Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 10/1

After taking a week off from writing the full-length version of this column due to a rigorous week of midterms at school--thank God that's over--I'm back and ready to offer up analysis and comparisons on this week's releases. However, it's unfortunate for my reputation that I didn't completely check out last Friday, instead still offering my customary prediction of what the top 10 would look like... which I totally flubbed, over-inflating the potential of all three major releases. It wasn't hard to see why they didn't do as well as I had guessed once I saw them, though -- talk about bad movies. Wall Street 2 was the best of the bunch, but even that was mediocre at best. You Again and Legend of the Guardians were painful to sit through, as if they had been left over from August.

This weekend, on the other hand, brings us two critically acclaimed films: Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher's take on the origin-story of Facebook, The Social Network, and Matt Reeves' update of the Swedish vampire movie Let the Right One in, Amerisimplified to just Let Me In. Even if they turn out to be box-office duds--unlikely in the case of the former--they at least promise to offer enriching moviegoing experiences. But if they're not your thing--meaning you're intellectually void--then there's always Case 39, a horror flick starring real-life couple Renee Zellweger and Bradley Cooper that has been sitting on the shelf for ages. Or some Nikki Reed movie called Chain Letter that's surprisingly opening on over 400 screens.

I think The Social Network will be huge. With the best reviews of any movie all year (it's currently 98%-fresh with an average rating of 9.4/10 on Rotten Tomatoes), a built-in audience of Facebook addicts, and a distributor that is seemingly invincible this year (Sony), it's hard to see the movie underperforming. The real question is: how high is its ceiling? Most predictions have it at around $25 million, which I think errs way conservative. In fact, I think there's a great comparison that performed much better than that, and it may surprise some: Superbad.

Even though their genres are different, both movies carry natural appeal for almost every 17-to-25-year-old male and are able to expand their potential audience widely due to critical praise and word-of-mouth. Sure, Superbad demanded more immediate viewing because people wanted to see it with an enthusiastic crowd on opening night, avoiding any potential of having the jokes spoiled for them, but The Social Network boasts a PG-13 rating to counterbalance this. There are lots of 13-16 year-olds who use Facebook and who are, I'm sure, interested in how it came to be, while many in this age-group were barred from Superbad due to its R-rating. Facebook user = potential viewer, as far as I'm concerned. We could definitely see The Social Network perform as well as the aforementioned Judd Apatow-produced comedy hit, repeating its opening of $33.1 million.

Let Me In is tougher to predict. While it is technically a horror film and features a vampire, the material doesn't easily fit inside the mold of either genre and, hence, it may have a hard time attracting their built-in audiences. Likewise, while the 2008 original has become relatively popular for a foreign film in America, many of its fans might not want to see this remake, calling it "too soon" or a "rip-off." Then there's the matter of the distributor (Overture), which isn't exactly a big name and has only secured 2,020 theaters. However, in fairness, they did release this year's zombie remake The Crazies with great success and, as is the case with this movie, no big stars. (Has Chloe Moretz ascended to Timothy Olyphant-level fame with the popularity of Hit Girl?) Also boding well for Let Me In is the fact that it has damn good reviews, which should mean equally good word-of-mouth.

Frankly, it's tough to find good comparisons for Let Me In because it's pretty unique. My best bet is last year's Orphan, which was similarly R-rated and more cerebral than the usual Friday night horror film. That WB release played in over 700 more theaters, however, so its $12.6m opening might be a little high. But maybe not by much, as I could see Let Me In's rumored artistic excellence boosting it to around $11.4 million.

Then there's Case 39, which is, yes, a Paramount Vantage title. (Who were they again?) I was going to comment that its best chance at success would be kids buying tickets for it as their way to sneak into Let Me In, but then I realized it's R-rated as well. What a dump job! With bad reviews and uninspired marketing, this probably would have been better off going straight to video. (Ironically, it is already available on DVD in Europe, from where I ordered the copy that I will be watching tonight.) So who will go see Case 39? Fans of "dumb" horror? Older women who like Renee Zellweger but don't know what the movie's about? Beats me. Sparing it the embarrassment of a sub-$2,000 per theater average, I'll predict the movie manages to rake in $4.6 million.

Then there's Chain Letter, which I hadn't even heard of until showtimes were posted for the week. Somehow, first-time micro-distributor New Films Cinema has secured 401 playdates for this Nikki Reed (Twilight, Thirteen) vehicle. Even better yet: it's another R-rated horror film! While New Films Cinema probably chose the date because it was the only time they could get so many screens, it wasn't exactly a smart first business decision. Will Reed's Twilight fans show up to save the movie from a PTA worse than The Black Waters of Echo's Pond's measly $555 earlier this year? Given most of them are probably underage and Chain Letter faces so much R-rated horror competition, I doubt it. I reckon it'll only manage about $215,000 for the whole weekend.

My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:

1. The Social Network ... $33.1m ($11,945 PTA)

2. Let Me In ... $11.4m ($5,644 PTA)

3. The Town ... $10.1m ($3,441 PTA) -35.3%

4. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps ... $10.1m ($2,808 PTA) -46.9%

5. Legend of the Guardians ... $10.0m ($2,797 PTA) -37.9%

6. Easy A ... $6.4m ($2,152 PTA) -39.6%

7. You Again ... $4.7m ($1,845 PTA) -44.1%

8. Case 39 ... $4.6m ($2,081 PTA)

9. Devil ... $3.0m ($1,250 PTA) -54.6%

10. Alpha and Omega ... $2.6m ($1,129 PTA) -45.1%

(Note that Legend of the Guardians and You Again should come out a bit higher than their "real" grosses, as sneak preview revenue for Life As We Know it and Secretariat, respectively, will likely be applied to their tallies. Hollywood works in mysterious ways.)

Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 9/24

The site is backed up this week and I view this column as the most expendable feature, so I'm just going to post my raw predictions without any analysis. But not before I brag about last weekend's predictions, which were pretty darn accurate, and would have been even more so had Exhibitor Relations' Saturday morning weekend projections held. Fear not, however -- I'll be back with the whole enchilada next week. For now...

My prediction of what the top 10 will look like:

1. Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps ... $26.8m ($7,518 PTA)

2. Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole ... $20.5m ($5,734 PTA)

3. You Again ... $14.0m ($5,495 PTA)

4. The Town ... $12.4m ($4,298 PTA) -47.9%

5. Easy A ... $10.3m ($3,606 PTA) -41.9%

6. Alpha and Omega ... $5.5 ($2,095 PTA) -39.6%

7. Devil ... $4.8m ($1,708 PTA) -60.9%

8. Resident Evil: Afterlife ... $4.8m ($1,817 PTA) -52.0%

9. Takers ... $1.6m ($1,312 PTA) -47.1%

10. The American ... $1.3m ($989 PTA) -51.4%

I think Wall Street 2 will be pretty close to that number, with Gran Torino's $29.5m as its ultimate ceiling. Legend of the Guardians could very well surprise and do better than $20.5m, but it's a risky proposition with the Australian cast and the paradox of scary-but-kiddy owls. I'm giving You Again an edge on other prognosticators' predictions because I think Jamie Lee Curtis and Betty White are pretty big selling points for older women, meaning it'll have a slight uptick on similar pictures like lead Kristen Bell's When in Rome and Disney's previous adult-skewing family film Dan in Real Life. If my guesses hold, it'll be a pretty successful weekend on the whole... though WB will probably have a ways to go in paying for all those CGI creatures.

Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 9/17

Now that we're done with all that Resident Evil nonsense, we can get on with an actually interesting weekend. (That's not an excuse for my high-balled prediction last Thursday, just a general statement that the box office field was painfully uninteresting.) This weekend, the movie getting all the commercial buzz is Easy A, a potential breakout for both up-and-comer Emma Stone and for the seemingly invincible Sony. Easy A has great reviews, but its R-rated, adult-targeted competitor, Ben Affleck's The Town, is meanwhile sucking up all the critical buzz. Not screened for critics but also expected to do well is Devil, a PG-13 horror film produced by M. Night Shyamalan. And likely to tank and finish last among the openers is the 3D animated flick with the voices of Justin Long and Hayden Panettiere, Alpha and Omega.

While Easy A seems to be the consensus' choice for #1 this weekend, I'm going to venture out on a limb and say The Town will champion. With good reviews to bring in the 35+ crowd, a stellar ad campaign that appeals to young males, a cast of desirable men who women won't mind watching, and region-centric material that the East Coast (especially New England) will be drawn to, Warner Bros have got themselves the complete package. Yeah, it's R-rated, but all the teenyboppers were planning on going to Easy A or Devil anyway. And yes, Ben Affleck's first film, Gone Baby Gone, also set in a lower-class Boston neighborhood, only opened to $5.5m, but that was Oscar bait with a different release strategy and far more limited appeal.

The best box office comparisons for The Town are The Departed, Mystic River, and Fever Pitch (no, that isn't a misprint), all set in Boston. The first also opened in the early fall to a stellar $28.9m in 2006, $30.7m when adjusted for inflation. Of course, I don't think anyone's under the impression that The Town could pull those numbers, because Affleck, Jon Hamm, and Jeremy Renner aren't Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, and Leo DiCaprio as far as star power is concerned. Nor are they Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, and Kevin Bacon, but Mystic River, which grossed over $90m total, is further proof that these adult-oriented, East Coast crime-dramas have immense appeal. (That Clint Eastwood film only opened to around $10m, but its release strategy was different and its theater count was much lower, meaning if one were to directly compare it, one would have to account for increased front-loading for The Town.) Lastly, Fever Pitch ($12.4m, $13.5m adjusted for inflation) is a good comparison because it represents a well-reviewed, broadly appealing movie within its genre, but also one that's region-specific to Boston. As was the case with that Red Sox fan love-story, sometimes such a focus on setting can be alienating to those in other parts of the countries. Also, I think Affleck/Hamm/Renner are more synonymous to Fallon/Barrymore in terms of draw. As a result, I think the ideal prediction is an average of The Departed and Fever Pitch, meaning The Town opens to an exceptional $22.1 million.

Similarly, I think Easy A's number is best predicted by averaging those of two similarpictures. Those saying the movie will break out are comparing it to Mean Girls, which pulled an incredibly strong $24.4m opening back in 2004, $27.5m adjusted for inflation. There are a lot of similarities, especially the great reviews. Because of all the favorable word-of-mouth, this is the type of movie that not only teen girls will want to see; their moms may want to take them as well. That expands the audience considerably. However, Lindsay Lohan was already an established draw when Mean Girls came out; Emma Stone is just now becoming one. So that could lose some potential viewers. More pessimistically, one could equate Easy A with She's The Man, which starred Amanda Bynes, who's also in the supporting cast here. While that film didn't have as good of reviews, it was similarly high-concept (a modern Shakespeare adaptation) and was more equatable to Easy A in terms of its commercial prospects. It opened to $10.7m back in 2006, $11.4m adjusted for inflation. Thus, it seems logical to average Mean Girls and She's the Man, which would give Easy A a terrific $19.5 million opening, extending Sony's box office streak.

How well Devil does seems largely dependent on which member of teenage couples is choosing the movie: the girl or the boy. If she gets to decide more times than not, then we could see a rise in the aforementioned Easy A number. But if traditional gender stereotypes prevail and the guy picks, then look out for this cheap horror film. It is the iffiest opening of the weekend in my book, but it definitely has the potential to do well if it grabs enough under-25s, who are sure to make up over 75% of its audience. (If anybody over 25 was considering seeing it, then they were probably turned off by executive producer M. Night Shyamalan's widely advertised attachment to the project.) Some obvious teen-horror comparisons are The Unborn ($19.8m last year) and When a Stranger Calls ($21.6m in 2006, $23.0m inflated). That'd be $21.4m if we played the averages game, but that's not going to work in this case because Easy A will surely take away some of the teens who would've gone to see this on another weekend. How much that'll hurt Devil is anybody's guess; I'm going to say it opens to $16 million.

Then there's Alpha and Omega, which has poor reviews and isn't on anybody's radar except maybe that of the parents of young children. It's distributed by Lionsgate, who doesn't have much of a history releasing kiddie flicks. A good comparison would be their 2007 foray into the genre, Happily N'Ever After, which opened to $6.6m ($6.8m inflated) with a similar theater count. Another would be Summit Entertainment's third-tier animated film Astro Boy, which did a similar $6.7m last year. That averages out, of course, to an opening of $6.75m, which works out nicely because, with an average admission price $6.75--figuring a lot of child tickets--it implies about 1 million tickets sold. The reason this needs to be calculated is Alpha and Omega is being shown in 3D at many theaters, meaning the impact of the surcharge needs to be factored in. I think about 55% of tickets will be 3D, a little less than this summer's Despicable Me. When one does the ensuing math, it suggests Alpha and Omega will open to about $8.1 million this weekend.

So there it is, a high-grossing four way battle. If the top three are able to pull the kinds of numbers I've predicted, then this will be one profitable September weekend.

My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:

1. The Town ... $22.1m ($7,725 PTA)

2. Easy A ... $19.5m ($6,828 PTA)

3. Devil ... $16.0m ($5,694 PTA)

4. Resident Evil: Afterlife ... $9.4m ($2,929 PTA) -64.7%

5. Alpha and Omega ... $8.1m ($3,086 PTA)

6. The American ... $3.5m ($1,425 PTA) -38.3%

7. Takers ... $3.4m ($1,590 PTA) -40.0%

8. Going the Distance ... $2.1m ($1,046 PTA) -44.6%

9. The Other Guys ... $2.0m ($1,095 PTA) -40.3%

10. Inception ... $1.7m ($1,303 PTA) -39.3%

Review: Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010) - 1 1/2 Buckets

I feel like I should just copy and paste my review of any one of the other three Resident Evil movies because, folks, I know it’s shocking, but Afterlife represents more of the same. Franchise producer Paul W.S. Anderson may return to the director’s chair after being absent for two pictures, but the incoherent story, the abundance of clunky action, and the basic players are all still present. Basically, we get a video game adaptation that forgets the adapting part of the equation, the equivalent of watching two friends play the source material for 95 minutes without a controller of one’s own. Oh, and in case you weren’t already working up a headache, this time everything’s in 3D.

But I actually shouldn’t be so harsh. Unlike its immediate predecessor—which I only remember as being completely worthless because I paged back and saw I gave it a zero-bucket review—Afterlife is not agonizingly painful. There’s a pretty cool action sequence towards the end in which the characters escape zombies – probably the best thing Anderson has ever constructed as a filmmaker. That’s a whole 15 minutes of solid fun. Not to mention, Milla Jovovich and especially a brunette Ali Larter are hot as ever. (Yes, the world has ended and society has crumbled, but plenty of makeup and hair products are still readily available.) Given what I’ve been conditioned to expect from this franchise, I was more than happy for these small favors.

If the first three films failed to leave any kind of an imprint on your brain other than that they weren’t very good, then, like myself, you’re probably in the majority. This means that Resident Evil: Afterlife’s first 15 minutes won’t make a lick of sense to you, but then again, does anything else in the movie? The first sequence begins as Alice (Jovoich) raids the evil Umbrella Corporation with an army of clones, squaring off against bad guy Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts), and ends with her jumping from an exploding helicopter after regaining her humanity from Wesker… or something like that. Then she jets a personal plane to Arcadia, Alaska, a supposed zombie-free refuge location she planned on escaping to with her compadres in the last movie. Turns out Arcadia isn’t much of a paradise; in fact, it’s uninhabited except for a disoriented Claire Redfield (Larter), one of said compadres.

So Alice does what common wisdom tells any survivor of the zombie apocalypse to do: head south. Amidst the rubble of downtown Los Angeles, she and the now lucid Claire spot a group of survivors taking shelter in a prison, a wealth of flesh-hungry zombies lurking outside the gates. These survivors inform the Alice that Arcadia is not a city, but a ship they can see in the distance. (This revelation is so corny I half expected them to tell her she actually got the wrong Arcadia, meaning the real zombie safe-haven is the suburb of L.A.’s San Gabriel Valley, not the one in Alaska.) With that, the movie’s thin plot comes to fruition. Once again, it’s time for our heroes to kick some zombie butt so they can reach a momentary oasis before the next sequel, in which they will inevitably do the same thing all over again.

Among the new team, the only interesting member is Chris (Wentworth Miller), who was found locked up in the prison. The others err on the side of caution and keep him in his cell, despite his claim that he was an Army soldier sent to release prisoners to fight the zombies, only to be mistaken for a guard and locked up by escapees. The menacing Miller ensures that Chris, who we later learn is Claire's brother, always makes for a captivating presence, even though he brings little of consequence to the story. But like I said when discussing the movie’s other pros, small favors seem huge when the movie is Resident Evil: Afterlife.

Deferring to my criticisms of the previous pictures on the rest, the only new part of the equation left to talk about is the 3D. It’s notable because the film was shot natively with an extra dimension on the Pace Fusion Camera, the piece of technology pioneered by Avatar. Like that visual milestone, this film might serve as a pretty cool Best Buy demo-real for 3D televisions, but it’s probably better as a 2D experience. The image is noticeably darker with the glasses on and the depth of field seems artificial. I’ve always been firmly in the anti-3D camp and Resident Evil: Afterlife does nothing to change my mind. In fact, I would argue the only time that the new 3D really works is the same one the old red-blue cellophane glasses kind did: when, as in the case of the recent Piranha 3D, the intention is to cheapen and cheese up the material. Resident Evil: Afterlife was already too cheap from the second it was green-lit. Like its predecessors, this is a movie only for carpel-tunnel afflicted gaming addicts whose weak hands don’t allow for all the seizure-inducing action they crave.

* * *

Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010, USA). Produced by Paul W.S. Anderson, Jeremy Bolt, Don Carmody, Berndt Eichinger, Samuel Hadida, Victor Hadida, Robert Kulzer, and Martin Moszkowicz. Directed and written for the screen by Paul W.S. Anderson. Starring Milla Jovovich, Ali Larter, Kim Coates, Shawn Roberts, Sergio Peris-Mencheta, Spencer Locke, Boris Kodjoe, and Wentworth Miller. Distributed by Screen Gems. Rated R, with a running time of 95 minutes.

Review: The American (2010) - 3 1/2 Buckets

Some movies present the audience with a central character so cryptic, the experience is made involving solely by working to decipher the person. Such is the case with The American, in which George Clooney plays a man whose profession requires he be so secretive, he can’t even be himself when he’s alone. Or has he literally become his profession—a black-market weapons maker? That’s the viewer’s decision to a make. This is a movie in which plot (of which there is little) is secondary; the real arc and its accompanying tension are created by the viewer figuring out what this man is thinking. Many will be surprised at how much of a relationship they form with him in the process, how much they begin to care for a man who is as cold as they come on the surface.

His real name is Jack, or is it? That doesn’t much matter because, for most of the movie, he goes by Edward, and you’ll think of him as Clooney. When the audience meets him in a wintery opening scene, he has been staying with a woman in a cabin in the Swedish countryside. That’s the extent of our knowledge, however, when hitmen attempt to kill him. Jack treats the event with such definiteness that it’s clearly a regular occurence for him, and he is able to make off after shooting them—and his fling—dead. From there, his boss Pavel (Johan Leysen) assigns him to a new city, in remote Italy. There, we learn his gig is to make custom firearms, tailored specially for specific hits. His client is Mathilde (Thekla Reuten), who provides the specs and nothing else. Jack mostly follows protocol and keeps to himself as he assembles the gun, but he can’t avoid entanglements with the local priest (Paolo Bonacelli), who realizes his cover as a photographer doesn’t add up, and a seductive prostitute (Violante Placido), who he begins to see off the clock. All the while, the Swedes are clearly still after him.

If quiet, artful movies aren’t your thing, than you best look the other way. But for those who are willing to invest in The American, the payoff is rewarding. While the movie may not deliver constant action, it’s a real white-knuckler, especially due to the overwhelming cloud of doom that enshrouds Jack as the plot progresses.

But before one becomes enveloped in the central character, one will notice the film’s other superior trait: its visual power. Directed by former still photographer Anton Corbijin, who also made the 2007 black-and-white beauty Control, and shot by his DP Martin Ruhe, The American would likely be just as transfixing without sound. The stark, beautifully composed shots are not only a treat for the eyes, they capture the mysterious protagonist’s underlying primal emotions. While Clooney and the screenplay flesh out the details, the widescreen cinematography may be the viewer’s greatest insight into what Jack is feeling on the most basic level, from assuredness to claustrophobia.

Speaking of Clooney: this is his best performance in some time. He’s an actor who has always been gifted at playing solitary, bottled-up characters—for a more mainstream example, just look at Ryan Bingham in last year’s Up in the Air—and Jack represents a blank canvas that gives him a lot of creative room to roam. This is an appropriately un-showy performance, mostly free of dialogue, so the mere fact that Clooney keeps the viewer invested in the character is a marker of his success. And, as is the case with any great acting of this nature, Clooney’s work is up for interpretation; just as a real-life person’s behavior could be viewer completely differently by separate onlookers, such is the case with Jack’s.

And don’t even get me started on Clooney’s co-star, Placido, who has a preordained future in American films for the simple fact that… well, you’ll know when you see them.

With such an engrossing, well-crafted character at the helm, it must have been tempting for director Corbijn to run wild with the movie. It could have easily kept up its high interest level for three hours. But instead, Corbijn remains incredibly measured, just as precise and masterful in his assembly of The American as Jack is in making firearms. It’s a raw filmmaking feat – a picture that strips down all the baggage usually associated with crime movies and makes a far more complex piece of work out of immaculately examined, often impenetrable human behavior.

* * *

The American (2010, USA). Produced by Anne Carey, George Clooney, Jill Green, Grant Heslov, Enzo Sisti, Moa Westeson, and Ann Wingate. Directed by Anton Corbijn. Written for the screen by Rowan Joffe, based on the novel by Martin Booth. Starring George Clooney, Violante Placido, Paolo Bonacelli, Thekla Reuten, and Irina Björklund. Distributed by Focus Features. Rated R, with a running time of 105 minutes.

Review: The Romantics (2010) - 1 1/2 Buckets

Some big stars’ craving for formula is insatiable… not only do they make conventional Hollywood blockbusters, they also somehow find the most formulaic indies they can. My impulse has always been to assume that when popular actors like Katie Holmes, Anna Paquin, Malin Akerman, Josh Duhamel, Elijah Wood, Adam Brody, and Candice Bergen lend their talents to a smaller project they won’t be paid their usual rate for, it’s probably something special. But here’s The Romantics, which relies on every bullshit indie cliché in the book, to prove me wrong once again.

The story is something you’d expect from a movie with surface banality like Bride Wars, darkened up to fit the “brooding drama” genre. The viewer meets the ensemble as they prepare for Lila (Paquin) and Tom’s (Duhamel) wedding. Drama bubbles from the start, because Tom used to date maid of honor Laura (Katie Homes) during college and then off and on for years after. It doesn’t take a genius to predict that this will bring problems, probably unfaithfulness on Tom’s part. The rest of the cast, made up of characters that all come equipped with their own canned eccentricities, really just blend into one, with the possible exception of Lila’s alcoholic brother Chip, who Elijah Wood does a funny job with. Yes, this is a movie that makes Malin Akerman “blend in;” unthinkable, I know.

The Romantics is so derivative of other low-budget American indies that it could pass for a parody of them. Most apparently, the soundtrack is full of piercing, high-pitched ballads meant to ironically dictate the mood, as if writer/director Galt Niederhoffer loved but totally misunderstood Zach Braff’s famed musical approach to Garden State. While music is hardly what ruins The Romantics, it’s the first phony thing the viewer will notice about it.

But early on, the real phoniness is exposed in the form of the characters. Despite the cast’s honest attempts, these people do not resemble anyone in real-life in the slightest. Only in contrived indie-world would Laura, who’s been angry with Lila for some time, even show up to this wedding, much less as the maid of honor. And of course the others enact clichés to express even more worn-out symbolism, like frolicking down to the nearby beach inebriated, in the dark. Memo to Niederhoffer: nobody cares who’ll be the first to run into the waves or what it’s supposed to make the audience feel like. I could go on, but there’s no point in just rattling off a list.

Considering The Romantics’ utter artificiality, it is admittedly surprising that the final 20 minutes of the movie pack an actual punch. (Luckily for the reputations of all involved, they also keep it from ranking as one of the worst films of the year.) Paquin and Holmes have a stripped-down confrontation that shows why they’re both respected actresses; it’s tense and exhilarating, unlike practically everything else that has come before. Ironically, only then does the viewer feel like there may actually be something more to these characters. It’s also admirable that the final scene—the inevitable wedding—doesn’t rely on any grandstanding to shake up the plot as they often do in this type of movie. But there won’t be a member of the audience who doesn’t view this sudden uptick in quality as too little, too late. The Romanticsremains a film that we’ve seen a zillion times before, a little more painful to watch than the last time we were presented these caricatures and problems.

* * *

The Romantics (2010, USA). Produced by Robert Ogden Barnum, James Belfer, Michael Benaroya, Cynthia Coury, Simon Crowe, Eva Marie Daniels, Rose Ganguzza, Daniel Hendler, Pamela Hirsch, Katie Holmes, Taylor Kephart, Lawrence M. Kopeikin, Todd J. Labarowski, Riva Marker, Nic Marshall, Tommee May, Ranjit Raju, Celine Rattray, Cecilia Kate Roque, Tony Shawkate, Jai Stefan, Ron Stein, Daniela Taplin Lundberg, Jennifer Todd, Suzanne Todd, Todd Traina, and Owen Weisman. Directed by Galt Niederhoffer. Written for the screen by Galt Niederhoffer, based on her novel. Starring Katie Holmes, Anna Paquin, Josh Duhamel, Malin Akerman, Jeremy Strong, Candice Bergen, Adam Brody, and Elijah Wood. Distributed by Paramount Famous Productions. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 95 minutes.

Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 9/10

You want accurate predictions and, last week, for the most part, I delivered. With the exception of Machete, which I substantially overestimated, my guesses fared very well. I got within half a million of both the other openers, The American and Going the Distance, and didn't do too shabbily on the holdovers, either. I'm not saying this to boast, but rather just to revel in my first really accurate week at the box office analysis game.

This weekend could extend my winning streak or completely destroy it; it's make-or-break, as there is only one new wide release. That's Paul W.S. Anderson's fourth entry in his Resident Evil franchise, based on the popular video game. However, Resident Evil: Afterlife marks the first time protagonist Alice has dodged bullets in 3D--captured by the same camera that brought us Avatar, no less--so at least one new variable factors into the equation.

While 3D naysayers argue the technology is already starting to fade from public interest, citing the declining percentage of overall ticket sales it makes up for with each new film, Resident Evil: Afterlife seems like the type of film moviegoers will want to see in the format. Not to mention, the promotional campaign has been explicit about the fact that the picture was not rendered into 3D in post-production, but shot that way, which people understand means a better-looking final film. With this in mind, I'd say Resident Evil: Afterlife comes close to the upper echelon of 3D viewership, with likely 70% of ticket-buyers seeing it in 3D. Also, in addition to standard 3D screens, the movie is playing in Digital IMAX 3D, which tacks another couple bucks onto the price. The average premium paid for the extra dimension should near $4 a ticket.

As for historical comparisons, I don't think one has to look any farther than the other films in the series. The only other worthwhile comparison I might've considered taking into account would have been similar 3D features, but there aren't any unless one stretches to 3D horror films like My Bloody Valentine. But they're not really similar, so let's get down to it... The first Resident Evil grossed $17.7 million over its opening weekend in 2002. In 2004, Part 2, Apocalypse, jumped substantially to $23m. Three years after that, Extinction, the immediate predecessor to this new film, opened to $23.7m. This means Extinction was about even with Apocalypse after accounting for inflation, suggesting the amount of interested viewers hit a ceiling.

So let's assume the ceiling for these movies is $23m in 2004 dollars. Adjusting for inflation to today, that's $25.9m. But we must account for the $4 3D surcharge on 70% of tickets, which we'll assume come at an average base price of $8. That would mean the 3D version will take in $24.2m and the 2D version another $6.9m, bringing my final prediction for Resident Evil: Afterlife to a stellar $31.1 million.

Other than that, there are only a handful of indies coming out in limited release, and only one of them is likely to many any waves. It's Casey Affleck's documentary about Joaquin Phoenix's attempt to start a rap career, I'm Still Here, suspected by some to be a hoax. The movie opens in 19 sites and initial interest should be strong enough to manage a per theater average of around $8,000, but I'd be surprised if it got much higher than that because of the fact that it debuts nationwide on Video OnDemand in just two weeks.

My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:

1. Resident Evil: Afterlife ... $31.1m ($9,710 PTA)

2. The American ... $6.3m ($2,224 PTA) -52.2%

3. Takers ... $5.4m ($2,465 PTA) -50.3%

4. Machete ... $4.1m ($1,531 PTA) -64.0%

5. Going the Distance ... $3.4m ($1,122 PTA)

6. The Last Exorcism ... $3.2m ($1,172 PTA) -56.4%

7. The Expendables ... $3.2m ($1,046 PTA) -51.7%

8. The Other Guys ... $2.9m ($1,291 PTA) -45.1%

9. Eat Pray Love ... $2.8m ($1,197 PTA) -41.7%

10. Inception ... $2.7m ($1,706 PTA) -40.9%

Historically, post-Labor Day weekend drops have been brutal, and I don't expect this weekend to be any exception.

Have thoughts on this new feature? Like it, don't like it, want something added? Shoot me an e-mail at webmaster@bucketreviews.com.

Review: Get Low (2010) - 3 Buckets

I’m a big believer in the idea that a movie’s power to stick with the viewer is just as important as the impression it makes as it rolls through the projector gate. This is why I’m recommending Get Low. The movie is sleepy—boring in parts, even—and leads up to a payoff that isn’t as immediately fulfilling on a narrative level as one might hope. But between its assured delivery and its strong performances, namely a remarkable one by lead Robert Duvall, the film lingers a lot after you see it. Normally I try to write about a movie the day following the screening, when it’s still very fresh in my memory, but in this case I’m glad time constraints prevented me from doing so until three days later. I planned on giving Get Low a just-OK review as I walked out of the theater, but every time I’ve thought about it since, it’s haunted me a little more.

While independent film connoisseurs may remember a similar premise in Sol Tyron’s little-seen The Living Wake, Get Low is a very different movie – an American original through and through. It’s set in the Midwest countryside in the 1930s. Duvall plays the quiet, reclusive Felix Bush, who at the beginning of the film learns of the death of an old friend. At this point, the viewer knows very little about him other than that kids commonly try to vandalize his house. He then makes a rare venture outside his 100-acre backwoods farm into town to see the local reverend, whom he asks to conduct a funeral… for himself.

The reverend denies the request, but Felix is overheard by Buddy (Lucas Black), who works for undertaker Frank Quinn (Bill Murray). Quinn is desperate for any business he can get in the down economy, and he agrees to entertain Felix’s request, which gets stranger as time passes. On the radio, Felix invites everyone who has a story about him to come and tell it. Over the years, he has been shrouded in gossip; some even believe he’s a murderer. In addition, Felix has decided to raffle off his home and property at $5 a ticket. But the real revelation will come in the form of a secret Felix has been keeping for ages, which he plans to share with everyone. This likely has something to do with the film’s opening shot—a house on fire as a shadowy figure runs away—and probably the dead sister of Felix’s old flame Mattie (Sissy Spacek).

The scene in which Duvall reveals his secret in front of hundreds of onlookers is emblematic of Get Low on the whole. The secret itself is anticlimactic—annoyingly so at first—but if one thinks about it, one realizes that it’s both realistic and that, despite its lack of immediate punch, it would definitely haunt this character forever. Likewise, the movie is true to the time and, even though it might not grab the viewer at first, it has a staying power waiting to be unleashed. Furthering the scene’s representation of the movie as whole is the fact that it represents the crescendo of Duvall’s amazing performance, which is all the more impressive because it’s so reserved and quiet, not reliant upon showiness. Once again demonstrating that he’s one of the finest actors of all-time, Duvall delivers Felix’s painstaking speech in extended takes, never once losing the viewers attention despite the stripped-down style. Even if one feels that everything else about Get Low is lacking, it’s still worth seeing for Duvall; he’s that great.

The other three main actors are quite good, as well. After delivering one of the most embarrassingly awful performances in recent memory in the horror film Legion, Lucas Black re-focuses and proves himself a young star to watch. Buddy could’ve easily been played trivially as a stupid hick—he’s always at the mercy of his boss, who’s the olden-day equivalent of a used car salesman—but instead he’s a source of heart in the film. Buddy doesn’t understand Felix, but he tries, making him both endearing as a character and a way for the audience to access the cryptic Felix. He’s also a foil to Bill Murray, who’s an unlikely but wholly appropriate choice to play a desperate businessman. Murray thankfully never descends into complete sleaze-ball territory, gearing his approach more toward gentle humor. And Sissy Spacek is a joy as always. Her scenes with Duvall are soft and graceful, even when their tone turns tragic for a short period.

It’s tempting to compare Get Low to an “easy listening” album in that it moves at its own pace, pleasantly but not always with apparent consequences. However, that would be a mistake, because this is not a disposable film. As the viewer gets to know Felix and think about the story once it’s over, they’ll realize Get Low packs quite a bit of emotional heft. I’d suspect the film is even better on subsequent viewings, with Duvall’s performance becoming more affecting when you know what kind of weight rests on Felix’s shoulders throughout. Even if it might seem underwhelming at first, this is the kind of movie that should be made more often, because what good is cinema if it only lasts for two hours?

* * *

Get Low (2010, USA). Produced by Daniel Baur, Rob Carliner, Beth W. Crookham, Blerim Destani, Robert Duvall, Scott Fischer, Dariusz Gasiorowski, David Ginsberg, David Gunlach, Don Mandrik, Alain Midzik, C. Gaby Mitchell, Brad Park, Brandie Park, Justyna Pawlak, Lily Philips, Chris Provenzano, Joey Rappa, Richard Luke Rothschild, Oliver Simon, Konrad Wojterkowski, Dean Zanuck, and Harrison Zanuck. Directed by Aaron Schneider. Written for the screen by Chris Provenzano and C. Gaby Mitchell. Story by Chris Provenzano and Scott Seeke. Starring Robert Duvall, Bill Murray, Lucas Black, Sissy Spacek, Gerald McRaney, and Bill Cobbs. Distributed by Sony Pictures Classics. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 100 minutes.

Review: Going the Distance (2010) - 2 1/2 Buckets

Going the Distance is undone because its conventions overpower its original material, of which there is actually quite a bit. But why is this? After all, my two favorite movies of last year, Adventureland and (500) Days of Summer, were essentially cliché romantic comedies bolstered to greatness by original writing, style, and structure. Like those films, Going the Distance is hardly your average genre effort, despite its inclusion of a traditional meet-cute, a predictable final act, and more. On the surface, greatness doesn’t seem so far from reach.

However, when watching Going the Distance, it’s immediately clear where this film comes up short and the aforementioned ones didn’t: the characters. No matter how much the viewer may marvel over the fresh story decisions to not have either of the main couple cheat on each other or to include organically R-rated dialogue, the sense of originality missing from the central duo makes the whole exercise seem manufactured.

That’s not to say that Erin (Drew Barrymore) and Garrett (Justin Long) aren’t charming (they are) or that their chemistry doesn’t feel genuine (it better, as Barrymore and Long are in a real-life relationship). And so, as the viewer watches them get to know each other over Erin’s six-week newspaper internship in Manhattan and then struggle to make it work when she returns to San Francisco, they may enjoy the experience, but they’re not invested in it.

It’d be easy to blame the actors, especially Barrymore, for the simple fact that she’s played this role a dozen times and therefore could easily be construed as a caricature of herself. But they’re not the problem; they provoke more than enough audience-fawning and make the implications of the relationship feel real. Instead, the problem is Geoff LaTulippe’s writing, which seems so caught up in capturing an authentic long-distance relationship that it forgets about the people involved. Despite the actors’ endearing representations, these two couldn’t get any more cookie-cutter – he’s a semi-successful record-label employee who’s dying to jump off the corporate ladder and she’s a 31-year-old who’s still in graduate school because of the time she wasted chasing after a guy. As a result, the execution itself never overcomes this generic core mold, resulting in an audience that just doesn’t care.

Because the viewer remains relatively unmoved throughout, they’re also more likely to scrutinize other conventional material in the film. One of the key tricks in making a rom-com is to sweep the viewer up in the story so much that they don’t notice the underlying clichés; Going the Distance never gets away with this. The best example of something that would’ve been a home run in a more skilled film but is only a pleasant diversion here are Garrett’s two best friends, Dan (Charlie Day of “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”) and Box (Jason Sudeikis of “SNL”). Dan, in particular, has some really inventive, funny bits, but the movie’s overriding sense of coldness reminds us that he’s just the requisite quirky friend there to offer zaniness and he is therefore less engaging.

The movie was directed by Nanette Burstein, whose previous works are the documentaries The Kid Stays in the Picture and American Teen. Both of those films, particularly the latter, enjoyed wide exposure by genre standards, perhaps gaining additional traction because of their creative embellishments. The latter, particularly, played more like orchestrated drama than real life. Interesting that Burstein would choose a script that feels very similar for her fiction debut. Sure, writer LaTulippe deserves credit for infusing Going the Distance with quite a bit of original stuff, including a handful of raunchy, laugh-out-loud moments. (And can I reiterate that these characters somehow find a way not to cheat on each other!?) LaTulippe’s work would likely get an A in any amateur screenwriting workshop. But that’s precisely the problem with Going the Distance: like a relationship that looks perfect on paper but then doesn’t work out, the movie has all the required elements but is missing the passion and soul.

* * *

Going the Distance (2010, USA). Produced by Jennifer Gibgot, Garett Grant, and Adam Shankman. Directed by Nanette Burstein. Written for the screen by Geoff LaTulippe. Starring Drew Barrymore, Justin Long, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Christina Applegate, Ron Livingston, and Jim Gaffigan. Distributed by Warner Bros. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 109 minutes.

Review: Machete (2010)

Let’s suppose a gourmet Mexican meal were wrapped up in Taco Bell take-out containers and fed to a dozen random folks. It’s reasonable to assume at least eight would instantly realize they were not eating terrible fast food, but something better, purposefully concealed. The other four, on the other hand, might just accept what’s before them and say, “Damn, Taco Bell has gotten really good at making enchiladas.”

OK, perhaps an extended Mexican food analogy is too obtuse, but Machete is that gourmet enchilada in a Taco Bell container. In constructing an homage to exploitation films of the 1970s, it replicates its subjects’ outrageously severe presentation of serious issues, illegal immigration in this instance. Machete could be no more didactically inflammatory; in it, white politicians are satanic figures and the Mexican aliens they’re fighting against are free, beautiful revolutionaries.

For those familiar with the blaxploitation and grindhouse films that writers Robert and Álvaro Rodriguez are referencing, the movie is superfluous bliss, start to finish. This is easily the best constructed and most consistently entertaining film Robert, who also fills his usual roles of directing and editing, has ever made. I personally loved it. But I also believe that films must be socially responsible and consider their potentially dangerous cultural implications, even when it isn’t their fault some viewers don’t “get” it.

What I mean is, it’s clear that some viewers, particularly in the young Latino community, will take Machete not as a send-up to a genre, but as a celebration of violent activism. With the heated battle over immigration currently taking place, with both sides ready to trivialize each other, Machete is the poster-child for a film that will be misinterpreted and used as propaganda. Its idealness for this purpose not only came across to me as I watched it, but it was evidenced around me, with many fellow audience members cheering the violent protagonist on in his anti-white rampage. Some may disagree that the movie bears any responsibility for its unintended effects, but I’m skeptical. Yeah, I had a lot of fun watching it, but does its accessibility come at a cost?

That’s not to say that all art should be self-censoring because it may lead wackos to do crazy things. Some of the best films made have featured intentionally offensive, provocative material; this is often an artistic necessity. But the problem in Machete’s case is that the reward for the risk is so minor. While the movie is a supremely well-done mock-up of the B-movie genre, it doesn’t have anything powerful to say to compensate for those it may mislead. Certainly, there is a chance that those who don’t “get” the joke won’t, in fact, illogically leap to the conclusion that it is indeed a rallying cry for a “brown” revolution in America, in which case the enjoyment of those in on the joke will come at no expense. But with such a volatile issue, I think there’s reason to fear. Not to mention, the diehard anti-immigration movement’s potential reaction to the film is just as worrisome as their opposition’s; they may be even more likely to view Machete as a call to arms and then dumbly deem it representative of the views of all Mexican-Americans.

But because Machete is out there and I certainly would not advocate any kind of authoritative censorship, I will let you make your own decisions about its social implications. What I can talk about objectively is the movie’s supreme skill and entertainment value.

Danny Trejo, in perhaps his most commanding performance ever, reprises his role from a fake trailer in Rodriguez’ Grindhouse and runs wild with it. He’s the title Machete, an ex-Federale who escapes to the United States and pretends to be a day laborer after his plot to bust a dangerous Mexican drug-lord (Steven Seagal!) goes awry. In America, he just so happens to be hired by a mysterious businessman (Jeff Fahey) to assassinate an anti-immigrant senator (Robert De Niro) for $150,000. Machete expresses no reservations in accepting the job, giving the payout to the leader of “The Network” (Michelle Rodriguez), a secret organization that helps Mexicans cross the border. But just when he’s about to pull the trigger, Machete is shot himself and a hidden gunman puts a bullet in the senator’s leg. Machete was clearly a pawn. The man who put him up to the job was actually in the senator’s camp and he wanted Machete to become the violent face of illegal immigration, allowing the Senator to surge in the polls. But our hero is too sly to let that happen, escaping despite his wound and then seeking vengeance against the campaign, which is representative of a white America that just wants to keep the brown man down. Jessica Alba, Lindsay Lohan, and Cheech Marin all pop up along the way to lend spice.

Trejo is downright magnetic, giving the character the same campy force as Richard Roundtree did for Shaft. This is hardly even a winking performance; in fact, it’s dead serious, relying on the movie as a whole to do the winking. I can’t think of anyone but Trejo pulling it off, with his scary, tough-guy image and workmanlike presence. And even better is the fact that he’s matched by the rest of the cast, which fit the established prototypes of their roles perfectly. Alba is just as hot as she is the person you’d least expect to play an ICE agent, and that’s pretty much what the part called for. Lohan, in a near-tragic turn, pretty much plays her pre-recovery self: the drug-addled, webcam-broadcasting daughter of a corrupt drug trafficker. It’s hard to believe De Niro is in the movie at all, which is by itself enough to make him consistently interesting. Michelle Rodriguez mostly just stands around and looks pretty, with the big payoff being a seemingly endless shot of her midriff in the third act. And Cheech Marin fulfills the role of the comedian who’s so washed up he must resort to awkwardly delivering a serious performance… how’s that for Meta?

But even more than Machete is an actor’s movie, it’s Rodriguez’ movie. Often referred to as Hollywood’s handyman, essentially making home movies with big stars that play in a lot of theaters, Rodriguez embraces his reputation and makes a self-aware extravaganza. Sure, Rodriguez had a studio to please, but his independent approach is about as close to that of the subject exploitation films as any mainstream film will ever come. And boy does he take advantage of this, making Machete as much of a Mexploitation flick as possible. Just when you think the movie can’t up the ante any more as it moves into the third act—after a dozen crazy jump-cut sequences and huge explosions and more—then come the low-riders and a balls-to-the-walls finale that embarrass everything that’s come before. Those viewers on Rodriguez’ wavelength will marvel, “What was he thinking!?” in the best possible way, over and over. I’ve called the guy an amateur many times in the past, but somehow in making the most amateur-seeming of all his movies, Rodriguez has crafted his most accomplished, stimulating piece of art to date.

Hopefully the dramatic turn from skepticism to praise seen in this review will highlight the dilemma that Machete presents me. Usually, I don’t like most critics’ tendency to see themselves as smarter and more culturally aware than the average viewer, but in this case, I feel that I am. If I were the only one watching Machete, I’d have no problem writing my glowing response without any caveats. But I’m honestly concerned about the emotions the movie may rile up, in private even more so than in public. Then again, only when movies do said riling are we reminded that the art form is alive and well, so at least I can take comfort in that.

Rating taking cultural responsibility into account:

Rating throwing caution to the wind:

* * *

Machete (2010, USA). Produced by Elizabeth Avellan, Alan Bernon, Alistair Burlingham, Dominic Cancilla, Jerry Fruchtman, Peter Fruchtman, Jack Gilardi Jr., Anthony Gudas, Aaron Kaufman, Myles Nestel, Iliana Nikolic, Darby Parker, Tom Proper, Steve Robbins, Robert Rodriguez, Rick Schwartz, and Quentin Tarantino. Directed by Robert Rodriguez and Ethan Maniquis. Written for the screen by Robert Rodriguez and Álvaro Rodríguez. Starring Danny Trejo, Robert De Niro, Jessica Alba, Steven Seagal, Michelle Rodriguez, Jeff Fahey, Cheech Marin, and Lindsay Lohan. Distributed by 20th Century Fox. Rated R, with a running time of 105 minutes.

Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 9/3

Hey, how about that--I was relatively accurate last weekend! Aside from completely underestimating Takers, which almost everybody did, and wrongly assuming Nanny McPhee Returns would hold well, I was in the general ballpark on most everything. So let's hope for even more precision going into this weekend, which brings us three new movies, all with pretty big stars. The big trick is: this time, due to the Labor Day holiday, we're not just dealing with the standard Friday-Saturday-Sunday predictions, but throwing Monday into the mix as well.

The reviews on George Clooney's R-rated The American suggest it's a very quiet, contemplative movie for adults. Before we get to direct comparisons, however, there are some solid statistics we already have available to us. The American actually opened on Wednesday (to $1.7m), and diligent Hollywood Stock Exchange user and box office aficionado Yun Xia has dug back into the history-books and found several other adult-themed movies that did the same going into Labor Day weekend (thanks man!). The clearest comparisons are The Constant Gardener, which multiplied its Wednesday gross by 11.79 over the four-day weekend; Traitor, which multiplied by 12.63; and Vanity Fair, which multiplied by 10.45. Of those, Vanity Fair seems the best comparison because it featured a big star like Clooney (though Reese Witherspoon isn't as big) and had similarly so-so reviews meaning not-so-stellar long weekend word-of-mouth. So, accounting for a little more front-loading due to Clooney's name and the lukewarm reviews and giving The American a multiplier of 9.5, that'd put its four-day weekend at $16.2m.

But before I cement that prediction, let's take a look at a couple more comparisons. Clooney's Michael Clayton opened wide to $11.2m including its non-Holiday Monday, in just 300 fewer theaters. But that film had a lot of momentum on its side, with a lot of awards talk, which The American doesn't have. I would be inclined to put The American in the same ballpark or lower, due to this factor, but there's one more thing to account for: Michael Clayton opened opposite two similarly adult-targeted films, We Own the Night and Elizabeth: The Golden Age. The American, on the other hand, will be the first choice for most 35-plus adults, with only the weeks-old Eat Pray Love leftover to scrounge for sloppy seconds. Had Michael Clayton siphoned off half of the audiences of its two competitors, it would have had a four-day of $20.4m.

Another solid comparison is Michael Clayton director Tony Gilroy's second feature, Duplicity, starring similarly big stars Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. Including its non-holiday first Monday, that film opened to just under $15m -- pretty close to the aforementioned American prediction. In fact, accounting for the Labor Day boost, I now see no problem sticking with it. $16.2 million for Clooney, I say!

The American's big competitor for #1 is the also R-rated Machete, which is a bit of a wildcard. The movie is directly targeted at two distinct audiences--the 18-35 year-old Mexican-Americans and those who love campy movies--and both have varied track-records. The last film to play in this many theaters with such a clear Mexican-American theme was also made by director Robert Rodgriguez: 2003's Once Upon a Time in Mexico, which debuted to a strong $23.4m, or $25.2m including its opening Monday ($29.3m accounting for inflation). But that film played well outside of Hispanics, too, and it was the final part of a trilogy that had gained many fans on DVD. Machete is more specialized in interest.

Also, one wonders how the Arizona immigration situation might affect this film's box office; those who supported the law and saw the film's trailer that took a jab at it might feel alienated and see something else. Underexposed potential viewers might incorrectly assume the film has a lot of political material in it, between the trailer's Arizona reference and the presence of an anti-illegal immigration politician played by Robert DeNiro. Then again, even if the film's audience was 100% Latino, that wouldn't preclude it from doing bang-up bucks. In fact, one could make the case that just as it might deter those who supported Arizona's law, Machete might stir up a sort of nationalist rally among those who denounced it.

But the race factor is only half the battle with Machete. The film originated as a fake trailer in Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse, paying homage to low-budget, violent action films of years ago. Grindhouse didn't do very well, grossing only $11.6m in its opening run, $12.9m including its first Monday ($13.3 accounting for inflation). The full-length version of that picture including the Machete fake trailer hasn't yet been released on DVD, meaning it gained very few fans since its theatrical run in 2007. Then again, for this new movie's sake, perhaps it's better that viewers aren't reminded of its association with a box-office bomb that appealed mostly to hardcore movie buffs. Without a clear direction, I'm going to formulate my Machete prediction simply by averaging Once Upon a Time in Mexico and Grindhouse's inflation-adjusted numbers, with one minor tweak. Once Upon a Time in Mexico debuted in 23% more theaters, so to account for those who saw it just because it was playing at their local house, I'll adjust its number down a bit to $26m. The equation comes out to an opening four-day weekend of $19.7 million for Machete. I'm sure everyone at Fox would be very happy with that number, as it would certainly mean a win on the weekend.

The third film of the weekend is sure to finish as a footnote. It's the Drew Barrymore/Justin Long romantic-comedy Going the Distance, directed by former indie documentarian Nanette Burstein. One of the major complaints with the R-rated film's ad campaign is that it doesn't highlight that the film is actually somewhat raunchy, instead depicting something more innocent. By turn, the argument goes, Going the Distance will appeal mostly to the PG-13 crowd who cannot see it. I tend to agree, but I keep thinking of a PG-13 comparison: the Ashton Kutcher/Amanda Peet bomb, A Lot Like Love. In fact, my feeling on this is too strong to even look further -- I'm putting all my marbles in one comparison. Accounting for inflation and giving A Lot Like Love's first non-holiday Monday a 33% increase to account for greater Labor Day attendance, the figure works out to an even $9 million. It's a haphazard prediction, but I'm sticking with it.

My prediction of what the full FOUR DAY top 10 will look like:

1. Machete ... $19.7m ($7,378 PTA)

2. The American ... $16.2m ($5,739 PTA)

3. Takers ... $11.4m ($5,168 PTA) -44.4% on last (3-day) weekend

4. Going the Distance ... $9.0m ($2,970 PTA)

5. The Last Exorcism ... $8.3m ($2,888 PTA) -59.2%

6. The Expendables ... $8.3m ($2,443 PTA) -12.9%

7. Eat Pray Love ... $5.6m ($2,103 PTA) -17.8%

8. The Other Guys ... $5.3m ($2,033 PTA) -15.7%

9. Inception ... $4.6m ($2,700 PTA) -5.7%

10. Nanny McPhee Returns ... $4.2m ($1,551 PTA) -10.9%

Three R-rated movies on the same weekend -- you don't see that very often. Can they pull it out?

Have thoughts on this new feature? Like it, don't like it, want something added? Shoot me an e-mail at webmaster@bucketreviews.com.

Review: The Last Exorcism (2010) - 3 Buckets

Had you asked me before I saw The Last Exorcism, I don’t think I could have come up with one favorable example of deceptive film marketing. Usually, when a movie is sold as something it’s not, there’s reason to be pissed off; most viewers rightly expect to have a reasonably good idea of what their $10 are going towards. But there’s an exception to every rule and I’m happy The Last Exorcism is it. Sold by distributor Lionsgate as a Paranormal Activity-esque fright-fest, this actually may be the smartest motion picture American teenyboppers ever voluntarily see. It isn’t high art, but The Last Exorcism is surprisingly less a horror film than it is a thriller that uses its faux-documentary style to forge substantive social commentary about such topics as the blind following of organized religion and the camera’s ability to attract narcissism. The half-hour or so of material that’s intended to be scary in the conventional sense is the side dish, not the main course.

In fact, I’d expect early walkouts from those audience members who go in expecting blood and terror. The movie takes a lot of time—the full first act and more—setting up its lofty premise, free of any immediate scares. Filmed documentary-style from the start, the film introduces protagonist Reverend Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian) of Baton Rouge, La. At church, he appears to be your ordinary charistmatic, bible-thumping Evangelical preacher. But, in truth, he’s anything gbut. After going through the traumatic premature birth of his son, Cotton grew to find his faith less and less important in his life. The only reason he continues in his profession is because it’s the way he best knows to pay the bills.

The reason for the documentary is Cotton seeks to expose the con of the exorcism within his religion. (I guess he figures he’ll make enough money off of it to pay those bills when it leads to his excommunication?) In an interview segment, he humorously assures viewers that even though the ancient ritual is typically associated with Catholics because “they have The Exorcist,” it’s a actually common practice within many religions. In fact, Cotton was a child prodigy exorcist, with news-clippings showing him performing the ceremonies at as early as 10 years old. But he has come to view them as a hoax, never having seen a ghost or anything remotely supernatural during the many he’s conducted. After hearing news of deaths occurring during exorcisms, he saw the need to create positive change by rigging fake ones and then demonstrating the placebo effect they hold on participants. Of course, his good intentions are matched by his own cocky desire for the camera; he hams it up and has a huge ego throughout the documentary.

Cotton’s subject this time is, to his surprise, 16-year-old Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell). “I don’t like to work with kids,” he says, after realizing he won’t actually be exorcizing Nell’s religious-fanatic father Louis (Louis Herthum), who wrote the letter requesting the act be performed. Nell has allegedly been engaging in strange behavior she has no recollection of, such as killing livestock on the family farm. Cotton tells the Sweetzers—Nell, her dad, and her angry, skeptical brother Caleb (Caleb Landry Jones)—that the demon Abalam is possessing the girl, randomly picking one out of his weathered picture-book. Using a bunch of magic tricks that make disturbing noises, shake photos in the room, and cause his cross to smoke up, Cotton performs the phony exorcism and calls it a day. But then comes the real horror: Nell is still displaying demonic tendencies later that night. Is she just psychologically screwed up, or does Abalam really have a hold over her?

Just as interesting as The Last Exorcism’s style and grander plot is the character Cotton himself, credibly played by television actor Patrick Fabian. Whereas a less complex film would’ve depicted Cotton as your standard well-meaning citizen journalist, director Daniel Stamm and writers Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland don’t fall into this trap. They realize Cotton would have to be a hot-head who loves the camera to be staging this kind of elaborate set-up. Even when Nell starts to show signs of true problems beyond imagined demonic possession, Cotton never second-guesses his decisions regarding her welfare. That requires a certain degree of arrogance, which would be fitting of someone who was a local celebrity at a young age. And yet Cotton never becomes unsympathetic because he admittedly seems to be onto something, meaning the viewer never becomes irritated by or bored of the man who leads them on the journey. Actor Fabian is just as responsible as the script for this success, too, as he nails the dichotomy, turning Cotton from charismatic to flawed and back on a dime.

On a narrative level, the movie is distinguished by its superior building of suspense. What’s really going on with Nell? If she is possessed, then are Cotton and the two documentarians accompanying him in danger, as the bloody drawings that Nell creates while “under the influence” suggest? Nell’s brother Caleb and the local pastor (Tony Bentley) appear to be hiding something; if really they are, what is it? Nothing is resolved with certainty until the film’s final scene, which is sure to be vigorously debated. However, even if one doesn’t like the ultimate outcome artistically, one would be hard-pressed to claim they predicted it.

As the cherry on top of it all, there’s what The Last Exorcism says about organized religion and religious figureheads in America. Louis, who’s been estranged from the local church since the passing of his wife, seems to blindly trust the allegedly expert Cotton to save his daughter from the demon within her… that is, until after Cotton’s exorcism “fails,” and he claims it isn’t a demon at all, but a psychiatric issue. Louis then returns to the scripture, which turns him towards violence. Yes, this is all fun and games and not meant to be taken seriously, but Cotton’s use of religion for selfish purposes and Louis’ literalist backlash bear striking resemblance to certain public figures today. It amounts to a very clever movie that gets the viewer thinking about how Christianity is abused in all kinds of ways, especially when media (in this case a documentary) is involved.

But even after all this praise, I probably still haven’t convinced you that the scare-quotient is irrelevant, have I? Truth be told, if you’re looking for the movie that will raise your heart-rate the highest, you should look elsewhere. There are admittedly some eerie sequences in The Last Exorcism that are shrouded in anxiety-producing mystery, but the number of outright terrifying moments is low. In fact, those who would be likely to jump out of their seats at the “scary stuff” in the final act are probably the same people who would walk out at the beginning of the movie because they find the other elements boring. For those moviegoers who like to be thrilled and think a little bit while they’re at it, however, The Last Exorcism represents multiplex fare at its best.

* * *

The Last Exorcism (2010, USA). Produced by Marc Abraham, Thomas A. Bliss, Patrick Curd, Ron Halpern, Patty Long, Eric Newman, and Eli Roth. Directed by Daniel Stamm. Written for the screen by Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland. Starring Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell, Iris Bahr, Louis Herthum, Caleb Landry Jones, and Tony Bentley. Distributed by Lionsgate. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 90 minutes.