John Travolta probably helped a bit, this was Oliver Stone's unofficial return to gritty, adult-skewing genre fare. World Trade Center, W., and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps were exactly kids flicks, but the unapologetic auteur behind Platoon, JFK, and Natural Born Killers hadn't been seen since Any Given Sunday back in 1999 . As such, it stands as the third-biggest debut of his career, behind World Trade Center ($18 million) and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps ($19 million). With a C+ from Cinemascore (it's arguably worse than that, sadly, highlighting boring youngsters over entertaining grownups while being a good 50% longer than it should be), it won't be reaching the heights of Platoon ($138 million) or the $70-$75 million range of Any Given Sunday, JFK, World Trade Center, and Born on the Fourth of July. Coming anywhere near the $50 million mark (Natural Born Killers) will count as a win for Universal, which probably should have moved this one to July 13th after they moved the unexpectedly successful Ted to June 29th.The other wide debut was the 3D concert documentary Katy Perry: Part of Me. The $12 million Paramount production earned $7.1 million over the Fri-Sun portion of the weekend and $10.2 million since debuting on Thursday. The analysis on this one is simple. It's performing like Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience ($12 million debut/$19 million total) and Glee: The 3D Concert Movie ($5 million debut/$11 million total) as opposed to Michael Jackson: This is It! ($32 million 5-day debut, $72 million total), Justin Bieber: Never Say Never ($29 million debut, $72 million total), and Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds ($31 million debut/$65 million total). Katy Perry's documentary effort is earning strong reviews and an A from Cinemascore, so it may end up with a token amount of legs. Best bet is that it will end up between $20 million and $25 million. The film played 81% female and 72% under 25, so it was probably a great place to pick up a date in a certain age range (or depending on how old you are, get arrested). In holdover news, Ted dropped just 40% for a $32.5 million second weekend. Fueled by the holiday as well as strong word of mouth, the terrific comedy now has $120 million after ten days. So far, it's tracking ahead of The Hangover ($32 million second weekend, $104 million after ten days), but it's too early for those kind of comparisons quite yet. Pixar's Brave held firm in weekend three, earning $20 million and ended weekend three with $174 million. Among Pixar titles, that's the fifth-best 17 day total, behind only Finding Nemo ($191 million), The Incredibles ($177 million), Up ($187 million), and Toy Story 3 ($289 million). It will face its next test on July 13th, when Ice Age: Continental Drift (which has already racked up $198 million overseas) debuts in America.
Magic Mike dropped a hearty 60% over the holiday frame, for a $15.6 million second weekend. But Steven Soderbergh's $7 million male-stripper drama has already grossed $72 million, meaning it will outgross Contagion ($75 million) in a couple days and become Soderbergh's sixth-biggest grosser. Madea's Witness Protection used the holiday as somewhat blunt the usual quick-kill nature of Tyler Perry's films. It still dropped from $26 million to $10 million, but the summer weekdays helped give it a ten-day total of $46 million. There is an outside chance that it could surpass $63 million to become Perry;'s second biggest grosser ever, behind Madea Goes to Jail ($90 million). Madagascar 3 is still hanging in there, having now come within a nose of the original film's $197 million domestic gross. Worldwide, it's racing towards $475 million. Speaking of worldwide, Snow White and the Huntsman ($148 million domestic) has crossed $350 million worldwide. Prometheus now has over $300 million worldwide. Finally, despite my earlier concerns, Focus Features' expansion of The Moonrise Kingdom worked like a charm (I was wrong...) as the film crossed $26 million to become Wes Anderson's second-biggest grosser ever. Woody Allen's From Rome With Love expanded over the holiday, earning $3.5 million for a $5.2 million total. Two worthwhile indies, Safety Not Guaranteed and Bernie (both worth seeing) are still chugging, with $2 million and $7 million respectively. And finally Beasts of the Southern Wild expanded to 19 screens and earned $19,789 per each theater. The near-masterpiece sits with $745,000 thus far.
That's it for this weekend. The sole wide release next weekend is Ice Age 4: Continental Drift, as most of the geek crowd will be at Comic Con and/or breathlessly anticipating The Dark Knight Rises. Until then, take care.
Scott Mendelson
Detailed Iron Man
To contact us Click HERE
If you remember my Marvel Universe Ultimate Gift Set 5-Pack review you saw pics of the Iron Man that came in it, and he was very plain, mostly just the base mold colors and very little paint. As soon as I got him out of the package and saw the indented lines on him I immediately thought I could fill those in with the detail marker I use for my Gundam model kits. Finally got around to doing it yesterday, and I think he came out great, and looks like he just walked right out of the old 70's comics.
If you remember my Marvel Universe Ultimate Gift Set 5-Pack review you saw pics of the Iron Man that came in it, and he was very plain, mostly just the base mold colors and very little paint. As soon as I got him out of the package and saw the indented lines on him I immediately thought I could fill those in with the detail marker I use for my Gundam model kits. Finally got around to doing it yesterday, and I think he came out great, and looks like he just walked right out of the old 70's comics.Marvel Universe X-23 Review
To contact us Click HERE
X-23, a young female clone of Ãœber-popular X-Man Wolverine, was a very controversial character when she first appeared, originally created for an episode of the X-Men: Evolution cartoon before being made an official cannon character in the main Marvel Universe a year later by the same writers that created her. I gave up watching the X-Men: Evolution after the first season, so I never saw the episode she appeared in, nor did I read any comics she first appeared in so I never got to she her in action or get a real feel for her. I can tell you I was highly against her getting a Marvel Legend action figure in 2006 because I felt a character that had barely been in the comics just under two years was unworthy of being released in a series called "MARVEL LEGENDS", but since then I have read comics with X-23 in them and have come to welcome her in the world of The X-Men and even like her a unique character.
Marvel Universe X-23 is chalk full of articulation, the first female buck to sport this much, but a flawed design of her upper thigh limits her movement at the hips, so standing and sitting/kneeling poses are possible but not side-kicks or the splits. I am glad they decided not to sculpt her with her feet claws out, and I am impressed with the slip-on soft plastic used to create the look of her boots, if you didn't know better you'd think they were completely new sculpted pieces. It's nice to see Hasbro is trying to complete the team of Wolverine's X-Force, I just hope X hasn't inherited Logan's ability to made multiple times in multiple costumes, I personally would only like one more X-23 in another costume with no mask.
X-23, a young female clone of Ãœber-popular X-Man Wolverine, was a very controversial character when she first appeared, originally created for an episode of the X-Men: Evolution cartoon before being made an official cannon character in the main Marvel Universe a year later by the same writers that created her. I gave up watching the X-Men: Evolution after the first season, so I never saw the episode she appeared in, nor did I read any comics she first appeared in so I never got to she her in action or get a real feel for her. I can tell you I was highly against her getting a Marvel Legend action figure in 2006 because I felt a character that had barely been in the comics just under two years was unworthy of being released in a series called "MARVEL LEGENDS", but since then I have read comics with X-23 in them and have come to welcome her in the world of The X-Men and even like her a unique character.Marvel Universe X-23 is chalk full of articulation, the first female buck to sport this much, but a flawed design of her upper thigh limits her movement at the hips, so standing and sitting/kneeling poses are possible but not side-kicks or the splits. I am glad they decided not to sculpt her with her feet claws out, and I am impressed with the slip-on soft plastic used to create the look of her boots, if you didn't know better you'd think they were completely new sculpted pieces. It's nice to see Hasbro is trying to complete the team of Wolverine's X-Force, I just hope X hasn't inherited Logan's ability to made multiple times in multiple costumes, I personally would only like one more X-23 in another costume with no mask.
8 Temmuz 2012 Pazar
Amazing Spider-Man sets Tuesday record with $35 million opening day. Six day weekend: $140m-$162m.
To contact us Click HERE
The Amazing Spider-Man ended up almost as amazing as Spider-Man 2 on the first day of its respective six-day Independence Day holiday weekend. With $35 million per-Sony, it broke the record for the biggest Tuesday gross ever and the biggest Tuesday opening day ever (both held by Transformers, grossed $27 million over its first day ($4 million of that, or 11.4%, was from IMAX engagements). But, as you recall, Transformers had $8.8 million worth of 8pm-12am sneak previews on Monday that year, giving the film a 1.25 day total of $36 million. So Transformers needed 1.25 days to do what The Amazing Spider-Man did in 24 hours. But The Amazing Spider-Man has 3D bumps and inflation to reckon with. Inflation alone would put Transformers's opening 1.25 days at about $42 million, which is about what Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen made ($43 million) on its first 1.25 days this time last year. So it appears offhand that The Amazing Spider-Man will perform, in terms of weekend multipliers, somewhere between 4x and 4.6x its opening day number, or about what Transformers (4.3x - $155m/$36m), Transformers 3 (4.1x - $180m/$43m), Spider-Man 2 (4.5x - $180m/$40m), Hancock (4.6x - $112m/$24m), and Superman Returns (4.6x - $97m/$21m) did over their respective July 4th six-day "weekends". The outlier is War of the Worlds, which opened with $21 million on a Wednesday and made it to $112 million by Monday, a 5x weekend multiplier. As such, expect The Amazing Spider-Man to gross between $140 million and $162 million by Sunday night, with an off-chance of it earning as much as $175 million.
Scott Mendelson
The Amazing Spider-Man ended up almost as amazing as Spider-Man 2 on the first day of its respective six-day Independence Day holiday weekend. With $35 million per-Sony, it broke the record for the biggest Tuesday gross ever and the biggest Tuesday opening day ever (both held by Transformers, grossed $27 million over its first day ($4 million of that, or 11.4%, was from IMAX engagements). But, as you recall, Transformers had $8.8 million worth of 8pm-12am sneak previews on Monday that year, giving the film a 1.25 day total of $36 million. So Transformers needed 1.25 days to do what The Amazing Spider-Man did in 24 hours. But The Amazing Spider-Man has 3D bumps and inflation to reckon with. Inflation alone would put Transformers's opening 1.25 days at about $42 million, which is about what Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen made ($43 million) on its first 1.25 days this time last year. So it appears offhand that The Amazing Spider-Man will perform, in terms of weekend multipliers, somewhere between 4x and 4.6x its opening day number, or about what Transformers (4.3x - $155m/$36m), Transformers 3 (4.1x - $180m/$43m), Spider-Man 2 (4.5x - $180m/$40m), Hancock (4.6x - $112m/$24m), and Superman Returns (4.6x - $97m/$21m) did over their respective July 4th six-day "weekends". The outlier is War of the Worlds, which opened with $21 million on a Wednesday and made it to $112 million by Monday, a 5x weekend multiplier. As such, expect The Amazing Spider-Man to gross between $140 million and $162 million by Sunday night, with an off-chance of it earning as much as $175 million.Scott Mendelson
Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful gets a teaser poster. Is it the next Alice In Wonderland or the next John Carter?
To contact us Click HERE
It's going to be a slow week at Mendelson's Memos this week, both because I have holiday-related family stuff and because I have a slight case of writer's block (I don't want to incessantly whine about The Amazing Spider-Man and not much else is happening news-wise at least until I see Savages on Friday morning). Anyway, Disney dropped this poster for Sam Raimi's $200 million (!!!) Oz: The Great and Powerful, which is apparently a prequel to the original Wizard of Oz. Disney is opening this on March 8th, 2013, or the same weekend that Disney's Alice In Wonderland debuted in 2010. Let's hope they have better luck with this James Franco/Mila Kunis/Zach Braff/Michelle Williams/Rachel Weisz tent-pole than they did with their last first-weekend-of-March entry, John Carter.
Scott Mendelson
It's going to be a slow week at Mendelson's Memos this week, both because I have holiday-related family stuff and because I have a slight case of writer's block (I don't want to incessantly whine about The Amazing Spider-Man and not much else is happening news-wise at least until I see Savages on Friday morning). Anyway, Disney dropped this poster for Sam Raimi's $200 million (!!!) Oz: The Great and Powerful, which is apparently a prequel to the original Wizard of Oz. Disney is opening this on March 8th, 2013, or the same weekend that Disney's Alice In Wonderland debuted in 2010. Let's hope they have better luck with this James Franco/Mila Kunis/Zach Braff/Michelle Williams/Rachel Weisz tent-pole than they did with their last first-weekend-of-March entry, John Carter. Scott Mendelson
When the private life overwhelms the public persona - Is Tom Cruise about to become the next Mel Gibson?
To contact us Click HERE
I don't generally discuss gossip, so I'm going to do my best to keep this film-centric. First and foremost, there is bitter irony that this is all occurring just as Tom Cruise has reaffirmed his movie stardom. Seven years ago, his box office bankability was put in severe doubt due to the beginning of his courtship of Ms. Katie Holmes. Now, just as Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol has reaffirmed both his box office muscle and his dedication to a certain level of mainstream quality, the end of this relationship may torpedo his career all over again, be it temporarily or permanently. Now of course the film that Mr. Cruise was promoting back in June of 2005 when he performed his famous couch-jumping was Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, which went on to earn $234 million in the US and $591 million worldwide, making it Cruise's highest grossing film ever on both levels (M:I4 eclipsed it worldwide last year with $693 million). In the years that followed, we had a somewhat under-performing franchise sequel (Mission: Impossible III with $133m domestic and $397m worldwide on a $160m budget), a political drama that was never going to be a blockbuster (Lions For Lambs, which earned $15 million in the US but $63 million worldwide on a $35 million budget), an over-budgeted but well-reviewed potboiler (Valkyrie, which cost $90 million and earned $200 million worldwide), and Knight and Day, a $117 million action comedy with Cameron Diaz that still earned $261 million worldwide. So, coupled with a crowd-pleasing cameo in Tropic Thunder, the idea that Tom Cruise had lost his luster was more about public relations and alienating some of his more casual fans than any real loss of box office mojo. But this may be different...
*IF* Tom Cruise is an in-the-closet gay man, and I am not privy to anything beyond the rumors we've all heard, it's hard to argue that coming out or being outed back in 2005 would have done any more damage to his reputation than he has inflicted upon himself over the last several years. The common line is that Cruise basically recruited Katie Holmes to be his public beard after there was reason to believe that he was about to be outed as a homosexual (if I avoid details, it's because I don't want to get into third-hand gossip). The question becomes whether those who were indeed weird-ed out by his post-2005 antics (the couch jumping, the Matt Lauer interview, etc.) would have been equally turned off by the revelation that he was gay. Sure, I suppose it could be argued that such a revelation could have hurt his career in the 1990s, when he was at his commercial and artistic peaks, and when he was still viewed as a cinema heartthrob. The insane speculation over whether Anne Heche could convincingly romance Harrison Ford onscreen in Six Days Seven Nights back in 1998 certainly adds fuel to that fire. But by 2005, did anyone still see Cruise as a matinee idol? Did the kids of 2005 have posters of Tom Cruise on their walls? And even if they did, to what extent would his coming-out effect his crush-worthy status? On this I can only speculate, as we've never had a mega star come out as gay/lesbian at the peak of their career. I can only say personally that my prurient interest in Anne Heche, Portia De Rossi, and Jodie Foster faltered little as speculation or confirmation of their lesbianism came to light. Since the idea of fantasizing about movie stars is partially about lusting for the unattainable, the knowledge that Cruise (or today's equivalent - Robert Pattinson, Channing Tatum, and/or Chris Hemsworth) was into guys would only slightly alter that fantasy.
But that's a paragraph-long tangent based on speculation and rumor. Let's presume for a moment that Tom Cruise isn't gay and he just, for whatever reason, fired his longtime publicist in 2005 and basically cracked open his carefully-constructed public persona for reasons unknown. The damage that this divorce could do to his career is actually far worse than the aftermath of any couch-jumping antics. It stands to reason that Holmes will probably give interviews and/or write a very successful book based on her seven-year relationship with Cruise. At the very least we'll finally find out why Holmes ended up not returning as Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight, as there has never been an official explanation given. At worst we'll likely receive confirmation regarding many of the more far-fetched stories regarding Holmes' home-life married to the world's most famous (and outspoken) Scientologist. And if these relative horror stories are confirmed, what does *that* do to Tom Cruise's stardom and/or box office bankability? His future box office draw is almost immaterial, in that he's 50 years old and nobody stays on top forever. But what if it turns out that Tom Cruise is truly crazy? What if Tom Cruise, be he gay or hetero, is an obsessive, paranoid, borderline insane control freak who basically kept his wife as a prisoner in her own life for six years either for his own desires or due to the perceived demands of his religion? In short, what if Tom Cruise becomes the next Mel Gibson?
Like Cruise (and Hanks, Ford, and Roberts), Mel Gibson's stardom had peaked in 2000. So the idea that Mel Gibson will never return to the commercial heights of Signs, What Women Want, or Lethal Weapon 3 isn't so much a tragedy as an inevitability. But with years and years of evidence surrounding his mental state, and the apparent rage-induced outbursts that go with it, it is beyond clear that Mr. Gibson is a seriously disturbed individual. The level of genuine psychological damage, often showing itself through Anti-Semitic, racist, and misogynistic rants, frankly makes it that much harder to watch, let alone enjoy his prior films. While I saw Edge of Darkness upon its theatrical release (because I'm a Martin Campbell junkie) and I attended a press screening of The Beaver (because I'm a Jodie Foster junkie), I haven't watched a Mel Gibson film purely for recreation in well-over half-a-decade. It's not out of some moral outrage and the end-result won't be a grand tragedy. It's just not as much fun to watch Gibson's work when you know that his 'happy-crazy' shtick (which once made him a wonderfully entertaining talk show guest) is really a mask for some hardcore human pain and possible mental illness. In cases such as this, ignorance is indeed bliss. If Tom Cruise isn't gay, then perhaps the coming public meltdown was inevitable. But if he is gay, and the attempts to hide this fact was the primary motivation for much of his personal behavior over the last decade or so, then it stands to reason that coming out of the closet would have been the less harmful option in regards to maintaining his popularity and preserving his film legacy.
Tom Cruise was a pioneering star in a number of ways, using his early capitol to work with the very best directors (Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Oliver Stone, Barry Levinson, Brian DePalma, etc.) long before that was the 'cool' thing to do and continuing to do so as his popularity grew. His 31-year career has produced a shockingly low number of truly bad films, with almost none post-Days of Thunder in 1990. He has provided career boosts to Aaron Sorkin, Cameron Crowe, Paul Thomas Anderson, J.J. Abrams, and Brad Bird while extending the commercial lifespan of Brian DePalma, John Woo, Michael Mann, and Bryan Singer. Long story short, I fear that the day may soon come when Tom Cruise's legacy will not be primarily about his many contributions to popular mainstream cinema but rather his rather sordid personal life and private actions. While no great tragedy in the grand scheme of things, it would be disheartening as Mr. Cruise is set to enter what should have been a fascinating final act of his storied career.
Okay, your turn to share. If Cruise is gay, would the damage of his coming out been greater or less than the PR damage he has sustained since 2005 and perhaps will sustain in the near-future? If it's revealed that all of the horror stories involving his marriage to Katie Holmes are true, will that affect how you view his films in the future and his past work? What are your thoughts on conflating the private life with the public art of a given performer?
Scott Mendelson
I don't generally discuss gossip, so I'm going to do my best to keep this film-centric. First and foremost, there is bitter irony that this is all occurring just as Tom Cruise has reaffirmed his movie stardom. Seven years ago, his box office bankability was put in severe doubt due to the beginning of his courtship of Ms. Katie Holmes. Now, just as Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol has reaffirmed both his box office muscle and his dedication to a certain level of mainstream quality, the end of this relationship may torpedo his career all over again, be it temporarily or permanently. Now of course the film that Mr. Cruise was promoting back in June of 2005 when he performed his famous couch-jumping was Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, which went on to earn $234 million in the US and $591 million worldwide, making it Cruise's highest grossing film ever on both levels (M:I4 eclipsed it worldwide last year with $693 million). In the years that followed, we had a somewhat under-performing franchise sequel (Mission: Impossible III with $133m domestic and $397m worldwide on a $160m budget), a political drama that was never going to be a blockbuster (Lions For Lambs, which earned $15 million in the US but $63 million worldwide on a $35 million budget), an over-budgeted but well-reviewed potboiler (Valkyrie, which cost $90 million and earned $200 million worldwide), and Knight and Day, a $117 million action comedy with Cameron Diaz that still earned $261 million worldwide. So, coupled with a crowd-pleasing cameo in Tropic Thunder, the idea that Tom Cruise had lost his luster was more about public relations and alienating some of his more casual fans than any real loss of box office mojo. But this may be different...*IF* Tom Cruise is an in-the-closet gay man, and I am not privy to anything beyond the rumors we've all heard, it's hard to argue that coming out or being outed back in 2005 would have done any more damage to his reputation than he has inflicted upon himself over the last several years. The common line is that Cruise basically recruited Katie Holmes to be his public beard after there was reason to believe that he was about to be outed as a homosexual (if I avoid details, it's because I don't want to get into third-hand gossip). The question becomes whether those who were indeed weird-ed out by his post-2005 antics (the couch jumping, the Matt Lauer interview, etc.) would have been equally turned off by the revelation that he was gay. Sure, I suppose it could be argued that such a revelation could have hurt his career in the 1990s, when he was at his commercial and artistic peaks, and when he was still viewed as a cinema heartthrob. The insane speculation over whether Anne Heche could convincingly romance Harrison Ford onscreen in Six Days Seven Nights back in 1998 certainly adds fuel to that fire. But by 2005, did anyone still see Cruise as a matinee idol? Did the kids of 2005 have posters of Tom Cruise on their walls? And even if they did, to what extent would his coming-out effect his crush-worthy status? On this I can only speculate, as we've never had a mega star come out as gay/lesbian at the peak of their career. I can only say personally that my prurient interest in Anne Heche, Portia De Rossi, and Jodie Foster faltered little as speculation or confirmation of their lesbianism came to light. Since the idea of fantasizing about movie stars is partially about lusting for the unattainable, the knowledge that Cruise (or today's equivalent - Robert Pattinson, Channing Tatum, and/or Chris Hemsworth) was into guys would only slightly alter that fantasy.
But that's a paragraph-long tangent based on speculation and rumor. Let's presume for a moment that Tom Cruise isn't gay and he just, for whatever reason, fired his longtime publicist in 2005 and basically cracked open his carefully-constructed public persona for reasons unknown. The damage that this divorce could do to his career is actually far worse than the aftermath of any couch-jumping antics. It stands to reason that Holmes will probably give interviews and/or write a very successful book based on her seven-year relationship with Cruise. At the very least we'll finally find out why Holmes ended up not returning as Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight, as there has never been an official explanation given. At worst we'll likely receive confirmation regarding many of the more far-fetched stories regarding Holmes' home-life married to the world's most famous (and outspoken) Scientologist. And if these relative horror stories are confirmed, what does *that* do to Tom Cruise's stardom and/or box office bankability? His future box office draw is almost immaterial, in that he's 50 years old and nobody stays on top forever. But what if it turns out that Tom Cruise is truly crazy? What if Tom Cruise, be he gay or hetero, is an obsessive, paranoid, borderline insane control freak who basically kept his wife as a prisoner in her own life for six years either for his own desires or due to the perceived demands of his religion? In short, what if Tom Cruise becomes the next Mel Gibson?
Like Cruise (and Hanks, Ford, and Roberts), Mel Gibson's stardom had peaked in 2000. So the idea that Mel Gibson will never return to the commercial heights of Signs, What Women Want, or Lethal Weapon 3 isn't so much a tragedy as an inevitability. But with years and years of evidence surrounding his mental state, and the apparent rage-induced outbursts that go with it, it is beyond clear that Mr. Gibson is a seriously disturbed individual. The level of genuine psychological damage, often showing itself through Anti-Semitic, racist, and misogynistic rants, frankly makes it that much harder to watch, let alone enjoy his prior films. While I saw Edge of Darkness upon its theatrical release (because I'm a Martin Campbell junkie) and I attended a press screening of The Beaver (because I'm a Jodie Foster junkie), I haven't watched a Mel Gibson film purely for recreation in well-over half-a-decade. It's not out of some moral outrage and the end-result won't be a grand tragedy. It's just not as much fun to watch Gibson's work when you know that his 'happy-crazy' shtick (which once made him a wonderfully entertaining talk show guest) is really a mask for some hardcore human pain and possible mental illness. In cases such as this, ignorance is indeed bliss. If Tom Cruise isn't gay, then perhaps the coming public meltdown was inevitable. But if he is gay, and the attempts to hide this fact was the primary motivation for much of his personal behavior over the last decade or so, then it stands to reason that coming out of the closet would have been the less harmful option in regards to maintaining his popularity and preserving his film legacy.
Tom Cruise was a pioneering star in a number of ways, using his early capitol to work with the very best directors (Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Oliver Stone, Barry Levinson, Brian DePalma, etc.) long before that was the 'cool' thing to do and continuing to do so as his popularity grew. His 31-year career has produced a shockingly low number of truly bad films, with almost none post-Days of Thunder in 1990. He has provided career boosts to Aaron Sorkin, Cameron Crowe, Paul Thomas Anderson, J.J. Abrams, and Brad Bird while extending the commercial lifespan of Brian DePalma, John Woo, Michael Mann, and Bryan Singer. Long story short, I fear that the day may soon come when Tom Cruise's legacy will not be primarily about his many contributions to popular mainstream cinema but rather his rather sordid personal life and private actions. While no great tragedy in the grand scheme of things, it would be disheartening as Mr. Cruise is set to enter what should have been a fascinating final act of his storied career.
Okay, your turn to share. If Cruise is gay, would the damage of his coming out been greater or less than the PR damage he has sustained since 2005 and perhaps will sustain in the near-future? If it's revealed that all of the horror stories involving his marriage to Katie Holmes are true, will that affect how you view his films in the future and his past work? What are your thoughts on conflating the private life with the public art of a given performer?
Scott Mendelson
In mainstream films, dead moms don't count...
To contact us Click HERE
I had originally planned to do a spoiler-filled discussion of the various things that vexed me about The Amazing Spider-Man, but frankly my heart just isn't in it. The film is obviously a victim of severe post-production tinkering (Devin Faruci laid it out here) and it just feels petty to further attack a film that A) I've already panned in 1,500 non-spoiler words and B) is more a disappointing mediocrity than an outright travesty. Instead, I'd like to use the film's release to discuss something that has bothered me for at least the last several months, something I made a brief note about during the run-up to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. If you've seen The Amazing Spider-Man (and this isn't a spoiler if you haven't), you'll know that Peter Parker's emotional trauma is partially centered around the fact that his parents abandoned him when he was a young child and then died soon after. But as the film progresses, it's clear that Peter's journey and Peter's discoveries center almost exclusively around his father (Campell Scott). His mother (Embeth Davidtz) gets barely a line of dialogue and no real character to play. And that's the pattern, it would seem. Be they dead at the start or be they dead by act one, dead fathers are often fleshed out characters while dead mothers are, at best, pictures on the bookshelf.
When Mufasa falls off a cliff at the halfway point of The Lion King, it's a devastating moment for both Simba and the audience, since Mufasa is a full-blown supporting character who is basically the second-lead for the first third of the picture. Yet the countless dead mothers in prior and future Disney animated films (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Finding Nemo, etc.) merit at best a cameo in the prologue before being bumped off before the title card comes up (Bambi is the rare exception, where the doomed mother sticks around long enough to be mourned). Even The Princess and the Frog, another rare animated feature to spotlight a dead father and a living mother, makes a point to keep the deceased dad in the audience's minds throughout the narrative, including a climactic flashback that concludes Tiana's character arc. The recently deceased mother of Super 8 merits a photo and a name, while the dad in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is played by a major star (Tom Hanks) who has a supporting role throughout the drama despite dying on 9/11 in the opening moments. Bruce Wayne loses both of his parents in Batman Begins, yet it is only his father (Linus Roache) who gets a real character to play and more than one or two lines. It is his father whom Bruce Wayne holds as a role model and his father who Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) and Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) constantly refer to when discussing Bruce's actions and his moral worldview. Martha Wayne is played by Sara Stewart, but that's all I could tell you about her.
The dead dad and his impact on the hero's journey is obviously a classic one. But the odd thing is that even when both parents are dead, the focus is almost exclusively on the father. Peter Parker doesn't get caught up in a journey learning about his parents, but rather one learning about his father's life and his father's work. While it's implied that both of his parents are scientists (otherwise why would both parents have to ditch their son?), we end The Amazing Spider-Man knowing absolutely nothing about Mary Parker. And while The Descendants tries its best not to utterly villainize the comatose wife/mother (Patricia Hastie) while husband George Clooney comes to terms with her adultery, nor do they bother to give the character any actual lines or actual scenes save a brief silent moment on a boat just prior to her life-threatening accident. You can be sure that if the story revolved around a brain-dead husband and the wife and kids who cope with his flaws, the film would give at least a couple juicy flashbacks to the doomed husband/father. It's the difference between having the mother die in the opening moments and vanish from the film (Slumdog Millionaire) and giving the father a juicy supporting role that actually wins Christopher Plummer an Oscar in Beginners. Heck, Captain Kirk's living mother (Jennifer Morrison!) in Star Trek gets less screen-time than his doomed father (Chris Hemsworth).
There are occasional exceptions to be found. The Harry Potter series always emphasized the life of Lily Potter while detailing James Potter's school days. While Magneto loses both of his parents in a concentration camp in X-Men: First Class, it's clearly the death of his mother that scars him the most. But the general rule still applies. When both parents are dead, it's the father's influence that is most felt from beyond the grave. And while dead mothers are often mentioned but rarely seen, dead fathers often have featured roles pre-and-post death in their childrens' stories. Both March Webb (should be return to direct the Amazing Spider-Man sequel) and Chris Nolan (depending on if The Dark Knight Rises even remembers Martha Wayne) have a chance to buck the trend, and it will be interesting to see if either filmmaker takes or took the opportunity to expand the character of that 'other' dead parent. While losing a father may be some kind of alleged rite of passage in classical storytelling, losing a mother shouldn't be either ignored or used merely as a cheap ploy for emotion. If there is another Spider-Man film in this current universe, it would be nice if Peter remembered that he had a mother too.
Scott Mendelson
I had originally planned to do a spoiler-filled discussion of the various things that vexed me about The Amazing Spider-Man, but frankly my heart just isn't in it. The film is obviously a victim of severe post-production tinkering (Devin Faruci laid it out here) and it just feels petty to further attack a film that A) I've already panned in 1,500 non-spoiler words and B) is more a disappointing mediocrity than an outright travesty. Instead, I'd like to use the film's release to discuss something that has bothered me for at least the last several months, something I made a brief note about during the run-up to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. If you've seen The Amazing Spider-Man (and this isn't a spoiler if you haven't), you'll know that Peter Parker's emotional trauma is partially centered around the fact that his parents abandoned him when he was a young child and then died soon after. But as the film progresses, it's clear that Peter's journey and Peter's discoveries center almost exclusively around his father (Campell Scott). His mother (Embeth Davidtz) gets barely a line of dialogue and no real character to play. And that's the pattern, it would seem. Be they dead at the start or be they dead by act one, dead fathers are often fleshed out characters while dead mothers are, at best, pictures on the bookshelf.When Mufasa falls off a cliff at the halfway point of The Lion King, it's a devastating moment for both Simba and the audience, since Mufasa is a full-blown supporting character who is basically the second-lead for the first third of the picture. Yet the countless dead mothers in prior and future Disney animated films (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Finding Nemo, etc.) merit at best a cameo in the prologue before being bumped off before the title card comes up (Bambi is the rare exception, where the doomed mother sticks around long enough to be mourned). Even The Princess and the Frog, another rare animated feature to spotlight a dead father and a living mother, makes a point to keep the deceased dad in the audience's minds throughout the narrative, including a climactic flashback that concludes Tiana's character arc. The recently deceased mother of Super 8 merits a photo and a name, while the dad in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is played by a major star (Tom Hanks) who has a supporting role throughout the drama despite dying on 9/11 in the opening moments. Bruce Wayne loses both of his parents in Batman Begins, yet it is only his father (Linus Roache) who gets a real character to play and more than one or two lines. It is his father whom Bruce Wayne holds as a role model and his father who Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) and Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) constantly refer to when discussing Bruce's actions and his moral worldview. Martha Wayne is played by Sara Stewart, but that's all I could tell you about her.
The dead dad and his impact on the hero's journey is obviously a classic one. But the odd thing is that even when both parents are dead, the focus is almost exclusively on the father. Peter Parker doesn't get caught up in a journey learning about his parents, but rather one learning about his father's life and his father's work. While it's implied that both of his parents are scientists (otherwise why would both parents have to ditch their son?), we end The Amazing Spider-Man knowing absolutely nothing about Mary Parker. And while The Descendants tries its best not to utterly villainize the comatose wife/mother (Patricia Hastie) while husband George Clooney comes to terms with her adultery, nor do they bother to give the character any actual lines or actual scenes save a brief silent moment on a boat just prior to her life-threatening accident. You can be sure that if the story revolved around a brain-dead husband and the wife and kids who cope with his flaws, the film would give at least a couple juicy flashbacks to the doomed husband/father. It's the difference between having the mother die in the opening moments and vanish from the film (Slumdog Millionaire) and giving the father a juicy supporting role that actually wins Christopher Plummer an Oscar in Beginners. Heck, Captain Kirk's living mother (Jennifer Morrison!) in Star Trek gets less screen-time than his doomed father (Chris Hemsworth).There are occasional exceptions to be found. The Harry Potter series always emphasized the life of Lily Potter while detailing James Potter's school days. While Magneto loses both of his parents in a concentration camp in X-Men: First Class, it's clearly the death of his mother that scars him the most. But the general rule still applies. When both parents are dead, it's the father's influence that is most felt from beyond the grave. And while dead mothers are often mentioned but rarely seen, dead fathers often have featured roles pre-and-post death in their childrens' stories. Both March Webb (should be return to direct the Amazing Spider-Man sequel) and Chris Nolan (depending on if The Dark Knight Rises even remembers Martha Wayne) have a chance to buck the trend, and it will be interesting to see if either filmmaker takes or took the opportunity to expand the character of that 'other' dead parent. While losing a father may be some kind of alleged rite of passage in classical storytelling, losing a mother shouldn't be either ignored or used merely as a cheap ploy for emotion. If there is another Spider-Man film in this current universe, it would be nice if Peter remembered that he had a mother too.
Scott Mendelson
Thursday box office: Katy Perry: Part of Me 3D debuts with $3m while The Amazing Spider-Man now sits with $75m.
To contact us Click HERE
So The Amazing Spider-Man heads into the Fri-Sun weekend with $75 million after three days. There is little to speculate at this point. All relevant mathematical precedents (Transformers, Transformers 3, Spider-Man 2, War of the Worlds, etc.) point to The Amazing Spider-Man ending its six-day weekend with around $140 million. I'll discuss whether that's good or bad come Sunday (it's a little complicated), but for now the film is no outright flop and probably will encourage other studios to consider rebooting their cherished properties sooner rather than later. Alas... Anyway, the first day for Paramount's 3D musical documentary, Katy Perry: Part of Me, earned $3.1 million today. That's obviously closer to the $4.9 million that Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience earned on its opening day (a Friday, natch) as opposed to the $12 million that Justin Bieber: Never Say Never earned over its debut Friday. Even if the Katy Perry espionage thriller ends up closer to the $11 million that Glee 3D grossed versus the $72 million finishes of Michael Jackson: This Is It and Justin Bieber: Never Say Never, the film cost just $12 million to make and may-well become a popular slumber-party rental for the next year or so. I make no promises about updating in regards to Friday numbers, but I'll have the full analysis for Peter, Katy, and Ollie (Stone) come Sunday.
Scott Mendelson
So The Amazing Spider-Man heads into the Fri-Sun weekend with $75 million after three days. There is little to speculate at this point. All relevant mathematical precedents (Transformers, Transformers 3, Spider-Man 2, War of the Worlds, etc.) point to The Amazing Spider-Man ending its six-day weekend with around $140 million. I'll discuss whether that's good or bad come Sunday (it's a little complicated), but for now the film is no outright flop and probably will encourage other studios to consider rebooting their cherished properties sooner rather than later. Alas... Anyway, the first day for Paramount's 3D musical documentary, Katy Perry: Part of Me, earned $3.1 million today. That's obviously closer to the $4.9 million that Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience earned on its opening day (a Friday, natch) as opposed to the $12 million that Justin Bieber: Never Say Never earned over its debut Friday. Even if the Katy Perry espionage thriller ends up closer to the $11 million that Glee 3D grossed versus the $72 million finishes of Michael Jackson: This Is It and Justin Bieber: Never Say Never, the film cost just $12 million to make and may-well become a popular slumber-party rental for the next year or so. I make no promises about updating in regards to Friday numbers, but I'll have the full analysis for Peter, Katy, and Ollie (Stone) come Sunday. Scott Mendelson
7 Temmuz 2012 Cumartesi
Music of the Batman... 50 years of Batman themes!
To contact us Click HERE
Purely for fun, and purely because I was in the mood, I've compiled every relevant Batman musical theme since the 1960s. One live-action TV show, three film themes, and four animated series themes. A few things of note. First of all, that audio clip of Shirley Walker walking us through the Batman: The Animated Series theme is a treasure to behold, especially as she passed away several years ago (it's the last cut on the two-disc Batman: The Animated Series score collection, which yes I do own). Secondly, and this is what inspired me to compile these in the first place, whatever misgivings you may have about Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, Elliot Goldenthal's music should not be discounted. His rip-roaring, more overtly comic book-ish theme is still a joy to listen to, successfully combining the lingering darkness from the Burton films with the more traditional Caped Crusader heroics on display in Schumacher's films (the rest of the jazzy, offbeat music for Batman Forever is pretty terrific too). Thirdly, however powerful and effective the Hans Zimmer/James Newton Howard music may be for the Nolan Batman films, the themes are dreadfully challenging to hum, and I'd be lying if the Batman Begins 'action theme' didn't sound just a bit reminiscent of Jerry Goldsmith's theme to The Shadow (ironically best evidenced in this trailer for The Saint). Finally, despite the nine themes sampled below (and the fact that she's seen quite a few episodes of Batman: The Animated Series and Batman: The Brave and the Bold), my daughter considers the 1960s Batman television theme to be the only 'real' Batman theme song and gets pissed when I hum anything else. To be fair, I'm not exactly in a rush to show her Batman Returns or The Dark Knight (although she could probably handle Batman & Robin just fine). Please enjoy and share your thoughts below. What's your favorite Batman music? Is it still Elfman above all else or has another later theme supplanted it? What music do you hear when you think of Batman?
Scott Mendelson
Purely for fun, and purely because I was in the mood, I've compiled every relevant Batman musical theme since the 1960s. One live-action TV show, three film themes, and four animated series themes. A few things of note. First of all, that audio clip of Shirley Walker walking us through the Batman: The Animated Series theme is a treasure to behold, especially as she passed away several years ago (it's the last cut on the two-disc Batman: The Animated Series score collection, which yes I do own). Secondly, and this is what inspired me to compile these in the first place, whatever misgivings you may have about Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, Elliot Goldenthal's music should not be discounted. His rip-roaring, more overtly comic book-ish theme is still a joy to listen to, successfully combining the lingering darkness from the Burton films with the more traditional Caped Crusader heroics on display in Schumacher's films (the rest of the jazzy, offbeat music for Batman Forever is pretty terrific too). Thirdly, however powerful and effective the Hans Zimmer/James Newton Howard music may be for the Nolan Batman films, the themes are dreadfully challenging to hum, and I'd be lying if the Batman Begins 'action theme' didn't sound just a bit reminiscent of Jerry Goldsmith's theme to The Shadow (ironically best evidenced in this trailer for The Saint). Finally, despite the nine themes sampled below (and the fact that she's seen quite a few episodes of Batman: The Animated Series and Batman: The Brave and the Bold), my daughter considers the 1960s Batman television theme to be the only 'real' Batman theme song and gets pissed when I hum anything else. To be fair, I'm not exactly in a rush to show her Batman Returns or The Dark Knight (although she could probably handle Batman & Robin just fine). Please enjoy and share your thoughts below. What's your favorite Batman music? Is it still Elfman above all else or has another later theme supplanted it? What music do you hear when you think of Batman?Scott Mendelson
Rev: Series One: DVD Review
To contact us Click HERE
Rating: M
Released by the BBC and Roadshow Home Entertainment
+3D.jpg)
The much underrated Tom Hollander stars in this gentle BBC comedy as a vicar Adam promoted from a sleepy rural parish to the inner city of East London.
With no experience of serious issues, Adam is soon on a collision course with the people who daily frequent his church - a drunk, scheming MPs and lost souls.
Over 6 half hour episodes, Rev really does shine a light on how comedy can be done.
It's gentle, well acted, likeable intelligent fare with Hollander really giving his all to this weary conflicted vicar who gives his all to his parish - sometimes at the expense of his wife (Olivia Coleman). But he's never anything less than amiable and identifiable - even if you're not a religious person. It's not always laugh out loud funny but it is always easy on the eye, easy on the funny bone and a pleasant watch.
Believable, funny and extremely enjoyable Rev is a different kind of comedy; one with a slightly religious bent but one which never forgets at heart that it's a comedy at the end of the day - and a damn funny one at that. (I know, now I have to say seven hail Marys).
Extras: The making of, sketches, outtakes, commentaries, doco
Rating:
Rev: Series One: DVD Review
Rating: M
Released by the BBC and Roadshow Home Entertainment
The much underrated Tom Hollander stars in this gentle BBC comedy as a vicar Adam promoted from a sleepy rural parish to the inner city of East London.With no experience of serious issues, Adam is soon on a collision course with the people who daily frequent his church - a drunk, scheming MPs and lost souls.
Over 6 half hour episodes, Rev really does shine a light on how comedy can be done.
It's gentle, well acted, likeable intelligent fare with Hollander really giving his all to this weary conflicted vicar who gives his all to his parish - sometimes at the expense of his wife (Olivia Coleman). But he's never anything less than amiable and identifiable - even if you're not a religious person. It's not always laugh out loud funny but it is always easy on the eye, easy on the funny bone and a pleasant watch.
Believable, funny and extremely enjoyable Rev is a different kind of comedy; one with a slightly religious bent but one which never forgets at heart that it's a comedy at the end of the day - and a damn funny one at that. (I know, now I have to say seven hail Marys).
Extras: The making of, sketches, outtakes, commentaries, doco
Rating:
Sione's 2 : DVD Review
To contact us Click HERE
Released by South Pacific Pictures
Cast: Oscar Kightley, Robbie Magasiva, Pua Magasiva, Shimpal Lelisi, Iaheto Ah Hi, David Fane
Five years after Sione's Wedding hit the cinemas and swept to box office glory, there's a sequel (potentially the first in New Zealand cinema history).
When it ended last time, the gang of Michael, Albert, Stanley and Sefa had all found women and contentment to take to Sione's Wedding and it looked as if they were all back on track.
Now, the boys are back and reunited in a quest from their minister to find errant friend Bolo (David Fane) who's needed back in their group after an unexpected turn of events.
But as the group tries to find one Samoan in Auckland, it soon becomes clear that they're not as sorted as they thought they were.
Does lightning strike in the same place twice?
That's what the makers of Sione's 2 will be hoping when it comes to the box office but it has to be said on the basis of this film, they may be somewhat disappointed.
The Duckrockers' latest outing is an unfortunately flat, uneven and at times, unfunny affair. And before you claim it's a case of critic's tall poppy syndrome after the success of the first, it's really not like that it all.
The problem is that there just aren't enough laughs to carry the film as we follow the guys' quest to once again grow up; jokes reference living in the suburbs of Auckland's North Shore as opposed to sticking to the inner city. The one highlight is a showdown between the Duckrockers and Albert's workmates, who call themselves The Adjusters (they're in insurance) on K Road at night which is very, very funny.
Ultimately Sione's 2 is a disappointment and some of the twists and turns may leave some of the audience feeling they've been a little robbed. Granted the original fans may flock to see this - but there's a real feeling this film, despite all the best efforts of all involved, may not reach the successes of the first - and that's a real shame.
Extras: Behind the scenes commentary with the stars, trailer and music videos.
Rating:
Sione's 2 : Unfinished Business: DVD Review
Rating: MReleased by South Pacific Pictures
Cast: Oscar Kightley, Robbie Magasiva, Pua Magasiva, Shimpal Lelisi, Iaheto Ah Hi, David Fane
Five years after Sione's Wedding hit the cinemas and swept to box office glory, there's a sequel (potentially the first in New Zealand cinema history).
When it ended last time, the gang of Michael, Albert, Stanley and Sefa had all found women and contentment to take to Sione's Wedding and it looked as if they were all back on track.
Now, the boys are back and reunited in a quest from their minister to find errant friend Bolo (David Fane) who's needed back in their group after an unexpected turn of events.But as the group tries to find one Samoan in Auckland, it soon becomes clear that they're not as sorted as they thought they were.
Does lightning strike in the same place twice?
That's what the makers of Sione's 2 will be hoping when it comes to the box office but it has to be said on the basis of this film, they may be somewhat disappointed.
The Duckrockers' latest outing is an unfortunately flat, uneven and at times, unfunny affair. And before you claim it's a case of critic's tall poppy syndrome after the success of the first, it's really not like that it all.
The problem is that there just aren't enough laughs to carry the film as we follow the guys' quest to once again grow up; jokes reference living in the suburbs of Auckland's North Shore as opposed to sticking to the inner city. The one highlight is a showdown between the Duckrockers and Albert's workmates, who call themselves The Adjusters (they're in insurance) on K Road at night which is very, very funny.
Ultimately Sione's 2 is a disappointment and some of the twists and turns may leave some of the audience feeling they've been a little robbed. Granted the original fans may flock to see this - but there's a real feeling this film, despite all the best efforts of all involved, may not reach the successes of the first - and that's a real shame.
Extras: Behind the scenes commentary with the stars, trailer and music videos.
Rating:
Gone: Blu Ray Review
To contact us Click HERE
Rating: M
Released by Universal Home Entertainment
Amanda Seyfried stars in this thriller as Jill, a woman who was once kidnapped and left in a hole in the middle of the woods in Portland.
She managed to escape her would be killer but the police didn't believe her story.
Living in fear that the kidnapper will come back to finish what he started, her worst nightmares come real when her sister's kidnapped - and once again, Jill tries to convince the police that something's amiss.
However, when they refuse to believe her latest story, and with the clock running out, Jill takes matters into her own hands.
Gone bills itself as a suspense thriller but to be honest, neither of those ingredients is found within a story that's riddled with plot holes and moments which don't make any sense.
Granted, the idea that Jill's made it all up is a nice twist but it's so clear she's not imagining it all that you end up shouting at the screen in frustration. Plus characters are so undercooked that they appear at the beginning and then just disappear halfway through (Wes Bentley's detective simply goes awol) making the whole film feel a little neither here nor there.
While the director makes good use of the Portland settings and landscapes, the rest of the film just doesn't hang together as it predictably plays out its final yarn.
Seyfried's convincing as Jill but she can't quite carry the film away from feeling a little like a Taken rip off and while there are a few creepy moments here and there, Gone is instantly forgettable the moment it ends.
Rating:
Gone: Blu Ray Review
Rating: M
Released by Universal Home Entertainment
Amanda Seyfried stars in this thriller as Jill, a woman who was once kidnapped and left in a hole in the middle of the woods in Portland.
She managed to escape her would be killer but the police didn't believe her story.
Living in fear that the kidnapper will come back to finish what he started, her worst nightmares come real when her sister's kidnapped - and once again, Jill tries to convince the police that something's amiss.However, when they refuse to believe her latest story, and with the clock running out, Jill takes matters into her own hands.
Gone bills itself as a suspense thriller but to be honest, neither of those ingredients is found within a story that's riddled with plot holes and moments which don't make any sense.
Granted, the idea that Jill's made it all up is a nice twist but it's so clear she's not imagining it all that you end up shouting at the screen in frustration. Plus characters are so undercooked that they appear at the beginning and then just disappear halfway through (Wes Bentley's detective simply goes awol) making the whole film feel a little neither here nor there.
While the director makes good use of the Portland settings and landscapes, the rest of the film just doesn't hang together as it predictably plays out its final yarn.
Seyfried's convincing as Jill but she can't quite carry the film away from feeling a little like a Taken rip off and while there are a few creepy moments here and there, Gone is instantly forgettable the moment it ends.
Rating:
My Week With Marilyn: Blu Ray Review
To contact us Click HERE
Released by Roadshow Home Entertainment
So, the cult of Marilyn gets another outing - this time with Oscar noms for Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh.
Based on a book by Colin Clark, written about an affair Colin had with Marilyn while she was working on The Prince and The Showgirl, this biographical piece stars Redmayne as Clark in 1950s Britain.
+3D.jpg)
Despite his naivete Clark longs to break into the world of films and showbiz and pulling a few strings (and due to an annoying persistence) he lands a job as a third assistant director on The Prince and The Showgirl which is being directed by Laurence Olivier (Branagh) and stars Marilyn Monroe (Williams).
Marilyn's used to the showbiz life and brings with her all the glamour of the era as she graces the set with her presence; but despite everyone being enamoured with her persona, she proves to be hopeless on set and sends Olivier into a directing tailspin as she fluffs lines, doesn't show when she should and sets the pic behind schedule.
However, Clark, despite romancing one of the set's staff Lucy (Watson), ends up in a whirlwind romance with Monroe when her new husband playwright Arthur Miller leaves her side to write back in America.
Despite Clark being warned she'll break his heart, he carries on - and the tension off the set becomes as bad as the tension on the set.
My Week with Marilyn is as light and frothy as one of those swanky coffees you buy in an upmarket bistro - it's all froth and little substance; in some ways, it's redolent of Me and Orson Welles in places at the start as we watch Clark in awe of a truly brilliant Branagh as Laurence Olivier. The sparkling script, witty repartie and biting sarcasm from Olivier is very, very funny and Branagh does a brilliant job of delivering it to maximum comic effect. It's easy to see why he was nominated for an Oscar for this snide performance.
Michelle Williams' turn as Marilyn also garnered her a statue nod. Don't get me wrong, she's good in the role as she skirts around Marilyn's addictions, and scattiness but there's never really a defining moment which makes you think she's nailed it. When she asks Colin if she should turn it on and "be that person" for a crowd, there's an inkling that she's nailed the posturing and moments. Sure, she manages to ooze some of Monroe's sex appeal and it's a good portrayal, but it's never a great portrayal.
Equally the story itself isn't particularly riveting and enduring- while there's a great performance from Dame Judi Dench as an actress who's sympathetic to Marilyn's fluffing of lines and problems on set, when the film flicks from the on set antics to the love "affair" between Marilyn and Colin, the film stumbles and loses some of the energy and joie de vive it previously had as it saunters lacksadaisically toward the end.
Ultimately My Week With Marilyn is a great film to grab the girls together for and for them to wallow in its slight casualness.
Extras: Untold story piece, audio commentary
Rating:
My Week With Marilyn: Blu Ray Review
Rating: MReleased by Roadshow Home Entertainment
So, the cult of Marilyn gets another outing - this time with Oscar noms for Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh.
Based on a book by Colin Clark, written about an affair Colin had with Marilyn while she was working on The Prince and The Showgirl, this biographical piece stars Redmayne as Clark in 1950s Britain.
Despite his naivete Clark longs to break into the world of films and showbiz and pulling a few strings (and due to an annoying persistence) he lands a job as a third assistant director on The Prince and The Showgirl which is being directed by Laurence Olivier (Branagh) and stars Marilyn Monroe (Williams).Marilyn's used to the showbiz life and brings with her all the glamour of the era as she graces the set with her presence; but despite everyone being enamoured with her persona, she proves to be hopeless on set and sends Olivier into a directing tailspin as she fluffs lines, doesn't show when she should and sets the pic behind schedule.
However, Clark, despite romancing one of the set's staff Lucy (Watson), ends up in a whirlwind romance with Monroe when her new husband playwright Arthur Miller leaves her side to write back in America.
Despite Clark being warned she'll break his heart, he carries on - and the tension off the set becomes as bad as the tension on the set.
My Week with Marilyn is as light and frothy as one of those swanky coffees you buy in an upmarket bistro - it's all froth and little substance; in some ways, it's redolent of Me and Orson Welles in places at the start as we watch Clark in awe of a truly brilliant Branagh as Laurence Olivier. The sparkling script, witty repartie and biting sarcasm from Olivier is very, very funny and Branagh does a brilliant job of delivering it to maximum comic effect. It's easy to see why he was nominated for an Oscar for this snide performance.
Michelle Williams' turn as Marilyn also garnered her a statue nod. Don't get me wrong, she's good in the role as she skirts around Marilyn's addictions, and scattiness but there's never really a defining moment which makes you think she's nailed it. When she asks Colin if she should turn it on and "be that person" for a crowd, there's an inkling that she's nailed the posturing and moments. Sure, she manages to ooze some of Monroe's sex appeal and it's a good portrayal, but it's never a great portrayal.
Equally the story itself isn't particularly riveting and enduring- while there's a great performance from Dame Judi Dench as an actress who's sympathetic to Marilyn's fluffing of lines and problems on set, when the film flicks from the on set antics to the love "affair" between Marilyn and Colin, the film stumbles and loses some of the energy and joie de vive it previously had as it saunters lacksadaisically toward the end.
Ultimately My Week With Marilyn is a great film to grab the girls together for and for them to wallow in its slight casualness.
Extras: Untold story piece, audio commentary
Rating:
5 Temmuz 2012 Perşembe
Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful gets a teaser poster. Is it the next Alice In Wonderland or the next John Carter?
To contact us Click HERE
It's going to be a slow week at Mendelson's Memos this week, both because I have holiday-related family stuff and because I have a slight case of writer's block (I don't want to incessantly whine about The Amazing Spider-Man and not much else is happening news-wise at least until I see Savages on Friday morning). Anyway, Disney dropped this poster for Sam Raimi's $200 million (!!!) Oz: The Great and Powerful, which is apparently a prequel to the original Wizard of Oz. Disney is opening this on March 8th, 2013, or the same weekend that Disney's Alice In Wonderland debuted in 2010. Let's hope they have better luck with this James Franco/Mila Kunis/Zach Braff/Michelle Williams/Rachel Weisz tent-pole than they did with their last first-weekend-of-March entry, John Carter.
Scott Mendelson
It's going to be a slow week at Mendelson's Memos this week, both because I have holiday-related family stuff and because I have a slight case of writer's block (I don't want to incessantly whine about The Amazing Spider-Man and not much else is happening news-wise at least until I see Savages on Friday morning). Anyway, Disney dropped this poster for Sam Raimi's $200 million (!!!) Oz: The Great and Powerful, which is apparently a prequel to the original Wizard of Oz. Disney is opening this on March 8th, 2013, or the same weekend that Disney's Alice In Wonderland debuted in 2010. Let's hope they have better luck with this James Franco/Mila Kunis/Zach Braff/Michelle Williams/Rachel Weisz tent-pole than they did with their last first-weekend-of-March entry, John Carter. Scott Mendelson
The Amazing Spider-Man earns $23.4 million on its second day, bringing two-day total to $59 million.
To contact us Click HERE
Well, this is the first (small) sign of trouble. The Amazing Spider-Man 35% on its second day, earning $23.4 million over July 4th. It's not a dreadful plunge, and when you remove the $7.5 million worth of midnight screenings on Tuesday, it's closer to a 15% drop. The film has earned $59.2 million in two days, or exactly what Spider-Man 3 earned on its opening day back in May 2007. Among the various July 4th openers in recent years, its two-day total puts it ahead of everything save Spider-Man 2 ($64 million), Transformers: Dark of the Moon ($64 million), Transformers ($65 million... also opening on a Tuesday), and Twilight Saga: Eclipse ($92 million, although coming off an insanely front-loaded $30 million at midnight and $68 million over its first 24 hours). The comparison points should be Spider-Man 2, Transformers 3, and Transformers. Spider-Man 2 debuted with $40 million on its opening day (Wednesday) but then plunged 41% to $23 million as well. The difference is that Spidey's second day didn't actually fall on July 4th. When Transformers debuted on a Tuesday, its Wednesday total actually went up 4% from $27 million to $29 million. However, when factoring in those pesky Monday-night sneaks (first 1.25 days = $36 million), then Transformers technically dropped 19%. Without even looking at the whole 3D/IMAX ticket-price bump issue, the adjusted-for-inflation two-day totals for Spider-Man 2 ($81 million) and Transformers ($75 million) are well-above The Amazing Spider-Man's figures. On the plus side, it's been playing identical to Transformers: Dark of the Moon, minus only the $5.5 million worth of 9pm showings that film had prior to the midnight screenings. Two days in, it still looks like The Amazing Spider-Man will end its six day weekend with between $140 million and $165 million.
Scott Mendelson
Well, this is the first (small) sign of trouble. The Amazing Spider-Man 35% on its second day, earning $23.4 million over July 4th. It's not a dreadful plunge, and when you remove the $7.5 million worth of midnight screenings on Tuesday, it's closer to a 15% drop. The film has earned $59.2 million in two days, or exactly what Spider-Man 3 earned on its opening day back in May 2007. Among the various July 4th openers in recent years, its two-day total puts it ahead of everything save Spider-Man 2 ($64 million), Transformers: Dark of the Moon ($64 million), Transformers ($65 million... also opening on a Tuesday), and Twilight Saga: Eclipse ($92 million, although coming off an insanely front-loaded $30 million at midnight and $68 million over its first 24 hours). The comparison points should be Spider-Man 2, Transformers 3, and Transformers. Spider-Man 2 debuted with $40 million on its opening day (Wednesday) but then plunged 41% to $23 million as well. The difference is that Spidey's second day didn't actually fall on July 4th. When Transformers debuted on a Tuesday, its Wednesday total actually went up 4% from $27 million to $29 million. However, when factoring in those pesky Monday-night sneaks (first 1.25 days = $36 million), then Transformers technically dropped 19%. Without even looking at the whole 3D/IMAX ticket-price bump issue, the adjusted-for-inflation two-day totals for Spider-Man 2 ($81 million) and Transformers ($75 million) are well-above The Amazing Spider-Man's figures. On the plus side, it's been playing identical to Transformers: Dark of the Moon, minus only the $5.5 million worth of 9pm showings that film had prior to the midnight screenings. Two days in, it still looks like The Amazing Spider-Man will end its six day weekend with between $140 million and $165 million.Scott Mendelson
When the private life overwhelms the public persona - Is Tom Cruise about the become the next Mel Gibson?
To contact us Click HERE
I don't generally discuss gossip, so I'm going to do my best to keep this film-centric. First and foremost, there is bitter irony that this is all occurring just as Tom Cruise has reaffirmed his movie stardom. Seven years ago, his box office bankability was put in severe doubt due to the beginning of his courtship of Ms. Katie Holmes. Now, just as Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol has reaffirmed both his box office muscle and his dedication to a certain level of mainstream quality, the end of this relationship may torpedo his career all over again, be it temporarily or permanently. Now of course the film that Mr. Cruise was promoting back in June of 2005 when he performed his famous couch-jumping was Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, which went on to earn $234 million in the US and $591 million worldwide, making it Cruise's highest grossing film ever on both levels (M:I4 eclipsed it worldwide last year with $693 million). In the years that followed, we had a somewhat under-performing franchise sequel (Mission: Impossible III with $133m domestic and $397m worldwide on a $160m budget), a political drama that was never going to be a blockbuster (Lions For Lambs, which earned $15 million in the US but $63 million worldwide on a $35 million budget), an over-budgeted but well-reviewed potboiler (Valkyrie, which cost $90 million and earned $200 million worldwide), and Knight and Day, a $117 million action comedy with Cameron Diaz that still earned $261 million worldwide. So, coupled with a crowd-pleasing cameo in Tropic Thunder, the idea that Tom Cruise had lost his luster was more about public relations and alienating some of his more casual fans than any real loss of box office mojo. But this may be different...
*IF* Tom Cruise is an in-the-closet gay man, and I am not privy to anything beyond the rumors we've all heard, it's hard to argue that coming out or being outed back in 2005 would have done any more damage to his reputation than he has inflicted upon himself over the last several years. The common line is that Cruise basically recruited Katie Holmes to be his public beard after there was reason to believe that he was about to be outed as a homosexual (if I avoid details, it's because I don't want to get into third-hand gossip). The question becomes whether those who were indeed weird-ed out by his post-2005 antics (the couch jumping, the Matt Lauer interview, etc.) would have been equally turned off by the revelation that he was gay. Sure, I suppose it could be argued that such a revelation could have hurt his career in the 1990s, when he was at his commercial and artistic peaks, and when he was still viewed as a cinema heartthrob. The insane speculation over whether Anne Heche could convincingly romance Harrison Ford onscreen in Six Days Seven Nights back in 1998 certainly adds fuel to that fire. But by 2005, did anyone still see Cruise as a matinee idol? Did the kids of 2005 have posters of Tom Cruise on their walls? And even if they did, to what extent would his coming-out effect his crush-worthy status? On this I can only speculate, as we've never had a mega star come out as gay/lesbian at the peak of their career. I can only say personally that my prurient interest in Anne Heche, Portia De Rossi, and Jodie Foster faltered little as speculation or confirmation of their lesbianism came to light. Since the idea of fantasizing about movie stars is partially about lusting for the unattainable, the knowledge that Cruise (or today's equivalent - Robert Pattinson, Channing Tatum, and/or Chris Hemsworth) was into guys would only slightly alter that fantasy.
But that's a paragraph-long tangent based on speculation and rumor. Let's presume for a moment that Tom Cruise isn't gay and he just, for whatever reason, fired his longtime publicist in 2005 and basically cracked open his carefully-constructed public persona for reasons unknown. The damage that this divorce could do to his career is actually far worse than the aftermath of any couch-jumping antics. It stands to reason that Holmes will probably give interviews and/or write a very successful book based on her seven-year relationship with Cruise. At the very least we'll finally find out why Holmes ended up not returning as Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight, as there has never been an official explanation given. At worst we'll likely receive confirmation regarding many of the more far-fetched stories regarding Holmes' home-life married to the world's most famous (and outspoken) Scientologist. And if these relative horror stories are confirmed, what does *that* do to Tom Cruise's stardom and/or box office bankability? His future box office draw is almost immaterial, in that he's 50 years old and nobody stays on top forever. But what if it turns out that Tom Cruise is truly crazy? What if Tom Cruise, be he gay or hetero, is an obsessive, paranoid, borderline insane control freak who basically kept his wife as a prisoner in her own life for six years either for his own desires or due to the perceived demands of his religion? In short, what if Tom Cruise becomes the next Mel Gibson?
Like Cruise (and Hanks, Ford, and Roberts), Mel Gibson's stardom had peaked in 2000. So the idea that Mel Gibson will never return to the commercial heights of Signs, What Women Want, or Lethal Weapon 3 isn't so much a tragedy as an inevitability. But with years and years of evidence surrounding his mental state, and the apparent rage-induced outbursts that go with it, it is beyond clear that Mr. Gibson is a seriously disturbed individual. The level of genuine psychological damage, often showing itself through Anti-Semitic, racist, and misogynistic rants, frankly makes it that much harder to watch, let alone enjoy his prior films. While I saw Edge of Darkness upon its theatrical release (because I'm a Martin Campbell junkie) and I attended a press screening of The Beaver (because I'm a Jodie Foster junkie), I haven't watched a Mel Gibson film purely for recreation in well-over half-a-decade. It's not out of some moral outrage and the end-result won't be a grand tragedy. It's just not as much fun to watch Gibson's work when you know that his 'happy-crazy' shtick (which once made him a wonderfully entertaining talk show guest) is really a mask for some hardcore human pain and possible mental illness. In cases such as this, ignorance is indeed bliss. If Tom Cruise isn't gay, then perhaps the coming public meltdown was inevitable. But if he is gay, and the attempts to hide this fact was the primary motivation for much of his personal behavior over the last decade or so, then it stands to reason that coming out of the closet would have been the less harmful option in regards to maintaining his popularity and preserving his film legacy.
Tom Cruise was a pioneering star in a number of ways, using his early capitol to work with the very best directors (Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Oliver Stone, Barry Levinson, Brian DePalma, etc.) long before that was the 'cool' thing to do and continuing to do so as his popularity grew. His 31-year career has produced a shockingly low number of truly bad films, with almost none post-Days of Thunder in 1990. He has provided career boosts to Aaron Sorkin, Cameron Crowe, Paul Thomas Anderson, J.J. Abrams, and Brad Bird while extending the commercial lifespan of Brian DePalma, John Woo, Michael Mann, and Bryan Singer. Long story short, I fear that the day may soon come when Tom Cruise's legacy will not be primarily about his many contributions to popular mainstream cinema but rather his rather sordid personal life and private actions. While no great tragedy in the grand scheme of things, it would be disheartening as Mr. Cruise is set to enter what should have been a fascinating final act of his storied career.
Okay, your turn to share. If Cruise is gay, would the damage of his coming out been greater or less than the PR damage he has sustained since 2005 and perhaps will sustain in the near-future? If it's revealed that all of the horror stories involving his marriage to Katie Holmes are true, will that affect how you view his films in the future and his past work? What are your thoughts on conflating the private life with the public art of a given performer?
Scott Mendelson
I don't generally discuss gossip, so I'm going to do my best to keep this film-centric. First and foremost, there is bitter irony that this is all occurring just as Tom Cruise has reaffirmed his movie stardom. Seven years ago, his box office bankability was put in severe doubt due to the beginning of his courtship of Ms. Katie Holmes. Now, just as Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol has reaffirmed both his box office muscle and his dedication to a certain level of mainstream quality, the end of this relationship may torpedo his career all over again, be it temporarily or permanently. Now of course the film that Mr. Cruise was promoting back in June of 2005 when he performed his famous couch-jumping was Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, which went on to earn $234 million in the US and $591 million worldwide, making it Cruise's highest grossing film ever on both levels (M:I4 eclipsed it worldwide last year with $693 million). In the years that followed, we had a somewhat under-performing franchise sequel (Mission: Impossible III with $133m domestic and $397m worldwide on a $160m budget), a political drama that was never going to be a blockbuster (Lions For Lambs, which earned $15 million in the US but $63 million worldwide on a $35 million budget), an over-budgeted but well-reviewed potboiler (Valkyrie, which cost $90 million and earned $200 million worldwide), and Knight and Day, a $117 million action comedy with Cameron Diaz that still earned $261 million worldwide. So, coupled with a crowd-pleasing cameo in Tropic Thunder, the idea that Tom Cruise had lost his luster was more about public relations and alienating some of his more casual fans than any real loss of box office mojo. But this may be different...*IF* Tom Cruise is an in-the-closet gay man, and I am not privy to anything beyond the rumors we've all heard, it's hard to argue that coming out or being outed back in 2005 would have done any more damage to his reputation than he has inflicted upon himself over the last several years. The common line is that Cruise basically recruited Katie Holmes to be his public beard after there was reason to believe that he was about to be outed as a homosexual (if I avoid details, it's because I don't want to get into third-hand gossip). The question becomes whether those who were indeed weird-ed out by his post-2005 antics (the couch jumping, the Matt Lauer interview, etc.) would have been equally turned off by the revelation that he was gay. Sure, I suppose it could be argued that such a revelation could have hurt his career in the 1990s, when he was at his commercial and artistic peaks, and when he was still viewed as a cinema heartthrob. The insane speculation over whether Anne Heche could convincingly romance Harrison Ford onscreen in Six Days Seven Nights back in 1998 certainly adds fuel to that fire. But by 2005, did anyone still see Cruise as a matinee idol? Did the kids of 2005 have posters of Tom Cruise on their walls? And even if they did, to what extent would his coming-out effect his crush-worthy status? On this I can only speculate, as we've never had a mega star come out as gay/lesbian at the peak of their career. I can only say personally that my prurient interest in Anne Heche, Portia De Rossi, and Jodie Foster faltered little as speculation or confirmation of their lesbianism came to light. Since the idea of fantasizing about movie stars is partially about lusting for the unattainable, the knowledge that Cruise (or today's equivalent - Robert Pattinson, Channing Tatum, and/or Chris Hemsworth) was into guys would only slightly alter that fantasy.
But that's a paragraph-long tangent based on speculation and rumor. Let's presume for a moment that Tom Cruise isn't gay and he just, for whatever reason, fired his longtime publicist in 2005 and basically cracked open his carefully-constructed public persona for reasons unknown. The damage that this divorce could do to his career is actually far worse than the aftermath of any couch-jumping antics. It stands to reason that Holmes will probably give interviews and/or write a very successful book based on her seven-year relationship with Cruise. At the very least we'll finally find out why Holmes ended up not returning as Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight, as there has never been an official explanation given. At worst we'll likely receive confirmation regarding many of the more far-fetched stories regarding Holmes' home-life married to the world's most famous (and outspoken) Scientologist. And if these relative horror stories are confirmed, what does *that* do to Tom Cruise's stardom and/or box office bankability? His future box office draw is almost immaterial, in that he's 50 years old and nobody stays on top forever. But what if it turns out that Tom Cruise is truly crazy? What if Tom Cruise, be he gay or hetero, is an obsessive, paranoid, borderline insane control freak who basically kept his wife as a prisoner in her own life for six years either for his own desires or due to the perceived demands of his religion? In short, what if Tom Cruise becomes the next Mel Gibson?
Like Cruise (and Hanks, Ford, and Roberts), Mel Gibson's stardom had peaked in 2000. So the idea that Mel Gibson will never return to the commercial heights of Signs, What Women Want, or Lethal Weapon 3 isn't so much a tragedy as an inevitability. But with years and years of evidence surrounding his mental state, and the apparent rage-induced outbursts that go with it, it is beyond clear that Mr. Gibson is a seriously disturbed individual. The level of genuine psychological damage, often showing itself through Anti-Semitic, racist, and misogynistic rants, frankly makes it that much harder to watch, let alone enjoy his prior films. While I saw Edge of Darkness upon its theatrical release (because I'm a Martin Campbell junkie) and I attended a press screening of The Beaver (because I'm a Jodie Foster junkie), I haven't watched a Mel Gibson film purely for recreation in well-over half-a-decade. It's not out of some moral outrage and the end-result won't be a grand tragedy. It's just not as much fun to watch Gibson's work when you know that his 'happy-crazy' shtick (which once made him a wonderfully entertaining talk show guest) is really a mask for some hardcore human pain and possible mental illness. In cases such as this, ignorance is indeed bliss. If Tom Cruise isn't gay, then perhaps the coming public meltdown was inevitable. But if he is gay, and the attempts to hide this fact was the primary motivation for much of his personal behavior over the last decade or so, then it stands to reason that coming out of the closet would have been the less harmful option in regards to maintaining his popularity and preserving his film legacy.
Tom Cruise was a pioneering star in a number of ways, using his early capitol to work with the very best directors (Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Oliver Stone, Barry Levinson, Brian DePalma, etc.) long before that was the 'cool' thing to do and continuing to do so as his popularity grew. His 31-year career has produced a shockingly low number of truly bad films, with almost none post-Days of Thunder in 1990. He has provided career boosts to Aaron Sorkin, Cameron Crowe, Paul Thomas Anderson, J.J. Abrams, and Brad Bird while extending the commercial lifespan of Brian DePalma, John Woo, Michael Mann, and Bryan Singer. Long story short, I fear that the day may soon come when Tom Cruise's legacy will not be primarily about his many contributions to popular mainstream cinema but rather his rather sordid personal life and private actions. While no great tragedy in the grand scheme of things, it would be disheartening as Mr. Cruise is set to enter what should have been a fascinating final act of his storied career.
Okay, your turn to share. If Cruise is gay, would the damage of his coming out been greater or less than the PR damage he has sustained since 2005 and perhaps will sustain in the near-future? If it's revealed that all of the horror stories involving his marriage to Katie Holmes are true, will that affect how you view his films in the future and his past work? What are your thoughts on conflating the private life with the public art of a given performer?
Scott Mendelson
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)