I've watched a decent amount of Star Trek but I don't really feel like the new film has much to offer. Here are some reasons:
1. Star Trek already had an origin story in the TV series Enterprise as I understand it and I don't believe we need an updating of the characters. There have been a million films exploring the relationship between Kirk and Spock, enough already
2. John Cho plays Sulu and it's hard to picture him as anyone other than the guy who set stereotypes of Asian-Americans on screen back several decades as the lead in Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle.
3. There appears to be a pretty awkward sex scene in the trailer between Chris Pine's character and someone else. I'm not opposed to sex scenes but it doesn't seem very original Star Trekish. Also, Kirk appears to pick up every girl in sight in the opening couple of scenes. Kirk did have several love interests but he wasn't going out of his way to look for them. He just happily stumbled upon them: Hence the illusion the show created that space exploration is romantic.
4. I'm tired of franchises reinvnenting themselves to make an extra buck. I don't care of it was done well in Batman and James Bond. To me, using the brand name of the franchise with a completely different style of filmmaking reeks of commercial pandering to me. If your movie series has run its course, let it die or reinvent elements within your established framework. I believe a large-scale do over is kind of like cheating.
5. It seems so generic. Captain Kirk is basically made into some James Dean stereotype who's rebellious before he ends up being a devoted captain. Oooh, didn't see that plot twist coming.
6. They're calling it Star Trek. How pretentious is that? Not Star Trek VIII or Star Trek whatever number they are in the series. No they want to erase the memory that there were any Star Trek's before this one.
Showing posts with label Movie Preview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie Preview. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Self-Analysis: Why I watch the movies that I watch....
I think the best strategy to maximizing your chances at the box office, is to do extensive surveying by people over what films they chose to watch over a period of time and why. I don't think there's enough emphasis on this in box-office analysis. The two measures that box office analysts look at are actual opening weekend numbers and cinemascore (the grade the moviegoer gives the film upon walking out of the theater). As far as I know there's not much surveying being done as to what drew the moviegoer into the theater in the first place.
Nevertheless, here's what drew me to the films I wanted to see this year. This has no relation to whether I was satisfied by the films or whether I actually made it to the movie theater. I admit the second factor is important, but sometimes circumstances determine whether you see the film in a theater or not (for example, was I busy that weekend, did I have anyone to go with). Coincidentally, if someone drags me to a movie, that doesn't mean it's a movie I wanted to see, so I didn't include those films. As you read this, think about what draws you to a film:
Disclaimer: I'm going to be doing some rambling here
Be Kind Rewind: Movie enthusiasts naturally want to see films that are self-reflexive and are about the movies and while the movie's main draw was that it would present 2-minute parodies of classic films, that you might also be able to see on youtube, the whole theme seemed very intriguing. In this day and age, anything that's a compilation of sketches and skits does not bode well in movie or tv form, considering you can watch great 3-minute pieces of entertainment all day. Movies are about wanting to be entertained by a 90-minute arc and that can't be found on youtube. Anyway, I'm going on a tangent here.....Be Kind Rewind also had Jack Black who I absolutely love and Danny Glover, and the setting of a video store resonated with me since I worked at Blockbuster the summer before
21: Bringing Down the House: An interest in seeing a new side of Kevin Spacey combined with the fact that I've heard much about this interesting story. Of course, as the film got closer to the premiere date, I heard on chasingthefrog.com that it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual story, so I lost considerable interest.
Iron Man: If I knew that Jon Favreau directed it beforehand, I might have had second thoughts (yes, I knew he directed Elf), but it's a standard superhero film and when it hit #1 and broke records, there definitely was a bandwagon aspect. You want to be on board the next big thing. A lot of people talk about the unconventional casting of Robert Downey Jr but I don't think that's so unconventional: Nothing about Tobey MaGuire, Ed Norton or Ben Affleck ever screamed out "action star." It's been the standard for the last decade to have an A-list actor with box office draw as opposed to an action-hero type: Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, or Vin Diesel. Besides, Robert Downey Jr. was by no means a down-and-out actor. Rather, the inclusions of Gwenyth Paltrow and Terrence Howard were points of interest to me. The overall visual look of the film and the idea of self-made superhero as opposed to superhero through scienctific freak accident.
The Happening: M. Night Shamylan's films are always original and inventive, whether they're hit or miss, so even if it ultimately doesn't hold up, I tend to appreciate the effort. Mark Wahlberg is also a fascinating actor and this felt like an out-of-his-element kind of role
Indiana Jones: How could you not see it, considering Indiana Jones is my favorite movie series
Get Smart: Fan of the TV show and the supporting cast struck me as an insanely interesting combination: You have the standard SNL guys in Koechner and Kevin Nealon, the action hero trying to expand himself into comedy in Dwayne Johnson, the nerd from Heroes in Masi Oka, and the established comic vet in Arkin, who alone is enough reason to want to go see the film. Oh yeah, and the guy from Borat. There's also the allure of the James Bond-like gadgets.
Wall-E: I like sci-fi dystopian movies, and the idea of making a children's cartoon out of that is highly intriguing. Not to mention the good reviews and the fact that I missed out on Ratatouille last year.
The Dark Knight: Heath Ledger as the Joker sounded like an interesting choice, and the Joker vs Batman is a great matchup. Besides, I usually see sequels of films I like. Simple as that.
Hancock: Will Smith always makes it a point to infuse blockbusters with humor and fun. I also love genre deconstructions, particularly superhero spoofs. Jason Bateman has become gold in the last year and a half and never lets you down. Also Charlize Theron is a wonderful actress. So Bateman, Smith, Theron struck me as a trio with potential.
Pineapple Express: To be honest, I don't think I've ever really seen a film that's so exclusively about pot, so I thought that would be interesting enough in itself. I wasn't a humongous Superbad fan, but I think that Seth Rogen is a capable actor (not a great writer, IMO) and the idea of a cross-hybrid between stoner and action was an interesting blend. Plus, I was in the mood for something really dumb, really lightweight, really funny, and perhaps a little action-oriented.
Step Brothers: Anchorman is one of my favorite comedies of all time, and Talladega Nights is one of the best of its year, so it's safe to say I'm a big fan of the improvizational style of the McKay-Ferrell writing team. It seemed like a lackluster concept, but on the upside, Mary Steenburgen cusses a lot in this film!
Bottleshock: I'm not particularly interested in wine, but I would like to see wine culture scrutinized and possibly parodied. I also liked the period aspect of it, even if it was 30 years ago, and it seemed like a good ensemble piece.
Encounters at the End of the World: I don't usually see a lot of documentaries at the theater, but when it comes to a documentary, the key is picking a subject that is a) interesting and b) something which we don't know a lot about, and Warner Herzog found the perfect subject here. Explorers in the Arctic: neat stuff
Burn After Reading: I didn't really want to see another Coen Brothers film and I have zero interest in seeing more of George Clooney on screen but two things that drew me to this were: 1) Brad Pitt was acting really wacky in the preview and 2) It takes place in Washington D.C. where I'm from, and the Coen Brothers usually incorporate a strong sense of place into their films
Ghost Town: Seemed like a lighthearted comedy with a good concept. Also Ricky Gervaise is relatively funny and he picks his projects carefully. I knew he wasn't doing this for a paycheck. I also like Greg Kinnear
Blindness: Fernando Meirelles is someone I have only seen one and a half films of and I absolutely think he's genius, so that was a good reason. Julianne Moore is selective about her roles, so that had a certain stamp of crediblity. I also felt the whole humanity fighting against a large force of nature concept carries interesting appeal to it: I liked Day After Tomorrow and Independence Day, for example.
Religulous: I have to see this. I love Bill Maher, and I'd be curious for a good examination on the state of religion. I also like that he's going to be equal opportunity about offending the three main Western religions.
W: We see so much parody of the president, but I see very little portrayal of the man's past. Even if Stone might be biased (or maybe he isn't), it would be a highly eye-opening look into the man.
Nevertheless, here's what drew me to the films I wanted to see this year. This has no relation to whether I was satisfied by the films or whether I actually made it to the movie theater. I admit the second factor is important, but sometimes circumstances determine whether you see the film in a theater or not (for example, was I busy that weekend, did I have anyone to go with). Coincidentally, if someone drags me to a movie, that doesn't mean it's a movie I wanted to see, so I didn't include those films. As you read this, think about what draws you to a film:
Disclaimer: I'm going to be doing some rambling here
Be Kind Rewind: Movie enthusiasts naturally want to see films that are self-reflexive and are about the movies and while the movie's main draw was that it would present 2-minute parodies of classic films, that you might also be able to see on youtube, the whole theme seemed very intriguing. In this day and age, anything that's a compilation of sketches and skits does not bode well in movie or tv form, considering you can watch great 3-minute pieces of entertainment all day. Movies are about wanting to be entertained by a 90-minute arc and that can't be found on youtube. Anyway, I'm going on a tangent here.....Be Kind Rewind also had Jack Black who I absolutely love and Danny Glover, and the setting of a video store resonated with me since I worked at Blockbuster the summer before
21: Bringing Down the House: An interest in seeing a new side of Kevin Spacey combined with the fact that I've heard much about this interesting story. Of course, as the film got closer to the premiere date, I heard on chasingthefrog.com that it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual story, so I lost considerable interest.
Iron Man: If I knew that Jon Favreau directed it beforehand, I might have had second thoughts (yes, I knew he directed Elf), but it's a standard superhero film and when it hit #1 and broke records, there definitely was a bandwagon aspect. You want to be on board the next big thing. A lot of people talk about the unconventional casting of Robert Downey Jr but I don't think that's so unconventional: Nothing about Tobey MaGuire, Ed Norton or Ben Affleck ever screamed out "action star." It's been the standard for the last decade to have an A-list actor with box office draw as opposed to an action-hero type: Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, or Vin Diesel. Besides, Robert Downey Jr. was by no means a down-and-out actor. Rather, the inclusions of Gwenyth Paltrow and Terrence Howard were points of interest to me. The overall visual look of the film and the idea of self-made superhero as opposed to superhero through scienctific freak accident.
The Happening: M. Night Shamylan's films are always original and inventive, whether they're hit or miss, so even if it ultimately doesn't hold up, I tend to appreciate the effort. Mark Wahlberg is also a fascinating actor and this felt like an out-of-his-element kind of role
Indiana Jones: How could you not see it, considering Indiana Jones is my favorite movie series
Get Smart: Fan of the TV show and the supporting cast struck me as an insanely interesting combination: You have the standard SNL guys in Koechner and Kevin Nealon, the action hero trying to expand himself into comedy in Dwayne Johnson, the nerd from Heroes in Masi Oka, and the established comic vet in Arkin, who alone is enough reason to want to go see the film. Oh yeah, and the guy from Borat. There's also the allure of the James Bond-like gadgets.
Wall-E: I like sci-fi dystopian movies, and the idea of making a children's cartoon out of that is highly intriguing. Not to mention the good reviews and the fact that I missed out on Ratatouille last year.
The Dark Knight: Heath Ledger as the Joker sounded like an interesting choice, and the Joker vs Batman is a great matchup. Besides, I usually see sequels of films I like. Simple as that.
Hancock: Will Smith always makes it a point to infuse blockbusters with humor and fun. I also love genre deconstructions, particularly superhero spoofs. Jason Bateman has become gold in the last year and a half and never lets you down. Also Charlize Theron is a wonderful actress. So Bateman, Smith, Theron struck me as a trio with potential.
Pineapple Express: To be honest, I don't think I've ever really seen a film that's so exclusively about pot, so I thought that would be interesting enough in itself. I wasn't a humongous Superbad fan, but I think that Seth Rogen is a capable actor (not a great writer, IMO) and the idea of a cross-hybrid between stoner and action was an interesting blend. Plus, I was in the mood for something really dumb, really lightweight, really funny, and perhaps a little action-oriented.
Step Brothers: Anchorman is one of my favorite comedies of all time, and Talladega Nights is one of the best of its year, so it's safe to say I'm a big fan of the improvizational style of the McKay-Ferrell writing team. It seemed like a lackluster concept, but on the upside, Mary Steenburgen cusses a lot in this film!
Bottleshock: I'm not particularly interested in wine, but I would like to see wine culture scrutinized and possibly parodied. I also liked the period aspect of it, even if it was 30 years ago, and it seemed like a good ensemble piece.
Encounters at the End of the World: I don't usually see a lot of documentaries at the theater, but when it comes to a documentary, the key is picking a subject that is a) interesting and b) something which we don't know a lot about, and Warner Herzog found the perfect subject here. Explorers in the Arctic: neat stuff
Burn After Reading: I didn't really want to see another Coen Brothers film and I have zero interest in seeing more of George Clooney on screen but two things that drew me to this were: 1) Brad Pitt was acting really wacky in the preview and 2) It takes place in Washington D.C. where I'm from, and the Coen Brothers usually incorporate a strong sense of place into their films
Ghost Town: Seemed like a lighthearted comedy with a good concept. Also Ricky Gervaise is relatively funny and he picks his projects carefully. I knew he wasn't doing this for a paycheck. I also like Greg Kinnear
Blindness: Fernando Meirelles is someone I have only seen one and a half films of and I absolutely think he's genius, so that was a good reason. Julianne Moore is selective about her roles, so that had a certain stamp of crediblity. I also felt the whole humanity fighting against a large force of nature concept carries interesting appeal to it: I liked Day After Tomorrow and Independence Day, for example.
Religulous: I have to see this. I love Bill Maher, and I'd be curious for a good examination on the state of religion. I also like that he's going to be equal opportunity about offending the three main Western religions.
W: We see so much parody of the president, but I see very little portrayal of the man's past. Even if Stone might be biased (or maybe he isn't), it would be a highly eye-opening look into the man.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Predicting Pirates will sweep the box office
I don't yet have a review of Pirates of Caribbean as I will see the movie tomorrow. Nevertheless, I am going to predict that Pirates of the Caribbean comes out on top this summer at the box office race and I just wanted to post it here before the box office report comes out.
My reasons:
1. It has more family appeal than Spiderman in my opinion, because Jack Sparrow might be more popular with kids. This is just my guess but Captain Jack Sparrow might be a little bit more appealing to kids at a slightly younger age, while Spiderman/Peter Parker is more of an adolescent hero. At the same time, Pirates might appeal to adults more because because many people in their 50s or 60s might have grown up on Pirate Movies as a kid and this is an effective homage to the genre. This is interesting because it's the first time the Pirates and Spiderman, the two biggest summer giants of the decade have squared off in the same season.
2. The release schedules. Spiderman 1's release at the beginning of the summer several weeks before any other movies came out was a strategy that paid off and shot the film northward of $300 million dollars. However, with two juggernauts being released within 2 and 3 weeks of Spiderman's opening in Shrek the Third and Pirates III, that is going to cut into its intake. Expect Spiderman to drop significantly this weekend. Pirates III has a wide open field that I doubt Ocean's 13 will do much to affect in a couple of weeks. The truth is that all three films will hurt their chances to realize their maximum profit by releasing their films so close to each other. And it's such a shame because it's all on memorial day, but Pirates will hurt itself the least. Pirates might not equal Spiderman's opening 3 day record, but it might gross higher in the long run. At least, I hope so because I am a pirate lover
3. Pirates has good reviews, whatever that's worth. It's even enough to get viewers on board who aren't familiar with the series, period.
So my predictions:
Spiderman III: $360 million
Shrek the third: $319 million (on the plus, there's no other kids' movies for competition, but May is a crowded month)
Pirates II:
Opening weekend: $124 million, total $387 million
Other summer films:
-Ocean's 13 will be an interesting choice. It's director Stephen Sodebergh won an oscar for his innovative film making in traffic and has since been nothing if not innovative and constantly experimenting with the medium (i.e. Full Frontal, Bubble, Good German). At the same time, a lot of these films are just plain awful. Unfortunately, Ocean's 12 fell under the same trap of a filmmaker so caught up in experimentation that he forgot to hold his story together with a coherent plot. Still, the greatness and potential of the director is evident and that might be enough for many to fill the seats. The film's gross is also hard to predict because the previous films were released during December and this one will be released in the Summer. Considering the first one made $183 million domestically, I'm gonna guess that this one can hit the $200 million mark if it gets decent to good reviews
Prediction: $49 mil opening $220 million
-Evan Almighty: the first film was a $200 mil+ hit. Evan Almighty has practically nothing to do with Bruce Allmighty in the sense that while Morgan Freeman still plays God, Jennifer Anniston and Jim Carrey are gone. This is just a cheap attempt to capitalize on Steve Carrell's rising stock and framing it as a sequel. So the question is how appealing is Steve Carrell? Well, the 40-Year Old Virgin did well but that was through good word-of-mouth, Steve Carrell as a break-out star, a catchy gimmick, and the revered reputation of writer/director Judd Apatow. I hear that if a guy is on a TV show, it's difficult to get anyone pay to see him in a movie when the TV show is free. I bet this one will be a little subpar on expectations
Prediction: $32 mil opening $121 mil
-Fantastic Four: The first one had bad reviews, a great opening weekend at $55.7 million, and a slightly above average total at $154 million total. In other words, this difference between great opening weekend and decent total means great hype but not-so-great word of mouth. I think the studio that funded this project underestimated the need for the sequel. Jessica Alba's growth as a star attraction will have to help move this film along. The film also needs to hope that comic book geeks will flock to the film for the added attraction of the Silver Surfer and unlike the first film, moviegoers might be more deterred by bad reviews if they occur a second time. This is what sunk Tomb Raider II and Charlie's Angels II.
Prediction: $44 mil opening, $152 mil
-Transformers: The transformers are a nostalgic trip for those raised in the 80s, but that's a small, small demographic, and I don't think live action will appeal as well. It's produced by Spielberg, which might sound like a sure thing, but remember: it's not directed or written by him. I predict this to be a bust, unfortunately. I am predicting this to be a humongous, humongous flop, by the way. This is the equivalent of predicting a 13 seed over a 4 seed in the NCAA tournament
Prediction: $19 mil opening, $100 mil
-Harry Potter V: The last Harry Potter movie to open in the summer was Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azhkaban which had a respectable opening en route to $249 million dollars. I see no reason why this film will do better or worse than that one. If people are falling out of interest in the series, (which I don't think they are), I think the quality of the films is increasing anyway. It's getting a great release date, about 6 weeks after people will get tired of Pirates, so I predict slightly higher
Prediction: $66 mil opening, $258 mil
-Simpsons: Let's face it, the Simpsons are on the demise. They haven't had a remotely original episode in 5 years, at least, and while some people could successfully argue that Family Guy won't ever be as good as Simpsons was 10 years ago, in 2007, I can't see the Simpsons generating enough buzz for a decent season premiere this September, let alone show up in mass droves for a movie premiere. The Simpsons' success has always been that of casual viewership, in my opinion. It's just something decent to watch at 6 or 7 pm while preparing dinner and nothing more. It's just a generic answer you might have if someone asked you your favorite TV show and you didn't want to answer with something too wierd. Just like George Clooney when he was on E.R. and trying to become a bankable TV star, people often won't want to pay for something that's on TV.
Furthermore, I predict it will be the failure of this movie that will get people asking the long overdue question, "Is the Simpsons really that culturally relevant anymore?"
Prediction: $13 mil opening, $79 mil total
-Knocked Up: This is going to be the sleeper hit of the summer and raise Judd Apatow's profile even more. He's rumored to be launching Tom Cruise's comeback next. I've heard from everywhere it's very good, but I don't believe that'll translate into a strong weekend opening. Not with Pirates still around.
Prediction: $25 mil opening, $132 mil total
-Nancy Drew: Is the next tentpole for a series like Harry Potter? It might have that crossover appeal that parents might want to watch with their kids but it's just not being marketed heavily enough.
Prediction: $21 mil opening, $112 mil total
-Liscence to Wed: It looks like summer filler similar to RV. I'm not saying Robin Williams is by any means going downhill, but with RV, Man of the Year, and Liscence to Wed he's starting to get into too much of a comfortable zone
Predictions: $10 mil opening, $68 mil total
My reasons:
1. It has more family appeal than Spiderman in my opinion, because Jack Sparrow might be more popular with kids. This is just my guess but Captain Jack Sparrow might be a little bit more appealing to kids at a slightly younger age, while Spiderman/Peter Parker is more of an adolescent hero. At the same time, Pirates might appeal to adults more because because many people in their 50s or 60s might have grown up on Pirate Movies as a kid and this is an effective homage to the genre. This is interesting because it's the first time the Pirates and Spiderman, the two biggest summer giants of the decade have squared off in the same season.
2. The release schedules. Spiderman 1's release at the beginning of the summer several weeks before any other movies came out was a strategy that paid off and shot the film northward of $300 million dollars. However, with two juggernauts being released within 2 and 3 weeks of Spiderman's opening in Shrek the Third and Pirates III, that is going to cut into its intake. Expect Spiderman to drop significantly this weekend. Pirates III has a wide open field that I doubt Ocean's 13 will do much to affect in a couple of weeks. The truth is that all three films will hurt their chances to realize their maximum profit by releasing their films so close to each other. And it's such a shame because it's all on memorial day, but Pirates will hurt itself the least. Pirates might not equal Spiderman's opening 3 day record, but it might gross higher in the long run. At least, I hope so because I am a pirate lover
3. Pirates has good reviews, whatever that's worth. It's even enough to get viewers on board who aren't familiar with the series, period.
So my predictions:
Spiderman III: $360 million
Shrek the third: $319 million (on the plus, there's no other kids' movies for competition, but May is a crowded month)
Pirates II:
Opening weekend: $124 million, total $387 million
Other summer films:
-Ocean's 13 will be an interesting choice. It's director Stephen Sodebergh won an oscar for his innovative film making in traffic and has since been nothing if not innovative and constantly experimenting with the medium (i.e. Full Frontal, Bubble, Good German). At the same time, a lot of these films are just plain awful. Unfortunately, Ocean's 12 fell under the same trap of a filmmaker so caught up in experimentation that he forgot to hold his story together with a coherent plot. Still, the greatness and potential of the director is evident and that might be enough for many to fill the seats. The film's gross is also hard to predict because the previous films were released during December and this one will be released in the Summer. Considering the first one made $183 million domestically, I'm gonna guess that this one can hit the $200 million mark if it gets decent to good reviews
Prediction: $49 mil opening $220 million
-Evan Almighty: the first film was a $200 mil+ hit. Evan Almighty has practically nothing to do with Bruce Allmighty in the sense that while Morgan Freeman still plays God, Jennifer Anniston and Jim Carrey are gone. This is just a cheap attempt to capitalize on Steve Carrell's rising stock and framing it as a sequel. So the question is how appealing is Steve Carrell? Well, the 40-Year Old Virgin did well but that was through good word-of-mouth, Steve Carrell as a break-out star, a catchy gimmick, and the revered reputation of writer/director Judd Apatow. I hear that if a guy is on a TV show, it's difficult to get anyone pay to see him in a movie when the TV show is free. I bet this one will be a little subpar on expectations
Prediction: $32 mil opening $121 mil
-Fantastic Four: The first one had bad reviews, a great opening weekend at $55.7 million, and a slightly above average total at $154 million total. In other words, this difference between great opening weekend and decent total means great hype but not-so-great word of mouth. I think the studio that funded this project underestimated the need for the sequel. Jessica Alba's growth as a star attraction will have to help move this film along. The film also needs to hope that comic book geeks will flock to the film for the added attraction of the Silver Surfer and unlike the first film, moviegoers might be more deterred by bad reviews if they occur a second time. This is what sunk Tomb Raider II and Charlie's Angels II.
Prediction: $44 mil opening, $152 mil
-Transformers: The transformers are a nostalgic trip for those raised in the 80s, but that's a small, small demographic, and I don't think live action will appeal as well. It's produced by Spielberg, which might sound like a sure thing, but remember: it's not directed or written by him. I predict this to be a bust, unfortunately. I am predicting this to be a humongous, humongous flop, by the way. This is the equivalent of predicting a 13 seed over a 4 seed in the NCAA tournament
Prediction: $19 mil opening, $100 mil
-Harry Potter V: The last Harry Potter movie to open in the summer was Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azhkaban which had a respectable opening en route to $249 million dollars. I see no reason why this film will do better or worse than that one. If people are falling out of interest in the series, (which I don't think they are), I think the quality of the films is increasing anyway. It's getting a great release date, about 6 weeks after people will get tired of Pirates, so I predict slightly higher
Prediction: $66 mil opening, $258 mil
-Simpsons: Let's face it, the Simpsons are on the demise. They haven't had a remotely original episode in 5 years, at least, and while some people could successfully argue that Family Guy won't ever be as good as Simpsons was 10 years ago, in 2007, I can't see the Simpsons generating enough buzz for a decent season premiere this September, let alone show up in mass droves for a movie premiere. The Simpsons' success has always been that of casual viewership, in my opinion. It's just something decent to watch at 6 or 7 pm while preparing dinner and nothing more. It's just a generic answer you might have if someone asked you your favorite TV show and you didn't want to answer with something too wierd. Just like George Clooney when he was on E.R. and trying to become a bankable TV star, people often won't want to pay for something that's on TV.
Furthermore, I predict it will be the failure of this movie that will get people asking the long overdue question, "Is the Simpsons really that culturally relevant anymore?"
Prediction: $13 mil opening, $79 mil total
-Knocked Up: This is going to be the sleeper hit of the summer and raise Judd Apatow's profile even more. He's rumored to be launching Tom Cruise's comeback next. I've heard from everywhere it's very good, but I don't believe that'll translate into a strong weekend opening. Not with Pirates still around.
Prediction: $25 mil opening, $132 mil total
-Nancy Drew: Is the next tentpole for a series like Harry Potter? It might have that crossover appeal that parents might want to watch with their kids but it's just not being marketed heavily enough.
Prediction: $21 mil opening, $112 mil total
-Liscence to Wed: It looks like summer filler similar to RV. I'm not saying Robin Williams is by any means going downhill, but with RV, Man of the Year, and Liscence to Wed he's starting to get into too much of a comfortable zone
Predictions: $10 mil opening, $68 mil total
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Film reviews of 2007 based on the trailers
I haven't actually watched a single film in 2007 other than My Brother which I screened at a film festival. I usually don't watch much at the beginning of the year and use this time to catch up on films from the previous year, or maybe pursue other hobbies. I did this in December too before holiday season and so here are some reviews that I just guessed at what they'd be like using everything i know about movies. This is really a fun exercise. Anyway, many of these films have already come out, so please tell me how my blind guess compares with your experiences
TMNT-This strikes me as the exact opposite of what they might teach you in a film marketing class. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were popular when I was growing up in the early 90s and, well, me along with my age group aren’t necessarily a good audience for this movie, because we’ve kind of grown up. I’m not up-to-date with what cartoons are being played on Saturday mornings I don’t really know if anyone currently under the age of 14 even knows what the Ninja Turtles are, and the rest of us can’t explain it to them because we’ve sort of forgotten. .
Zodiac-I’m pretty sure that David Fincher (the director of this film as well as Fight Club and Se7en) is a jerk. His film “Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons” was filming throughout New Orleans when I was there and once I was near the shooting and everyone on his crew I talked to said he was, so he must really be bad. If one or two people think you’re a jerk, ok, but everyone seemed to just be in agreement about this. Anyway, as for Zodiac, it might win its opening weekend, but it’ll be forgotten within a year. Probably just a good thrill ride, nothing more, as some people are making it out to be.
Shooter-Mark Wahlberg, your last 2 movie choices were awesome so I’ll let this one slide, but this does not look like anything remotely original. It looks like a Bourne Identity copy-off, so please don’t talk about how much you love this movie when you’ll be having to eat your words when the bad reviews come in this week. And by the way, I don’t know why people responded so well the Bourne Identity or rather, could the people who responded well to it please admit that it was all about the cool car-chasing and fighting scenes and it had nothing to do with the plot or character development (because it had none)?
300-Sin City taught us (or at least me) that all the cool special effects in the world does not redeem a violent movie if it has no soul to it. Sin City wasn’t about real people. The people in that movie (except possibly Bruce Willis) drank nothing but alcohol, did nothing for recreation other than secure hookers and brutally kill each other, and had no moral qualms about anything. In other words, they weren’t real, just the embodiments of perverted adolescent fantasy. For that, I have a hunch that Frank Miller isn’t so much interested in the history of Greek warfare as he just wants to show a bunch of blood, gore, and other guy stuff. Consdering, he did actually seem moderately knowledgable about the historic period in an interview, I might be wrong though and I’d be eager to be proven so.
Blades of Glory-I’d have to say that this might be the make-or-break-it film for John Heder’s reputation. He will now be 3 films removed from Napoleon Dynamite. Benchwarmers did well at the box office but wasn’t amazingly well-received. School for Scoundrels did not do well at the box office despite aggressive marketing (although while I haven’t seen it, it looked like a good vehicle to me), so considering the hype for this film, it might be his last chance to win audiences over as John Heder or stay trapped in Napoleon Dynamite forever. I’m more anxious to see how SNLer Amy Poehler and Will Arnett do in this movie.
Wild Hogs-It’s a buddy comedy/road trip kind of movie, but what’s odd about it is its group of “buddies” are the four most random people in Hollywood. John Trovolta is a cult icon known for his singing and dancing, a few choicy roles and his scientology; William H. Macy is one of those character actors who nr, Martin Lawrence is a hack comedian, and Tim Allen have probably never been in the same room with each at the same time. They’ve probably never been within a 5-mile radius of each other
Meet the Robinsons-I couldn’t even stay awake through the trailer. It’s a cartoon
Breaking the Gates-If they really thought that a film about the Rwandan genocide would be a film of artistic merit, they would not have released it in the first three months of the year. They would have released it somewhere near the end for Oscar consideration. Thus we are left to conclude that it’s probably some generic action flick.
Astronaut Farmer-I have to wonder what Billy Bob Thornton is doing here. It’s one of those triumphant value-of-the-human-spirit movies and he seems like the least likely guy to be on screen when the orchestra swells up and plays that sappy music that it plays in these kinds of movies. His screen persona is that of a cynical and jaded personality. Let’s review what he’s been in: Intolerable Cruelty (a black comedy about the fickleness of marriage), Man Who Wasn’t There (a film noir), Bad Santa (another black comedy), Primary Colors (his character was one of the more shady members of President Clinton’s staff), A Simple Plan and Bandits. But I don’t know, I like space movies, so I might give him the benefit of the doubt.
Smoking Aces-This would be one of the few from the last couple of months that I’d have a mild interest in seeing and I can’t explain it because I don’t know much about it. I’m just attracted to it by the name. The title sounds cool: something with playing cards and guns. Or maybe they’re shooting at cards with guns? I don’t know. It’s probably some hip and shiek nourish thriller-type thing. The other thing I know about it is that I saw Jeremy Piven on Regis and Kelly and he said something like “this is the best movie I’ve ever been in.” On the one hand, he has been in Black Hawk Down, Runaway Jury and a bit part in the Rob Altman movie The Player whose cast included practically everyone in Hollywood. He’s also been in some of the worst movies of the last 2 decades: Rush Hour 2, Chasing Liberty, Very Bad Things and Singles.
Freedom Writers-Coach Carter, Glory Road and now this. Does anyone else see this pattern of January as Dead Poets’ Society rip-off month where they do the overused plot of actor stretches his range by being an inspirational teacher/coach who turns things around for a group of dummies/retarded people/repressed/at-risk youth, etc. I’m not saying that this wouldn’t be a good movie, but I am saying that if you’ve seen any of the above mentioned movies along with The Emperor’s Club, Mona Lisa Smile, Take the Lead, Stand and Deliver, Hoosiers, or We Are Marshall, I’m betting you’ve probably seen this movie too. Still, within the list above, I might cite a couple (Glory Road, Mona Lisa Smile) as slight variations, and if it’s based on a true story (unlike Emperor’s Club or Mona Lisa Smile) then it’s a story slightly more worth telling
Stardust-Is this a fantasy film or a period piece? What are Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer doing here? Is Robert De Niro just giving up on acting and trying to commit career suicide? He’s arguably the best actor of his generation so he shouldn’t take parts like this.
Georgia Rule-The standards for Lindsay Lohan are going to be high because the stories of her being late to set and upsetting the producer is going to more publicity than this movie is going to get. I actually think that this will be good and do decently. I won’t see it, but if you like this kind of film, I’d blindly recommend it.
Reign Over Me-I’m just flabbergasted. I have no idea what to think. Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle are such a random pair of variables that I can’t even begin to predict where this movie will go.
Blind Dating-So it looks like American Pie with blind people. That doesn’t sound funny, it sounds insensitive and mean-spirited. Oh, god forbid, you’re 22 and a virgin. Wasn’t the standard for it being an embarrassment that you’re a virgin 40 just last year? Oh, Jane Seymour is in this again, haha.
The Hawk is Dying-I love the music in the background, but, um, what the hell is this about, again? Let’s recap and I am not making this up: First, we see that this movie was an entry in Sundance Film Festival. Not that it won anything, it was just an entry. So basically the art house crowd let the movie be screened for them. Paul Giamatti spots a hawk through some binoculars and starts panicking. The hawk isn’t even attack him, he’s just sitting there in a field. If birdwatching is that stressful of an activity for him, maybe he should take up croquetting. Words appear on screen such as: “between passion and obsession” “sanity and madness” and these moments “define our lives.” There’s some talk about how he has to train a hawk or something. Some guy in voiceover says that “it’s possible for a man to live his whole life and not know whether he’s a coward or not.” Um, he’s just birdwatching and carrying a hawk on his arm, this isn’t really that big of a deal. Then some guy says “put down the bird” or something, like it’s a gun. Again, everyone here is just overreacting a lot. Oh yeah, and Paul Giamatti kisses someone towards the end of the trailer. How nice. Oh yeah, and Samuel L. Jackson is in it, dispensing advice to Paul Giamatti about his birdwatching obsession, or something. It’s confusing.. I need an aspirin,
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
A review of every movie BEFORE it comes out
I usually can forecast pictures pretty well and how they'll turn out:
Apocolypto-Following in the footsteps of The Passion of the Christ will be hard, and critics will probably compare this to Passion's standards. It might suffer from some animosity by people disturbed by Mel Gibson's comments and it might not, but it will definitely not make as much as Pasison of the Christ which made like $380 million and is in the all-time top 10 highest grossing films, so therefore the press will label it a failure and history will say that at was because of Mel Gibson's remarks and then even less people will see it, but that's silly. It's probably a good movie
Good German-Sounds like a winner. A good cast, not too recent in history, not too far back. Will probably just miss out on the oscars but hopefully not. Will probably be a big Matt Damon make-or-break it kind of role.
Good Shephard-The Steve Sodebergh/George Clooney black-and-white neo-noir thing will be hard to pull of. Sodebergh's movies lately have been more of a show of "ooooh, look at what new innovation i just came up with," and not be story heavy and without a soul, this will be more like Sin City than L.A. Confidential
For Your Consideration-It will probably be well-liked by Christopher Guest fans because Christopher Guest doesn't really dissapoint and no one else will really know about it
Deck the Halls-Probably be relentlessly bashed by critics because it's not really a quality movie and a step down for Matthew Broderick, but kids will like it and parents would probably rather take their kids to that than "Happy Feet" or another animated movie because it has a few likeable actors in it and they're sick of animated movies and by comparison they'll probably think this is good so it'll get a long shelf life on video and be replayed by a lot of TV stations during holiday time, like Elf is now (i'm hoping things go with the audience)
Nativity Story-Like Chronicles of Narnia last year, The Christian Right will love it. It'll have a small following and a few small oscar nominations, maybe.
10 Items of Less-Never heard of it
Dhoom 2: Back in Action-There was a Dhoom 1?
Deja Vu-This is Denzel Washington's 3rd or 4th or 5th role in a row as a tough jaded cop with some girl he's going to have to protect (hmmm, there was Out of Time, Man on Fire, etc.) so low on originality points. Denzel has a fan contingent though so i'll say it does decently and people like it
Turistas-Josh Duhamel and Melissa George. Well, Josh Duhamel might get some people but an episode of Las Vegas will probably score a little higher
Blood Diamond-This will probably be awesome. Like Last Samurai, Ed Zwick makes great period pieces that are solid in every way AND he will infuse it with a lot of action scenes. It will probably fall just short of getting an oscar nomination because it'll be seen as more of an action movie than a serious piece but isn't that what the audience wants? what's wrong with action?
Breaking and Entering-It will probably be good, i think it got good reviews when it was screened way back in the day. Low box office gross though
The Holiday-Has the potential to be as popular as Love Actually and be a 21st century romantic comedy for the ages, but who knows
Unaccompanied Minors-I have no reason to root for its failure but sadly it probably will
Days of Glory-Sounds like a good name for a movie, at least. Know nothing else about it. Wait, Wasn't there a racecar movie with Tom Cruise in like the early 90s/late 80s with that name?
Dreamgirls-It's got the 2004 7th place contestant from American Idol, Jennifer Hudson, Eddie Murphy, Beyonce, and Jamie Foxx. What a wierd agglomeration of a cast. Still it'll be loved and do well.
Eragon-I don't get fantasy. I'll personally stay away from it but since Lord of the Rings was a big hit, there's probably an audience that'll see this too if it's marketed well. Since no one read the book (is there a book?) , probably do really poorly
Pursuit of Happiness-Will not gross as high as Will Smith usually does, but will probably get some good reviews, maybe some awards, little to no audience because Smith is not beating up anything or blowing anything up
Venus-It'll win an oscar for best actor, i hear, but still no audience, until at least after it wins the oscar, then people might see it on DVD to see what was so great about the performacne
Night at the Museum-Will range from mildly dissapointing to mildly funny. Won't be artsy enough for the critics
Rocky Balboa-They actually went ahead and made this movie? Sylvester Stallone is so old he [insert old joke of your choice here]. It clearly won't be as good but with the way sequels go, people might just be duped enough to go see it and make it a commercial success
Children of Men-It's another classy movie but crowded among too many other good movies, it might get shut out. Michael Caine is in this movie too? He's kind of a workahaulic, isn't he?
We Are Marshall-I don't care how good this is, one football movie per year is enough and I already saw Invincible. Can we just have a Hollywood quota on number of inspirational sports movies focused on coaches? We already had Glory Road this year with Josh Lucas who looks a lot like Matthew McConnegheay anyway and Josh Lucas loks like Matthew McConnegheay if you squint your eyes, so even less reason to make this movie.
Curse of the Golden Flower-Nope
Notes on a Scandal-A movie designed for the sole purpose of giving Judi "Dame" Dench another oscar nomination giving her 1st place in all of history for number of oscar nominated roles in movies that no one has seen (Has anyone seen or heard of Mrs Henderson Presents, Mrs Brown, Iris?)
Factory Girl-The magazine that i'm reading has a lengthy feature article featured on this film, but other than that i've never heard anything. It stars the woman who Jude Law dumped for the housekeeper or something, but I just don't think that's enough to sell a movie these days.
Miss Potter-I hope it fails, because I don't want Rene Zellweger to get an oscar nomination. She'll give a really annoying speech thanking everyone she's ever worked and find ways to compliment them all that'll make me want to throw up. (e.g. "I'd like to thank my publicist, he was such a beautiful soul and inspirational being and source of love")
And finally....
Pan's Labrynth-It sounds like a cool name for a movie but do you see how many movies come out in December, already?
Apocolypto-Following in the footsteps of The Passion of the Christ will be hard, and critics will probably compare this to Passion's standards. It might suffer from some animosity by people disturbed by Mel Gibson's comments and it might not, but it will definitely not make as much as Pasison of the Christ which made like $380 million and is in the all-time top 10 highest grossing films, so therefore the press will label it a failure and history will say that at was because of Mel Gibson's remarks and then even less people will see it, but that's silly. It's probably a good movie
Good German-Sounds like a winner. A good cast, not too recent in history, not too far back. Will probably just miss out on the oscars but hopefully not. Will probably be a big Matt Damon make-or-break it kind of role.
Good Shephard-The Steve Sodebergh/George Clooney black-and-white neo-noir thing will be hard to pull of. Sodebergh's movies lately have been more of a show of "ooooh, look at what new innovation i just came up with," and not be story heavy and without a soul, this will be more like Sin City than L.A. Confidential
For Your Consideration-It will probably be well-liked by Christopher Guest fans because Christopher Guest doesn't really dissapoint and no one else will really know about it
Deck the Halls-Probably be relentlessly bashed by critics because it's not really a quality movie and a step down for Matthew Broderick, but kids will like it and parents would probably rather take their kids to that than "Happy Feet" or another animated movie because it has a few likeable actors in it and they're sick of animated movies and by comparison they'll probably think this is good so it'll get a long shelf life on video and be replayed by a lot of TV stations during holiday time, like Elf is now (i'm hoping things go with the audience)
Nativity Story-Like Chronicles of Narnia last year, The Christian Right will love it. It'll have a small following and a few small oscar nominations, maybe.
10 Items of Less-Never heard of it
Dhoom 2: Back in Action-There was a Dhoom 1?
Deja Vu-This is Denzel Washington's 3rd or 4th or 5th role in a row as a tough jaded cop with some girl he's going to have to protect (hmmm, there was Out of Time, Man on Fire, etc.) so low on originality points. Denzel has a fan contingent though so i'll say it does decently and people like it
Turistas-Josh Duhamel and Melissa George. Well, Josh Duhamel might get some people but an episode of Las Vegas will probably score a little higher
Blood Diamond-This will probably be awesome. Like Last Samurai, Ed Zwick makes great period pieces that are solid in every way AND he will infuse it with a lot of action scenes. It will probably fall just short of getting an oscar nomination because it'll be seen as more of an action movie than a serious piece but isn't that what the audience wants? what's wrong with action?
Breaking and Entering-It will probably be good, i think it got good reviews when it was screened way back in the day. Low box office gross though
The Holiday-Has the potential to be as popular as Love Actually and be a 21st century romantic comedy for the ages, but who knows
Unaccompanied Minors-I have no reason to root for its failure but sadly it probably will
Days of Glory-Sounds like a good name for a movie, at least. Know nothing else about it. Wait, Wasn't there a racecar movie with Tom Cruise in like the early 90s/late 80s with that name?
Dreamgirls-It's got the 2004 7th place contestant from American Idol, Jennifer Hudson, Eddie Murphy, Beyonce, and Jamie Foxx. What a wierd agglomeration of a cast. Still it'll be loved and do well.
Eragon-I don't get fantasy. I'll personally stay away from it but since Lord of the Rings was a big hit, there's probably an audience that'll see this too if it's marketed well. Since no one read the book (is there a book?) , probably do really poorly
Pursuit of Happiness-Will not gross as high as Will Smith usually does, but will probably get some good reviews, maybe some awards, little to no audience because Smith is not beating up anything or blowing anything up
Venus-It'll win an oscar for best actor, i hear, but still no audience, until at least after it wins the oscar, then people might see it on DVD to see what was so great about the performacne
Night at the Museum-Will range from mildly dissapointing to mildly funny. Won't be artsy enough for the critics
Rocky Balboa-They actually went ahead and made this movie? Sylvester Stallone is so old he [insert old joke of your choice here]. It clearly won't be as good but with the way sequels go, people might just be duped enough to go see it and make it a commercial success
Children of Men-It's another classy movie but crowded among too many other good movies, it might get shut out. Michael Caine is in this movie too? He's kind of a workahaulic, isn't he?
We Are Marshall-I don't care how good this is, one football movie per year is enough and I already saw Invincible. Can we just have a Hollywood quota on number of inspirational sports movies focused on coaches? We already had Glory Road this year with Josh Lucas who looks a lot like Matthew McConnegheay anyway and Josh Lucas loks like Matthew McConnegheay if you squint your eyes, so even less reason to make this movie.
Curse of the Golden Flower-Nope
Notes on a Scandal-A movie designed for the sole purpose of giving Judi "Dame" Dench another oscar nomination giving her 1st place in all of history for number of oscar nominated roles in movies that no one has seen (Has anyone seen or heard of Mrs Henderson Presents, Mrs Brown, Iris?)
Factory Girl-The magazine that i'm reading has a lengthy feature article featured on this film, but other than that i've never heard anything. It stars the woman who Jude Law dumped for the housekeeper or something, but I just don't think that's enough to sell a movie these days.
Miss Potter-I hope it fails, because I don't want Rene Zellweger to get an oscar nomination. She'll give a really annoying speech thanking everyone she's ever worked and find ways to compliment them all that'll make me want to throw up. (e.g. "I'd like to thank my publicist, he was such a beautiful soul and inspirational being and source of love")
And finally....
Pan's Labrynth-It sounds like a cool name for a movie but do you see how many movies come out in December, already?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)