Showing posts with label Will Smith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Will Smith. Show all posts

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Summer Box Office Questions

No dog in this fight. Killing Them Softly is a Fall release and will likely appeal more to the arthouse crowd.  It will be a different story next year with Maleficent and WWZ both set up to hit during the peak of the blockbuster season.


5 Summer Box-Office Head-To-Head Showdowns That Could Leave Blood On The Floor

Features by Oliver Lyttelton | April 2, 2012 12:19 PM |
This past weekend, two pricey fantasy epics hit movie screens in the form of Warner Bros.' swords-and-sandal sequel "Wrath Of The Titans" and Relativity's comic fairy tale "Mirror Mirror." And while their audiences were, in theory, different (with Tarsem's Snow White picture skewing much younger), neither fared as well as hoped, "Wrath of the Titans" ending up with barely half of the original film's opening weekend, around $35 million, while "Mirror Mirror" failed to clear the $20 million mark, despite the presence of Julia Roberts.

In part, it's because they were following on the second weekend of colossal smash "The Hunger Games," which topped the box office with another $65 million or so. But it's all indicative of something that's becoming increasingly common: big movies opening on the same date, leading to at least one, and sometimes both, of the films disappointing financially. Counter-programming, of course, can work wonders sometimes (we imagine that was Relativity's plan here), but ultimately, there are simply more tentpoles being made than audiences who will see them, and it's seeing a lot of people lose a lot of money.

With that in mind, we've looked ahead to the summer months for what look the five key head-to-head openings of the summer: films that, for the most part, are chasing the same audiences on the same weekend, and will more than likely see at least one of the openers bruised and blooded. Ladies and gentlemen, place your best.

May 11: "Dark Shadows" vs. "The Dictator"

In The Red Corner: Tim Burton's garish revamp of the 1960s Gothic vampire soap, starring megastar Johnny Depp.
In The Blue Corner: The latest vehicle for "Borat" star Sacha Baron Cohen, in which he plays a despot stripped of his money and power and forced to work in a New York health store.
Who Will Win? One would be forgiven for thinking that this would be a no-brainer: the last time Burton and Depp worked together on "Alice in Wonderland," it made a billion dollars, whereas Baron Cohen's last headline gig, "Bruno," underwhelmed. But the comic spin of "Dark Shadows" puts the films squarely head-to-head, and WB's marketing campaign for the film has been slow off the blocks, an indication that they're not quite sure how to sell an odd mix of genres that comes across more like "Death Becomes Her" than anything they've done before. After all, "Sweeney Todd" barely cleared $50m in the U.S. In contrast, Paramount's campign for "The Dictator" has been strong, and the film looks closer to "Borat" than to "Bruno" (even if it looks far weaker than either). We'd still likely give "Dark Shadows" the edge on opening weekend, but given they're both hot on the heels of "The Avengers," which opens the week before, this likely isn't going to be pretty for anyone.

May 18: "Battleship" vs. "What To Expect When You're Expecting"

In The Red Corner: "Hancock" helmer Peter Berg brings the board-game to the big-screen with a "Transformers"-style makeover, and a cast including Taylor Kitsch, Rihanna and Liam Neeson.
In The Blue Corner: An all-star ensemble including Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Lopez, Anna Kendrick and Chris Rock take a comedic look at the pregnancy manual.
Who Will Win? Unlike some of these other big weekends, these two couldn't be aiming for more different audiences, but that doesn't mean they won't be in competition, and we think we could well end up seeing an upset. "Battleship" has been something of a running joke for a few years now, and despite a recent trailer essentially made up of nothing but explosions, it still looks like a dicey financial prospect. 'What To Expect...' meanwhile, is firmly in the "He's Just Not That Into You"/"Valentine's Day" wheelhouse, and in a summer season without a lot of counter-programming aimed at women, has a distinct advantage being slotted in the same frame that made "Bridesmaids" such a massive hit last year. That being said, "Battleship" will likely have momentum from its early international opening, and "New Year's Eve" showed that the all-star rom-com formula can fall flat. Even so, we think 'What To Expect' has a very good chance at an upset here.

June 15: "Rock Of Ages" vs. "That's My Boy"

In The Red Corner: Big-screen version of the heavy-metal power-ballad Broadway smash with an all-star cast including Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin, Russell Brand and Catherine Zeta-Jones.
In the Blue Corner: Adam Sandler teams with SNL star Andy Samberg for... well, an Adam Sandler movie, but one with a rare R-rating that suggests it'll be an Adam Sandler movie but with boobs and swearing.
Who Will Win? Sandler is about as reliable a comedy name as you could ask for, box-office wise, but he's looking a little more fallible here; his last film, "Jack & Jill," made significantly less than usual, and the last time he went R-rated with "Funny People," it barely grossed $50 million. With his target audience of 13-year-old boys unable to attend, can he survive?Particularly when he's up against "Rock Of Ages"? Musicals in the height of summer are rare, but director Adam Shankman had one of the last big hits with "Hairspray," and this could do even better, given its ransacking of classic rock favorites, and the presence of Tom Cruise, his box office mojo firmly back in place. While it might end up skewing a little older, it should have a broader appeal in general, falling as it does somewhere between "Glee" and "Mamma Mia," and carrying a teen-friendly rating. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but it looks like Sandler might get handed a rare box-office ass-kicking.

June 22: "Brave" vs. "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter"

In The Red Corner: The latest from animation giants Pixar, about a feisty Scottish princess and her encounter with a witch.
In The Blue Corner: Revisionist historical actioner from producer Tim Burton and "Wanted" director Timur Bekmambetov, which sees the great president's secret life as an undead-slayer exposed.
Who Will Win? Unlike the summer's other animated match-ups ("Prometheus" and "Madagascar 3," "Ted" and "Ice Age 4"), there's more thematic cross-over between Bekmambetov's film and Pixar's. "Brave" seems to lean more action-adventure heavy than the studio's usual work, but also has a female lead, which may turn off younger boys. Pixar's track-record means they bring in plenty of unaccompanied adults, but might that crowd be tempted towards something more in their comfort zone, especially with the company's last film, "Cars 2," disappointing critically, and proving to be one of their lowest domestic grossers in years? That being said, even with Burton's name attached, 'Lincoln' still has to deal with an unknown cast and the kind of silly title that, like "Snakes On A Plane" and "Hot Tub Time Machine," might bring it attention without converting to ticket sales. Ultimately, only a fool would bet against Pixar: even if 'Lincoln' is a hit, it'll likely take well under what "Brave" makes.

August 3: "The Bourne Legacy" vs. "Total Recall"

In The Red Corner: Universal's smash-hit spy franchise gets a new hero in the shape of Jeremy Renner, who'll face off against Edward Norton and Rachel Weisz.
In The Blue Corner: Paul Verhoeven's sci-fi actioner gets a CGI-heavy makeover, with Colin Farrell in the lead and "Live Free and Die Hard" helmer Len Wiseman in charge.
Who'll Win Out? Certainly to be the toughest battle of the summer, as the LA Times pointed out, this sees a proven hit series that's fronted by a new lead defending its territory from a brand-name remake that's gotten a new spin undoubtedly inspired by the 'Bourne' franchise. As PG-13 actioners, they're chasing the exact same demographic, but one would probably give 'Bourne' the upper hand, just on the basis of the previous films' successes. That being said, will audiences be as happy to embrace a change of lead in the same way they always have with the Bond movies? Jeremy Renner is still untested as a box office draw, and the film doesn't have the same visual effects bells-and-whistles as its competitor. That being said, Colin Farrell has rarely brought in crowds as the lead of a tentpole like "Total Recall," and a feeling of redundancy hangs heavy over the whole affair. 'Bourne' should walk away with this, and we still wouldn't be surprised to see "Total Recall" blink and move later in the year, even at this late stage.



Magic Mike, Men in Black 3, Dark Shadows
This summer movie season has one of the surest of all sure things — The Dark Knight Rises, a highly anticipated sequel to one of the biggest movies of all-time — but aside from that, there are all sorts of oddities that will be vying for your box office dollar. Even the so-called sequels and prequels (like Prometheus, the sorta-prequel to Alien, and The Avengers, the culmination of several Marvel movies) feel like new properties, and there are a whole bunch of unusual and alluring films on the summer schedule: A sex-filled Oliver Stone movie ... in July? A big R-rated summer comedy where Mark Wahlberg talks to a stuffed animal? Tom Cruise as a shirtless rock star? But as much as we're anticipating Savages, Ted, and Rock of Ages, respectively, there are six other questions raised by this summer's big movies that really have us scratching our heads.
Do People Still Care About Will Smith?
The common wisdom still holds that Will Smith is the biggest superstar in the world, but A-listers rarely take a break from movies this prolonged: Smith hasn't been seen onscreen since the underperforming 2008 drama Seven Pounds. Instead, he's been behind the scenes managing the careers of his children Jaden and Willow, and while that's been going pretty well, has he frittered away his own star power in the meantime? We'll see whether Smith can recapture the magic with Men in Black 3, but it's a gamble: The film was famously shut down several times during production owing to story issues (some of which were instigated by the star himself), and this musty franchise was already losing steam ten years ago, when Men in Black II grossed $60 million less than its predecessor.
Will Adam Sandler Take an R-Rated Hit?
Adam Sandler has gone his whole career without making a sequel, yet word came down the pike recently that he had signed for Grown-Ups 2. Why the sudden interest in the job security of a franchise? Maybe he's looking for a sure thing after two gambles: His usual grosses dropped for last fall's Jack and Jill, and this summer, he's testing his own brand with the R-rated comedy That's My Boy. Though Sandler has moonlighted in R-rated movies from auteurs like Paul Thomas Anderson and Judd Apatow, this is actually the first time in his career that he's toplining a typical "Adam Sandler movie" — meaning, it's populated by Nick Swardson and a whole bunch of Saturday Night Live vets — with so restrictive a rating. Sony is trying to sell the film as another pre-wedding Hangover gross-out, but how will Sandler do without his carefully cultivated family audience?
Can Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter Succeed Where Cowboys & Aliens Failed?
It's hard to course-correct in Hollywood! Last spring, when Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was green-lit, we hadn't yet seen another genre mash-up that played things straight despite a wacky title: Cowboys & Aliens. Alas, Jon Favreau's expensive extraterrestrial Western crash-landed that summer, and now Vampire Hunter has to soldier on with a brave face, despite its much weirder premise and total lack of A-listers on the level of Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford. It's coming out during a crowded weekend in late June — Vampire Hunter has to face Pixar's Brave, the Steve Carell comedy Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, and Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris follow-up To Rome With Love — so can it woo away enough moviegoers willing to say "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" out loud at the ticket counter?
Why is Dark Shadows Up Against The Dictator?
You can't quite blame Paramount for scheduling The Dictator on May 11, where it will face off against Tim Burton's Dark Shadows; once upon a time, the studio probably expected it to be effective counterprogramming against a Gothic vampire fright fest. Since the Dark Shadows trailer debuted, though, it's become clear that Burton has actually made a super-weird comedy out of the source material — it might be way weirder, even, than a Sacha Baron Cohen comedy that purports to be based on a novel by Saddam Hussein. In a head-to-head matchup, we'd give the edge to the Johnny Depp–starring Dark Shadows, but both of these curveball comedies could benefit from some breathing room.
Is Magic Mike a Summer Movie?
Magic Mike is most certainly a Vulture movie: We've followed every development on this unusual film, ever since Steven Soderbergh stocked his male stripper movie with the likes of Channing Tatum, Matt Bomer, and Matthew McConaughey. But then Warner Bros. acquired the R-rated dramedy and set it for release in June, where it will actually go up against Tatum's G.I. Joe: Retaliation (though his role is significantly reduced from the first Joe installment). Last year's summer movie season was admittedly full of beefcake, but does the studio think that this nude-a-palooza has breakout potential?
Have Spider-Man and Bourne Been Rebooted Too Soon?
No stars? No problem! The directors and actors bailed on two of Hollywood's biggest franchises, Spider-Man and Bourne, but you didn't expect the studios to simply give up and go home, did you? Five years after both those trilogies were dealt a star setback, each hopes to reboot this summer with less costly talent: The Amazing Spider-Man has Marc Webb directing with Andrew Garfield in the lead role, while The Bourne Legacy has subbed in Jeremy Renner for Matt Damon. Hollywood often frets about the lowered durability of modern-day stars, but when they're willing to treat the franchise as a bigger attraction than the people in it, can that really come as any surprise? Spider-Man may do all right through sheer dint of its masked superhero — he could be anybody! — but Bourne has it tougher, going up against the FX-driven remake of Total Recall. It's going to be a close-quarters fight between the two ... though given the Bourne aesthetic, that's probably fitting.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

John Carter pre-post-mortem + Johnny + Will


What does the looming write-off from John Carter portend for the films in Disney's pipeline?

Disney will be very nervously watching the production of yet another $200M+ western -- Johnny Depp's The Lone Ranger.  The difference of course is that Depp is a huge box office star whereas none of those in Carter are.  But even with Johnny, audiences who were unimpressed with back to back Western-set duds (see also Cowboys and Aliens and Jonah Hex) are unlikely to give The Lone Ranger the same reception they gave Pirates.

When Pirates I came out it seemed fresh and fun and was Johnny's first blockbuster after years of making his mark in smaller, quirky productions.  But the last three pirates films were awful (including two by Gore Verbinsky who is also helming Lone Ranger) and there may also be a bit of Johnny fatigue settling in since he has hardly left blockbuster territory and seems content to play variations of Cap'n Jack.   His Dark Shadows is coming out in two months and the absence of a trailer has had movie writers buzzing.

On the other hand, Journey 2, the sequel to Warner's mid-budget Journey to the Center of the Earth which abandoned Jules Verne's serious dramatic tone and turned it into a children's comic adventure fantasy has been a huge hit.  I would imagine that the folks at Disney would look at those results,  look at the potential budget battles in making Verne's 20,000 Leagues with David Fincher who has never made a PG-13 film before,  and may opt to follow Warner's lead into a more kid-centric movie.

All this circles back to the observation I made earlier that pre-production in 20,000 Leagues seems to have been halted and what that may mean for Cleopatra.  If Disney has second thoughts about doing 20,000 Leagues using Fincher's vision (just as Netflix seems to be having with House of Cards),  he will be free to do Cleopatra as soon as Roth finishes the script. That would make a late 2012 start a strong possibility.




Netflix and MRC Hit Fincher Reality with 'House of Cards'

News by Anne Thompson | March 7, 2012 |

Surprise.
In a much ballyhooed deal that was too good to be true, Netflix and MRC (Media Rights Capital) outbid HBO to stream and finance, respectively, the $100-million production "House of Cards," an American remake of the 1990 hit Brit TV series about a politician's rise to the top. Now on the verge of production, reality intervenes.
Kevin Spacey, who is one of six executive producers along with his Trigger Street partner Dana Brunetti, stars with Robin Wright Penn in the "Richard III"-inspired story, which "Ides of March" Oscar nominated co-writer Beau Willimon describes as "bad people doing bad things in the world of Washington." (Video below.) Willimon has been working with the project's uber-boss, executive producer David Fincher, for months; the start date has been pushed from March to April.
Yes, Netflix and MRC managed to get hold of prime content that HBO wanted. (HBO refuses to license its high quality exclusive content to Netflix, which recently lost its Starz deal.)  But are these distributor/financeers equipped to supervise production with such high-level talent? (This isn't Netflix-backed "Puffy Chair.")
Of course, THR reports, Fincher wants more money. Why wouldn't he? Although he showed his ability to shoot frugally on $40-million "The Social Network," which was a high-profile but not overtly commercial project, Fincher tends to spend heavily on such studio projects as "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo," which was exquisitely executed and won the editing Oscar, but too expensive at $90 million. Most directors are more invested in making their films and series come out as well as possible than the bottom line.
Whether or not "House of Cards" keeps Fincher, many in Hollywood are skeptical about how you commit to spend $100 million on 13 much less 26 episodes in advance, before you've seen them, and before they have proven that they will draw an audience. A-list talent like Fincher require careful handling from supervisors with power, such as producer Scott Rudin or Sony's Amy Pascal. MRC, which tends to be hands-off with productions like "The Adjustment Bureau," is on the hook for the money; Netflix is the distributor. Will MRC chiefs Asif Satchu and Modi Wiczyk get tough? That is the question.


'John Carter' Premiere: Fascinating Disaster

Features by Anne Thompson | March 6, 2012 | 
You could see Disney's "John Carter" (March 9) shaping up as a misfire from a long way off. No studio has projected "disaster" so loudly since Sony's misbegotten remake of "Godzilla" in 1998. For a $250 million movie to be tracking near a $25 million opening is shocking. It was always going to be a challenge to pull audiences into Edgar Rice Burroughs' Martian fantasy world on the red planet Barsoom. As a kid I read and reread Burroughs' "Tarzan" and Martian novels (he published his first book, "Princess of Mars," almost a century ago, in 1917). I loved escaping into this exotic universe of warriors, princesses and six-limbed Tharks. But bringing that world to the screen was impossible until James Cameron's "Avatar" successfully brought to a new level live-action mixed with digital environments and multiple performance-capture characters.
Disney optioned the rights to "A Princess of Mars" for director John McTiernan ("The Hunt for Red October"); then producer James Jacks gave it a whirl at Paramount with Guillermo del Toro and digital techno-whizes Robert Rodriguez ("Spy Kids"), Kerry Conran ("Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow") and finally, Jon Favreau. When Paramount let go of the rights, Favreau went on to direct "Iron Man."
Watching like a hawk the entire time was Pixar writer-director Andrew Stanton, now 45, who grew up on the Marvel Comics Martian novels, and waited 36 years to grab the rights. Disney's then-chairman Dick Cook scooped them up and green-lit a $250 million feature to be adapted and directed by Stanton. (He eventually brought in writers Michael Chabon and Mark Andrews.)
“When you’re 10 or 11 years old, and you’ve discovered girls, but they haven’t discovered you yet," Stanton said at a recent Q & A, "and you’re reading about this ordinary guy that’s suddenly extraordinary on another planet, he’s got the coolest best friend, the coolest pet, and he’s winning the heart of the most beautiful girl in the universe, that’s like a checklist of everything you’ve ever wanted."
But as great a writer/director/animator as Stanton has been at Team Pixar, he's unproven in live action and he's no Spielberg, whose brand name pulls audiences to a movie. And "X-Men: Wolverine" co-stars Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins, with underused "Rome" supporting players Ciaran Hinds and James Purefoy, aren't marquee movie stars who put butts in seats like Johnny Depp or Angelina Jolie.
Giving Stanton, despite the credit he's due for his crucial participation in Pixar's unprecedented run of 12  blockbusters--Oscar-winning "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E" earned $1.3 billion worldwide-- a live-action movie of this magnitude to supervise was a huge gamble. At Pixar he was a vital part of a team who were reliant on rewrites and animatics and constant changing of the story until each film played perfectly. Animation is the last part of the Pixar process.
Live action is a whole other universe. When I saw "John Carter" at its LA Live premiere, I could see so many things that might have been fixed by an experienced studio production team. For the most part, Disney let Stanton do his thing until he showed them a rough cut. The frustration is that the main story elements--gravity-enhanced jaded ex-soldier Carter (Kitsch), who can leap across the barren Barsoom landscape (Utah), his romance with spoiled Martian princess Dejah Thoris (Collins), alliance with honorable Thark chief Tars Tarkas (voiced by Willem Dafoe) and various battles with Martian creatures and armies--work well. The best thing in the movie is his toothy pet Woola--animated, natch (see clip below). But so much also goes wrong.
For starters, the film (which gains nothing from retrofitted 3-D) opens badly in the middle of a Martian air battle, and takes far too long to bring Civil War vet Carter to red planet Barsoom. The crucial design of the green nine-foot-tall, tusked and four-armed green Tharks is misguided (too close to Jar Jar Binks), many of the large-scale air battles are murky and over-pixelated, and Collins as the Princess of Mars boasts a clearly fake Brit accent. These are fixable mistakes among many, many more.
At the after-party, Stanton explained his deep passion for the material, and said that the film couldn't have been done any sooner with pre-existing technology, or any cheaper either. He also says he relied on pre-planned reshoots (no way Disney had eighteen days in mind). He pays no heed to news reports or critics, he just tunes into his own drummer. So much so that he has already written the second installment of his planned trilogy. Only if the first film delivers a near-impossible $700 million will that happen.
Jacks argues that Conran could have done the film for half as much. Check Conran's pitch video below, which captures just the right feel for Barsoom. While cinephiles may know that George Lucas and James Cameron raided these novels as inspiration for "Star Wars" and "Avatar," the fact remains that audiences are clueless about this world. (Here's Stanton's profile in The New Yorker and more recent interviews with the LAT's Geoff Boucher and Harry Knowles; video of his recent TED Talk, "My Life in Story, Backwards" is below. )
In October 2009, incoming Disney chairman Rich Ross faced a project that was well under way, with millions already spent. And under boss Robert Iger's directives, Ross let go of many of Disney's experienced production, distribution and marketing professionals. When the studio tested the movie's "materials" --characters, title, designs--they did not play well with audiences. Burroughs' Martian novels are not as well-known as his "Tarzan" series, which fueled countless film iterations over the decades.
An inexperienced chairman like Ross--relying on a new marketing team run by industry outsider MT Carney-- didn't know how to place the movie inside the proper genre context, the male sci-fi fantasy universe. Instead the studio, with so much investment on the line, took the mass-audience "appeal-to-everyone" approach. Disastrously, in an effort to draw women, they got rid of the most commercial element of the project. By trimming "John Carter of Mars" to "John Carter," they lost Mars. (More details at Thedailybeast.)
Whatever the pluses and minues of outgoing studio chief Dick Cook, he was an ace marketer who would never have so mishandled this campaign. "John Carter" was generic: its standalone JC logo meant nothing. And as terrific as Canadian hunk Kitsch ("Friday Night Lights") is in this movie--and he's going to be a star from here, with tentpole actioner "Battleship" and Oliver Stone's drug cartel thriller "Savages" coming up--he's hardly a marquee draw at this point.
Disney then made another crucial error, opting not to promote the movie to its prime demo at Comic-Con in July, but keeping it with the Disney line-up at D 23, where the presentation bombed. You could sense the chill in the room. It just didn't feel like your cookie-cutter Disney movie.
Hollywood insider Ricky Strauss, Disney's more experienced new marketing head, came into a tough situation and started to right the ship by admitting that yes, the core target audience was male--young males, the ones who tune into the fanboy demo, who should have been targeted at Comic-Con last summer. That was a start, and sure enough, Knowles, who had been a producer on the Jacks "John Carter of Mars" at Paramount, gave the film a rave.
But the damage had been done. Iger may have wanted to break his studio away from its hidebound traditions and practices. But he did so at a cost. The write-off on this movie will be one of the biggest in Hollywood history.
A sampling of reviews, clips and trailers below:
THR: "This Disney extravaganza is a rather charming pastiche, if perhaps not one with sufficient excitement and razzle-dazzle to justify the reported $250 million production budget. Neither classic nor fiasco, the film will likely delight sci-fi geeks most of all, but there's enough here for general Disney audiences as well to generate solid box office worldwide,..If 'Avatar' had never existed, it's possible that 'John Carter' would have seemed like more of a genre breakthrough,..Although the result is quite a mishmash, dramatic coherence prevails over visual flair; the colors, skin tones, image sharpness and cohesion of diverse pictorial elements are less than stellar, although the 3D is effective, with comparatively little brightness sacrificed by donning glasses."
Empire: "Stanton has built a fantastic world, but the action is unmemorable. Still, just about every sci-fi/fantasy/superhero adventure you ever loved is in here somewhere."
CinemaBlend: "What shocks me most is Stanton’s apparent lack of command over a story that sprawls in various directions without saying much. This is a Pixar veteran whose credits include the 'Toy Story' franchise, 'Finding Nemo' and the flawless 'WALL-E.' Could he not see that he lacked a firm grip on his film’s narrative?"
TotalFilm: "If history has taught filmmakers one lesson, it’s that if you’re going to make a movie about Mars, it had better star Arnold Schwarzenegger and a lady with three boobies. Otherwise? Forget it. So, maybe the smartest thing 'WALL.E' director Andrew Stanton has ever done was chopping the words 'Of Mars' off the title of his first live action movie,..The problem for Andrew Stanton’s blockbuster adap is that, a century later, we do have 'Star Wars,' 'Star Trek' and 'Avatar.' Sadly, John Carter has come a little too late to his own party and all the other boys and girls have eaten his cake and popped his balloons,..A handsome new sci-fi adventure that feels rather familiar. Enjoyable enough while it lasts, 'John Carter' is big on ambition and disappointingly short on action."
HitFix: "I think they've fumbled the sales pitch completely, but if you're willing to look past that and go the theater, 'John Carter' is transporting in exactly the way I want my escapism to be.  Richly imagined, robustly performed, and directed with the evident enthusiasm of someone who's been dreaming about Barsoom his whole life, 'John Carter' is a gem."


8 Ways Johnny Depp Tattered His Own Legacy Before The 21 Jump Street Remake Even Had A Chance



21jumpsrl.jpg I don’t expect this to be a popular post for many reasons but not least of all because (almost) everyone loves Johnny Depp. Several of his (earlier) movies are on my must-see list, and he’s an undoubtedly talented actor. By all accounts, Depp is also great to his fans when he meets them in person. However, the man is seriously losing his cool factor, and I doubt that the upcoming 21 Jump Street remake will make us forget Depp’s legacy any more than his own actions over the past decade. So let’s run down the reasons how Johnny Depp has willingly chipped away at his own reputation:
For Doing That Fourth Pirates of the Caribbean Movie: Because we don’t necessarily blame him for selling out, but keeping it going past a trilogy seems rather extreme. He’ll be back for a fifth movie too, so he can collect more of that stupid money.
piratessrl1.jpg
For Referring To Photoshoots As “Rape”: Because sure, getting dressed up all nice and having your picture taken to promote your own career is just like being sexually violated.
deppvfsrl1.jpg
For Dissing America. And France Too: First, he described the U.S. as a dumb puppy, but then he complained about how France was greedy, so he can’t live there either. Make up your mind, Johnny.
flagsrl1.jpg
For Owning His Own Private Island: Sure, it’s Johnny’s money, but owning a damn island just seems so douchey. So much for Mr. Rebel.
islanddeppsrl1.jpg
For Mucking Up A Hunter S. Thompson Movie: Remember how great Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was as a movie? Then he went and starred in (and produced) a meek voice of celluloid and muted rage. Not cool.
rumdiary1.jpg
For Blaming The Rum Diary’s Failure On Middle America: “Outside the big cities in the US, they don’t want intelligent films.” - Johnny Depp, The Guardian
deppoxfordsrl1.jpg
For Falling Over Drunk & Stumbling On The Street: Get drunk all you want, Johnny, but keep it dignified and keep it indoors. At least he didn’t wet himself, right?
deppdrunksrl1.jpg
For Appearing In Every Damn Tim Burton Movie: Because there can always be too much of a good thing.
madhattersrl1.jpg
Agent Bedhead lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She and her little black heart can be found at Celebitchy.


Will Smith: former Fresh Prince whose career threatens to turn stale

He's teamed up with Tommy Lee Jones for Men in Black III, but Will Smith is too talented to be wasting his time on blockbusters
In the newly released full-length trailer for Men in Black III, Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones sit at a bar reprising the roles of Agent J and Agent K respectively, the intergalactic counter-terrorists they first played in 1997. "I am getting too old for this," says J. "I can only imagine how you feel." Yet the issue for Smith is not that he's gotten too old for this – at 43, he looks like he's been trapped in amber since the Parents Just Don't Understand video – but that, just maybe, he's gotten too good for this.

It's almost hard to remember at this point, but the former Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is a two-time Academy Award nominee, once for Ali in 2001, then again for The Pursuit of Happyness in 2006. The reason this fact is so easy to lose sight of is that Smith has spent most of his time padding his resume with brainless blockbusters like I, Robot and Hancock, roles that seem to only require of him that he be able to memorize lines and behave like Will Smith.
That's not entirely his fault. Like most actors who come from other disciplines, Smith was offered lots of roles that enable him to advance the Will Smith brand without expanding it. The Fresh Prince is a prime example; NBC approached Smith about starring in the sitcom, which was built around his goofy, affable, edgy-yet-family-friendly persona. Smith could have made his entire career out of cracking wise in run-and-gun summer action flicks, but in 1995 he took on the role of Paul, a gay con artist in Six Degrees of Separation. He didn't garner any nominations for his elegant, restrained performance, but he did win critical acclaim, and by choosing such an off-brand role, Smith made clear that his goal was to be an actor's actor, not coast by playing endless iterations of himself.
Then the strategy changed. After Independence Day and the original Men in Black, a pair of massively successful blockbusters that bowed exactly one year apart and grossed over a billion dollars combined, Smith put his focus on movies with big budgets and big paychecks. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, or with Smith deciding he wants to be the world's biggest movie star rather than an actor with a string of well-regarded but soon-forgotten prestige films to his credit. But between Six Degrees and both of his Oscar-nominated performances, Smith has demonstrated an incredible capacity for and dedication to the craft of acting. To prepare for his turn as Muhammad Ali, Smith endured six-hour workouts for five days a week to prepare his physique, and spent hours watching footage of Ali in order to replicate the boxer's unique accent and speech patterns. Compared to that, donning a black suit and battling green-screen aliens is practically a vacation.
It's understandable why Smith with do a film like Men in Black III: it's a high-profile, relatively low-commitment gig for which he'll take home a rumored $20m. That kind of dream job would be hard for anyone to turn down. But it's a shame that an actor and performer as prodigious as Smith wouldn't have greater ambition as an actor, rather than as a movie star. It isn't just MIB3. Smith's upcoming projects include After Earth, a sci-fi thriller set for release next summer, co-starring his son Jaden and directed by the increasingly disreputable M Night Shyamalan. On the sequels front, there's a third installment of the buddy-cop Bad Boys franchise in pre-production, and follow-ups to Hancock, Independence Day and I, Robot have been lurching through the development process, not to mention a second I Am Legend film – which would be a prequel, as Smith's character died at the end of the original film.
It's a professional agenda that seems likely to earn a lot of people a lot of money, especially Smith. What it doesn't seem likely to do is garner Smith any further prestige nominations, or force him to stretch beyond his thespian comfort zone. It's a real shame, considering Smith has the talent to rank among his generation's finest actors, not just its most bankable stars. But perhaps MIB3 is just the remedy for Smith's slide into professional complacency. In spite of the buzz surrounding the franchise's return, the film is hardly money in the bank. The second Men in Black, which came out five years after the original, earned 30% less worldwide than the original, and that's at a point when the franchise was still considered fresh. A decade later, when both summer blockbusters and movies about aliens look so much different than they did then (back when Smith could still credibly rap over the closing credits) it's not a sure bet that Men in Black will translate for a younger audience. Here's hoping it doesn't, if only so that Smith, who is working far below his potential, will be inspired to stop looking backwards and start challenging himself.


Tuesday, May 17, 2011

MIB3

I want to preface this by saying I like Will Smith. But these reports coming out back to back are at the very least noteworthy.

From MovieLine
Better Homes || ||

Will Smith’s Massive Men in Black III Trailer Forced to Move

willsmith-300.jpgHope you enjoyed that earlier look at Will Smith’s mega-massive Men in Black III trailer. The New York City Mayor’s Office of Film has asked that the 53-foot long trailer move off the SoHo street it has been calling home, and into a parking lot. What caused this request?

Well, the neighbors. Nicknamed “The Heat” and featuring — according to the New York Post — a satellite dish, 100-inch screen home theater, assistant offices and an all-granite bathroom, the 1,150 square foot trailer drew the ire of SoHo residents. Said one to the Post:

“This thing is like a duplex. How would Will Smith feel if I parked that thing out in front of his house? People forget this is a residential neighborhood, not a film lot — that thing is taking up half our gasoline reserve.”

No wonder gas is almost $4.30 per gallon! It’s Big Willie’s fault! The Office of Film didn’t mention gasoline reserves in their statement, but did allude to the “interests” of the neighborhood as part of the reason why “The Heat” needed to move to a nearby parking lot. Let’s hope Men in Black III and the looming threat of even higher gas prices have similar happy endings. Check out the trailer below.

· Will Smith’s movie set trailer relocated to parking lot [NYP]

willsmith_trailer_630.jpg


MIB III: Chaos cost

From Lainey Gossip
Written by
Sarah


I’ve got an old friend, now an accountant, who works in and around industry finances for a living. B doesn’t tell me much about specifics but he’s good about dumbing down the shady math studios use so that I can understand it in my math-deficient mind. Like me, B believes that The Numbers mean nothing and that studio accounting practices are questionable at best, and sometimes I get texts from him that look like this:

mib3 200+ CHAOS COST


I got that text back in December and just remembered it when I saw these new photos of Will Smith and Josh Brolin back at work on Men in Black III. I never delete B’s texts because sometimes stuff that doesn’t make sense at the time comes into play later down the line. This particular text is about how terrifically expensive MIBIII is. The budget will top $200 million, easy, which is insane these days. Part of what is driving up the cost of MIBIII, already an expensive, effects-laden movie, is the “chaos cost”.

Chaos cost is a term you don’t hear much because people refuse to say it like it’s the name of Voldemort’s dog or something. It refers to unforeseen expenses relating to trouble. If someone says a film has chaos costs, something has gone rather severely wrong. In MIBIII’s case, they’ve been shooting without a script, which led to a hiatus from Christmas through February in order to finish the script, but when February ended and Smith still hadn’t signed off on a final draft, the break continued into March. This is the sound of Sony flushing millions of dollars down the drain.

There’s no way MIBIII justifies these expenses. Back in 1997, the first MIB netted $250 million against a $90 million budget. In 2002, the budget for MIBII was $140 million against a $190 million gross (all numbers domestic). Do you see where I’m going with this? MIB isn’t a franchise that has improved over time. Budgets have gone up, grosses have gone down, and given the, well, chaotic nature of filming #3, there’s no reason to believe that it fares any better next summer. 2012 is ten years removed from the last MIB movie—will people still care? Will Smith is one of the very few people who can still sell a movie on his name alone, but I don’t get that there’s a lot of affection/nostalgia for Men in Black. And given that they’re writing this movie as they go and Smith wasn’t 100% sold on it when they started up late last year (the sticking point has something to do with time travel), can we really expect MIBIII to be any good?

At least Smith still looks good in the suit.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

MIB3

I want to preface this by saying I like Will Smith. But these reports coming out back to back are at the very least noteworthy.

From MovieLine
Better Homes || ||

Will Smith’s Massive Men in Black III Trailer Forced to Move

willsmith-300.jpgHope you enjoyed that earlier look at Will Smith’s mega-massive Men in Black III trailer. The New York City Mayor’s Office of Film has asked that the 53-foot long trailer move off the SoHo street it has been calling home, and into a parking lot. What caused this request?

Well, the neighbors. Nicknamed “The Heat” and featuring — according to the New York Post — a satellite dish, 100-inch screen home theater, assistant offices and an all-granite bathroom, the 1,150 square foot trailer drew the ire of SoHo residents. Said one to the Post:

“This thing is like a duplex. How would Will Smith feel if I parked that thing out in front of his house? People forget this is a residential neighborhood, not a film lot — that thing is taking up half our gasoline reserve.”

No wonder gas is almost $4.30 per gallon! It’s Big Willie’s fault! The Office of Film didn’t mention gasoline reserves in their statement, but did allude to the “interests” of the neighborhood as part of the reason why “The Heat” needed to move to a nearby parking lot. Let’s hope Men in Black III and the looming threat of even higher gas prices have similar happy endings. Check out the trailer below.

· Will Smith’s movie set trailer relocated to parking lot [NYP]

willsmith_trailer_630.jpg


MIB III: Chaos cost

From Lainey Gossip
Written by
Sarah


I’ve got an old friend, now an accountant, who works in and around industry finances for a living. B doesn’t tell me much about specifics but he’s good about dumbing down the shady math studios use so that I can understand it in my math-deficient mind. Like me, B believes that The Numbers mean nothing and that studio accounting practices are questionable at best, and sometimes I get texts from him that look like this:

mib3 200+ CHAOS COST


I got that text back in December and just remembered it when I saw these new photos of Will Smith and Josh Brolin back at work on Men in Black III. I never delete B’s texts because sometimes stuff that doesn’t make sense at the time comes into play later down the line. This particular text is about how terrifically expensive MIBIII is. The budget will top $200 million, easy, which is insane these days. Part of what is driving up the cost of MIBIII, already an expensive, effects-laden movie, is the “chaos cost”.

Chaos cost is a term you don’t hear much because people refuse to say it like it’s the name of Voldemort’s dog or something. It refers to unforeseen expenses relating to trouble. If someone says a film has chaos costs, something has gone rather severely wrong. In MIBIII’s case, they’ve been shooting without a script, which led to a hiatus from Christmas through February in order to finish the script, but when February ended and Smith still hadn’t signed off on a final draft, the break continued into March. This is the sound of Sony flushing millions of dollars down the drain.

There’s no way MIBIII justifies these expenses. Back in 1997, the first MIB netted $250 million against a $90 million budget. In 2002, the budget for MIBII was $140 million against a $190 million gross (all numbers domestic). Do you see where I’m going with this? MIB isn’t a franchise that has improved over time. Budgets have gone up, grosses have gone down, and given the, well, chaotic nature of filming #3, there’s no reason to believe that it fares any better next summer. 2012 is ten years removed from the last MIB movie—will people still care? Will Smith is one of the very few people who can still sell a movie on his name alone, but I don’t get that there’s a lot of affection/nostalgia for Men in Black. And given that they’re writing this movie as they go and Smith wasn’t 100% sold on it when they started up late last year (the sticking point has something to do with time travel), can we really expect MIBIII to be any good?

At least Smith still looks good in the suit.