tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71234065043297287532024-02-06T20:37:09.287-08:00The Bucket 'BlogThe Bucket 'Blog is an extension of film critic Danny Baldwin's popular site, Bucket Reviews (found on the web at www.bucketreviews.com). The Bucket 'Blog allows Baldwin to discuss the film industry in a manner separate from his criticism and to discuss an array of other topics, including politics and television.DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-45795435738596271102010-09-30T16:58:00.001-07:002010-09-30T19:05:37.125-07:00Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 10/1<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPnvEQ8aq8WPDJJYVNFeyhVejRwOJBqG2dDUiEjeUJGSd4aOvXkgqsfagn3ycr8IN5wMY_qniaudDdFrufvW56ZEWppd-460DZ-17646DhjGuafWf9hLKRH2xXuPvzmFTviUTPn93v2jNj/s1600/101.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 174px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPnvEQ8aq8WPDJJYVNFeyhVejRwOJBqG2dDUiEjeUJGSd4aOvXkgqsfagn3ycr8IN5wMY_qniaudDdFrufvW56ZEWppd-460DZ-17646DhjGuafWf9hLKRH2xXuPvzmFTviUTPn93v2jNj/s400/101.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5522892608976269954" /></a><div>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 <i>that's</i> 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 <i>bad</i> movies. <i>Wall Street 2</i> was the best of the bunch, but even that was mediocre at best.<i> You Again</i> and <i>Legend of the Guardians</i> were painful to sit through, as if they had been left over from August.</div><div><div><div>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, <i>The Social Network</i>, and Matt Reeves' update of the Swedish vampire movie <i>Let the Right One in</i>, Amerisimplified to just <i>Let Me In. </i>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 <i>Case 39</i>, 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 <i>Chain Letter</i> that's surprisingly opening on over 400 screens.</div><div><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPybaEpaArofN_m7gjXSIEq_4rxc4wi0L0fjL6eWB9KCYw84sFX5p-O-QsHI9lxMZhgkmEUEFVHSg58gbHJn2OjY7EDsIsr06IhJuWvnWN_oNqwulFEv3Phi-rYzHhBt0YmgluRGKWPxgn/s400/socialnetwork_poster.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5522885623743556450" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 150px; height: 222px; " /><div>I think <b><i>The Social Network</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"> 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. </span></b><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">In fact, I think there's a great comparison that performed much better than that, and it may surprise some: <i>Superbad</i>.</span></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">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, <i>Superbad </i>demanded </span></b><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; ">more</span></b><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"> 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 <i>The Social Network</i> 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 <i>Superbad</i> due to its R-rating. Facebook user = potential viewer, as far as I'm concerned. We could definitely see <i>The Social Network</i> perform as well as the aforementioned Judd Apatow-produced comedy hit, repeating its opening of </span>$33.1 million</b>.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEjNStMht_Nc8bVk_pnOVwhXviyCxR9_SAgRQHly9p0R5CJU3iuF9FFHr9zB_vvrUiLBkzXIH8QD2z-e8nXbI71gnrwrKnC2cj75yTqhj0YXrsH80Fy871rbRYKkQgSE2NxdoX5nJMv7xJ/s1600/lettherightonein09_poster.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEjNStMht_Nc8bVk_pnOVwhXviyCxR9_SAgRQHly9p0R5CJU3iuF9FFHr9zB_vvrUiLBkzXIH8QD2z-e8nXbI71gnrwrKnC2cj75yTqhj0YXrsH80Fy871rbRYKkQgSE2NxdoX5nJMv7xJ/s400/lettherightonein09_poster.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5522885855890030930" style="float: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 150px; height: 222px; " /></a><div><b><i>Let Me In</i> </b>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 <i>The Crazies</i> 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 <i>Let Me In</i> is the fact that it has damn good reviews, which should mean equally good word-of-mouth.</div><div>Frankly, it's tough to find good comparisons for <i>Let Me In</i> because it's pretty unique. My best bet is last year's <i>Orphan</i>, 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 <i>Let Me In</i>'s rumored artistic excellence boosting it to around <b>$11.4 million</b>.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrfuVjEVLDtE6SlpFvx05cp6sn2s-EUKiwfY92JEXQw8t_I3WS0FoqcRGr1ipvhQj5YE1DY2ejwwAPGGmyOYjCgvWUB-fE6ZeYWAB0zgY11qYQkneqVU4whBfxEazioxwUIFyDpioqjXy4/s1600/case39_poster.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrfuVjEVLDtE6SlpFvx05cp6sn2s-EUKiwfY92JEXQw8t_I3WS0FoqcRGr1ipvhQj5YE1DY2ejwwAPGGmyOYjCgvWUB-fE6ZeYWAB0zgY11qYQkneqVU4whBfxEazioxwUIFyDpioqjXy4/s400/case39_poster.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5522886004914508226" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 150px; height: 222px; " /></a><div>Then there's <i>Case 39</i>, 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 <i>Let Me In</i>, 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 <i>Case 39</i>? 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 <b>$4.6 million</b>.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV3i_uddbxlUTCqxfBtxhrpg_9BPAv8kSi2vttNgkLFgqfKm2-ygYQfniNdp8cJyndVS4udKFSWPy4kFDzUulKFW_ee12I3rcl9M62R5cdIpp2NCY1dQeSUUVM-i6aRtzaiNI0N1j0b4Nv/s1600/chainletter_poster.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV3i_uddbxlUTCqxfBtxhrpg_9BPAv8kSi2vttNgkLFgqfKm2-ygYQfniNdp8cJyndVS4udKFSWPy4kFDzUulKFW_ee12I3rcl9M62R5cdIpp2NCY1dQeSUUVM-i6aRtzaiNI0N1j0b4Nv/s400/chainletter_poster.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5522886120594748514" style="float: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 150px; height: 222px; " /></a><div>Then there's <b><i>Chain Letter</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">, 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 (<i>Twilight, Thirteen</i>) 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 <i>Twilight</i> fans show up to save the movie from a PTA worse than <i>The Black Waters of Echo's Pond</i>'s measly $555 earlier this year? Given most of them are probably underage and <i>Chain Letter</i> faces so much R-rated horror competition, I doubt it. I reckon it'll only manage about </span>$215,000</b> for the whole weekend.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:</b></div><div>1. <i>The Social Network</i> ... $33.1m ($11,945 PTA)</div><div>2. <i>Let Me In</i> ... $11.4m ($5,644 PTA)</div><div>3. <i>The Town</i> ... $10.1m ($3,441 PTA) -35.3%</div><div>4. <i>Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps</i> ... $10.1m ($2,808 PTA) -46.9%</div><div>5. <i>Legend of the Guardians</i> ... $10.0m ($2,797 PTA) -37.9%</div><div>6. <i>Easy A</i> ... $6.4m ($2,152 PTA) -39.6%</div><div>7. <i>You Again</i> ... $4.7m ($1,845 PTA) -44.1%</div><div>8. Case 39 ... $4.6m ($2,081 PTA)</div><div>9. <i>Devil</i> ... $3.0m ($1,250 PTA) -54.6%</div><div>10. <i>Alpha and Omega</i> ... $2.6m ($1,129 PTA) -45.1%</div><div><br /></div><div>(Note that <i>Legend of the Guardians</i> and <i>You Again</i> should come out a bit higher than their "real" grosses, as sneak preview revenue for <i>Life As We Know it</i> and <i>Secretariat</i>, respectively, will likely be applied to their tallies. Hollywood works in mysterious ways.)</div></div></div></div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-87522076587063659152010-09-24T10:19:00.000-07:002010-09-24T11:00:42.760-07:00Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 9/24<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh16OfGRFtBd4Ltk8kiAlUMNMXZeNo55rQrdVGLY8EfQUAEeYy5PQ2TGveXeVVYuQIYVpe-neTkIJgLHgp8dJ_kpz9doWBssVoCd8jYfhwV77fM7_jrLkf1dfQAYNLo2JBp0v9ZC8hyphenhyphenhwYf/s1600/924.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 180px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh16OfGRFtBd4Ltk8kiAlUMNMXZeNo55rQrdVGLY8EfQUAEeYy5PQ2TGveXeVVYuQIYVpe-neTkIJgLHgp8dJ_kpz9doWBssVoCd8jYfhwV77fM7_jrLkf1dfQAYNLo2JBp0v9ZC8hyphenhyphenhwYf/s400/924.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5520541166664876578" /></a><div>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...</div><div><br /></div><div><b>My prediction of what the top 10 will look like:</b></div><div>1. <i>Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps</i> ... $26.8m ($7,518 PTA)</div><div>2. <i>Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole</i> ... $20.5m ($5,734 PTA)</div><div>3. <i>You Again</i> ... $14.0m ($5,495 PTA)</div><div>4. <i>The Town</i> ... $12.4m ($4,298 PTA) -47.9%</div><div>5. <i>Easy A</i> ... $10.3m ($3,606 PTA) -41.9%</div><div>6. <i>Alpha and Omega</i> ... $5.5 ($2,095 PTA) -39.6%</div><div>7. <i>Devil</i> ... $4.8m ($1,708 PTA) -60.9%</div><div>8. <i>Resident Evil: Afterlife</i> ... $4.8m ($1,817 PTA) -52.0%</div><div>9. <i>Takers</i> ... $1.6m ($1,312 PTA) -47.1%</div><div>10. <i>The American</i> ... $1.3m ($989 PTA) -51.4%</div><div><br /></div><div>I think <i>Wall Street 2</i> will be pretty close to that number, with <i>Gran Torino</i>'s $29.5m as its ultimate ceiling. <i>Legend of the Guardians </i>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 <i>You Again</i> 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 <i>When in Rome</i> and Disney's previous adult-skewing family film <i>Dan in Real Life</i>. 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.</div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-27970129616133828912010-09-17T09:17:00.001-07:002010-09-17T11:48:24.108-07:00Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 9/17<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHp5wrPoBPrtVP6kOdVMlPeLYlGlQBeP9oNR9n-HhjdQz4XuJB9eCfKn9cAL260NvWvg0Rx01GgRKP6Tp0K4D1zNCCqwaTuWnrjrqm4Je1lipLfWH2qWeCIz99ED1HQonN5FGX2X3gg2vX/s1600/917.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 180px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHp5wrPoBPrtVP6kOdVMlPeLYlGlQBeP9oNR9n-HhjdQz4XuJB9eCfKn9cAL260NvWvg0Rx01GgRKP6Tp0K4D1zNCCqwaTuWnrjrqm4Je1lipLfWH2qWeCIz99ED1HQonN5FGX2X3gg2vX/s400/917.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5517956157077867026" /></a><div>Now that we're done with all that <i>Resident Evil </i>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 <i>Easy A</i>, a potential breakout for both up-and-comer Emma Stone and for the seemingly invincible Sony. <i>Easy A</i> has great reviews, but its R-rated, adult-targeted competitor, Ben Affleck's <i>The Town</i>, is meanwhile sucking up all the critical buzz. Not screened for critics but also expected to do well is <i>Devil</i>, 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, <i>Alpha and Omega</i>.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuHLlKedsEUrVoMJklrH1kIV64YE_uQ4F8gGkx9vn5dnGZ_U10_Uq4zQ6bLn4LzsFerICrCapz7TV10H5FytxoF5ugQvuRwOCPBu-IqJ7NfGOZ10KNRsuX3aeZQUEoG5bZzHYvK63X1Yes/s1600/thetown_smallposter.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuHLlKedsEUrVoMJklrH1kIV64YE_uQ4F8gGkx9vn5dnGZ_U10_Uq4zQ6bLn4LzsFerICrCapz7TV10H5FytxoF5ugQvuRwOCPBu-IqJ7NfGOZ10KNRsuX3aeZQUEoG5bZzHYvK63X1Yes/s400/thetown_smallposter.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5517952937213047618" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 101px; height: 150px; " /></a><div>While <i>Easy A</i> seems to be the consensus' choice for #1 this weekend, I'm going to venture out on a limb and say <b><i>The Town</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"> 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 <i>Easy A</i> or <i>Devil</i> anyway. And yes, Ben Affleck's first film, <i>Gone Baby Gone</i>, 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.</span></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"></span></b>The best box office comparisons for <i>The Town</i> are <i>The Departed</i>, <i>Mystic River</i>, and <i>Fever Pitch</i> (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 <i>The Town</i> 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 <i>Mystic River</i>, which grossed over $90m total, is further proof that these adult-oriented, East Coast crime-dramas have immense appeal. (That Clint Eastwood film only <i>opened</i> 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 <i>The Town</i>.) Lastly, <i>Fever Pitch</i> ($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 <i>The Departed</i> and <i>Fever Pitch</i>, meaning <i>The Town</i> opens to an exceptional <b>$22.1 million</b>.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS2MaJttgPrv0BRY0ee8BvZwmzbjTF7gfOfBmkMdezLl0qll3YLjIfkY8FtZEqtNTYDeRobZZcQHuc3sru_XHkkpfDw8J9dVpkMUCmcPB19-fwMvbBAjGHkGKQXoQzMVqvfHkIAtJUl7j8/s1600/easya_smallposter.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS2MaJttgPrv0BRY0ee8BvZwmzbjTF7gfOfBmkMdezLl0qll3YLjIfkY8FtZEqtNTYDeRobZZcQHuc3sru_XHkkpfDw8J9dVpkMUCmcPB19-fwMvbBAjGHkGKQXoQzMVqvfHkIAtJUl7j8/s400/easya_smallposter.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5517952323016835554" style="float: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 101px; height: 150px; " /></a><div>Similarly, I think <b><i>Easy A</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">'s number is best predicted by averaging those of two similarpictures. Those saying the movie will break out are comparing it to <i>Mean Girls</i>, 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 <i>Mean Girls</i> came out; Emma Stone is just now becoming one. So that could lose some potential viewers. More pessimistically, one could equate <i>Easy A</i> with <i>She's The Man</i>, 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 <i>Easy A</i> 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 <i>Mean Girls</i> and <i>She's the Man</i>, which would give <i>Easy A</i> a terrific </span>$19.5 million<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"> opening, extending Sony's box office streak.</span></b></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3hZvj92MDCkLWxhTmXcr6iYuMMhf5dCB3HKZ_ckv5YHOQRQW3_KFqwzASMX3noOyxBYqbwiAmpqvZqt2Jsfj3usRqM00P1yTw0XhuzKHEVOGAIr9bpjx4bdRcdOulUfjJcCNNkQVNUMtE/s1600/devil_smallposter.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3hZvj92MDCkLWxhTmXcr6iYuMMhf5dCB3HKZ_ckv5YHOQRQW3_KFqwzASMX3noOyxBYqbwiAmpqvZqt2Jsfj3usRqM00P1yTw0XhuzKHEVOGAIr9bpjx4bdRcdOulUfjJcCNNkQVNUMtE/s400/devil_smallposter.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5517952141253405570" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 101px; height: 150px; " /></a><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">How well <i><b>Devil</b></i> 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 <i>Easy A</i> 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 <i>The Unborn</i> ($19.8m last year) and <i>When a Stranger Calls</i> ($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 <i>Easy A</i> will surely take away some of the teens who would've gone to see this on another weekend. How much that'll hurt <i>Devil</i> is anybody's guess; I'm going to say it opens to </span>$16 million</b>.</div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline; "><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinkmkSpsS4LQ07dbuDXjcIZhGo3tSo9ZZDXucafm3Op4rXVzEtv1FXOe4Pcl0JTwV0sqNNFs10mL543NmcaOc_zFxbJFTp-QZok6T3VTzwPFxbm7bUeR3LqphEh-Rmyn4x14xNICzHexwN/s400/alphaandomega_smallposter2.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5517951825208132034" style="float: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 101px; height: 150px; " /></span><div>Then there's <i><b>Alpha and Omega<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">, which</span></span></b></i> 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, <i>Happily N'Ever After</i>, which opened to $6.6m ($6.8m inflated) with a similar theater count. Another would be Summit Entertainment's third-tier animated film <i>Astro Boy</i>, 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 <i>Alpha and Omega</i> 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 <i>Despicable Me. </i>When one does the ensuing math, it suggests <i>Alpha and Omega</i> will open to about <b>$8.1 million </b>this weekend.</div><div>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.</div><div><br /><div><b>My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:</b></div><div>1. <i>The Town ... </i>$22.1m ($7,725 PTA)</div><div>2. <i>Easy A</i> ... $19.5m ($6,828 PTA)</div><div>3. <i>Devil ... </i>$16.0m ($5,694 PTA)</div><div>4.<i> Resident Evil: Afterlife</i> ... $9.4m ($2,929 PTA) -64.7%</div><div>5. <i>Alpha and Omega ... </i>$8.1m ($3,086 PTA)</div></div><div>6. <i>The American</i> ... $3.5m ($1,425 PTA) -38.3%</div><div>7. <i>Takers</i> ... $3.4m ($1,590 PTA) -40.0%</div><div>8. <i>Going the Distance</i> ... $2.1m ($1,046 PTA) -44.6%</div><div>9. <i>The Other Guys</i> ... $2.0m ($1,095 PTA) -40.3%</div><div>10. <i>Inception</i> ... $1.7m ($1,303 PTA) -39.3%</div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-31181629631351424462010-09-11T17:25:00.000-07:002010-09-26T12:02:44.562-07:00Review: Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010) - 1 1/2 Buckets<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsihNWLbC73WD9AZGi-cV-VyOAjsa_snfnkH-0UGG1JbiuzIXIuFak-yIOBJvX6r1198YWxp9I-ZtWnPdWAIsd4vEvEyMm4T7mnwmdb48u1sM8Mkq3Nk5WFpU4gjboh0G7N-7Zdlj0ZswR/s1600/residentevil4image.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 267px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsihNWLbC73WD9AZGi-cV-VyOAjsa_snfnkH-0UGG1JbiuzIXIuFak-yIOBJvX6r1198YWxp9I-ZtWnPdWAIsd4vEvEyMm4T7mnwmdb48u1sM8Mkq3Nk5WFpU4gjboh0G7N-7Zdlj0ZswR/s400/residentevil4image.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5515821207619929298" /></a><div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsihNWLbC73WD9AZGi-cV-VyOAjsa_snfnkH-0UGG1JbiuzIXIuFak-yIOBJvX6r1198YWxp9I-ZtWnPdWAIsd4vEvEyMm4T7mnwmdb48u1sM8Mkq3Nk5WFpU4gjboh0G7N-7Zdlj0ZswR/s1600/residentevil4image.jpg"></a><div><div><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 123px; height: 50px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl5wUdLkzsXu9xKVPnmHHqYLnJUfn8ZZT8nXMm8biFKr5qDOy8x_5Kc8MAUxlAM-0f_EqKh3mia0zLtq-sv0IO2vAXajrgoPg40R6FukPl92C9yYQONEcM-AnDS35YhbxLl6vpWXo_tWAo/s400/ratings1_half_blog.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5515820416703885490" /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">I feel like I should just copy and paste my review of any one of the other three <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Resident Evil</i> movies because, folks, I know it’s shocking, but <i><b>Afterlife</b></i> 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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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—<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Afterlife</i> 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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Resident Evil: Afterlife</i>’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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Resident Evil: Afterlife</i>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Avatar</i>. 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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Resident Evil: Afterlife</i> 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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Piranha 3D</i>, the intention is to cheapen and cheese up the material. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Resident Evil: Afterlife </i>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.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; ">* * *</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:arial;">Resident Evil: Afterlife </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:arial;">(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.</span></span></p> <!--EndFragment--> </div></div></div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-25305235913028580822010-09-11T12:54:00.000-07:002010-09-26T12:01:13.370-07:00Review: The American (2010) - 3 1/2 Buckets<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkocKcrSrZXpgzU6DxDOZAPrBAmxyLehBD3daa-AglW-V-R8yopGz8C_QTEE_OeiUOBI5oOrk1V7eCTgwh5UMB9sbilGobQbxHu7AfPWFUP49efjzAwrw7sQfAUijnkMQeMo0nSLhyphenhyphenO9SH/s1600/clooneyamerican.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 212px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkocKcrSrZXpgzU6DxDOZAPrBAmxyLehBD3daa-AglW-V-R8yopGz8C_QTEE_OeiUOBI5oOrk1V7eCTgwh5UMB9sbilGobQbxHu7AfPWFUP49efjzAwrw7sQfAUijnkMQeMo0nSLhyphenhyphenO9SH/s400/clooneyamerican.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5515747764411264690" /></a><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 123px; height: 50px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJMLttz7N20s9vuyeFlKUvE_jf-5utb4FvP-7l-YHMIs_BpXIOsOLdNMJBphH9JVqgoUZmqaGc_3abpfKOzDSi694WwIjbUe_8E5iGvPKK7vk6k_zm2XppM3WiCmRKvL_4JY8Z5TSDc7fY/s400/ratings3_half_blog.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5515747085483452498" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">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 </span><i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The American</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">, 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.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">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.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">If quiet, artful movies aren’t your thing, than you best look the other way. But for those who are willing to invest in </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The American</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">, 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.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">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 </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Control</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">, and shot by his DP Martin Ruhe, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The American</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">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 </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Up in the Air</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">—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.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">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.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">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 </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The American</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">* * *</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-size:13px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The American </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">(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.</span></span></p> <!--EndFragment-->DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-30135311997874359652010-09-10T09:24:00.000-07:002010-09-26T12:03:02.842-07:00Review: The Romantics (2010) - 1 1/2 Buckets<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheXAAJxWI5lEqUvq9YiRv33_e3RBoSaVRpr18somOGXKlCyBChqYlk3LAlF0HNyS1TCNU1C-W0YpumAMhtorUXgJ4q3NKNg70sRkSH7bOWYYHzxHcSx-NILSuG_BlDm3N4QZZYnqYu40Tl/s1600/The-romantics.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheXAAJxWI5lEqUvq9YiRv33_e3RBoSaVRpr18somOGXKlCyBChqYlk3LAlF0HNyS1TCNU1C-W0YpumAMhtorUXgJ4q3NKNg70sRkSH7bOWYYHzxHcSx-NILSuG_BlDm3N4QZZYnqYu40Tl/s400/The-romantics.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5515319558513596370" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 247px; " /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline; "><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvHz2CjJzUJQ1Z_cOa_cXM39PM-ufyz8bgo7V0eWrZ2_amMOMwLZi2wYa3KoropFUnp7XI0YkT386iMfYx49hhWuw9Dn9h1TZbS-hiHi0jSX8BEsdZwLpgfahCZ7VExNbS_UUYQJzzRUpa/s400/ratings1_half_blog.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5515319684069028514" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 123px; height: 50px; " /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">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 <i><b>The Romantics</b></i>, which relies on every bullshit indie cliché in the book, to prove me wrong once again.</span></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span></span>The story is something you’d expect from a movie with surface banality like <i>Bride Wars</i>, 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.<span> </span>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.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span></span><i>The Romantics</i> is so derivative of other low-budget American indies that it could pass for a parody of them.<span> </span>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 <i>Garden State</i>. While music is hardly what ruins <i>The Romantics</i>, it’s the first phony thing the viewer will notice about it.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span></span>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.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span></span>Considering <i>The Romantics</i>’ 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. <i>The Romantics</i>remains 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.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; ">* * *</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:arial;font-size:13px;"><i>The Romantics </i>(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.</span></p>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-57839144891358302562010-09-09T16:57:00.000-07:002010-09-11T16:57:53.365-07:00Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 9/10<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKLC6j1RJVLv0O8jZ_V3NTZ9tVrA8cyCUr7AUiXhrhAmgOkyQzqPiqqtkT8gHZF4LrqBdg19_ZdajIFCpgCbYchVdb9wCJ22RTTyKuXweNO8tGA1RXNBhDXGo8VQO28xRTI0vjhm8h5zyS/s1600/imstillhere_smallposter.jpg"></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcA8Lmz8z6cVHb_SXbanWXBmmmvELRiFCgQHjXr3bUMZtb8NAlxUtmPDzRduln-gD2cwr_x4WjbshPwsbpKbJi2wPZ2psP1jaYSY8AKclOdVMguduXtGUgMJqVK1EjiiqTEcZP7tm8ABu3/s1600/910.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 267px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcA8Lmz8z6cVHb_SXbanWXBmmmvELRiFCgQHjXr3bUMZtb8NAlxUtmPDzRduln-gD2cwr_x4WjbshPwsbpKbJi2wPZ2psP1jaYSY8AKclOdVMguduXtGUgMJqVK1EjiiqTEcZP7tm8ABu3/s400/910.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5515085633973263666" /></a><div>You want accurate predictions and, last week, for the most part, I delivered. With the exception of <i>Machete</i>, which I substantially overestimated, my guesses fared very well. I got within half a million of both the other openers, <i>The American</i> and <i>Going the Distance</i>, 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.</div><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 101px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ88_FBxhh-YB5xzQlDxV7724AJIy8z8xIzXj1QDFWK40c5OWlaTSamrBcFK27yfgisqLFzEn1uYoyH4ydo_gptA2_UWavpp3SRe8aeH09-TwE5IbbtbLe7BfmOtoguExCF4QXgWY983S9/s400/residentevilafterlife_smallteaser.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5515086065932593986" /><div>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 <i>Resident Evil</i> franchise, based on the popular video game. However, <b><i>Resident Evil: Afterlife</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"> marks the first time protagonist Alice has dodged bullets in 3D--captured by the same camera that brought us <i>Avatar</i>, no less--so at least one new variable factors into the equation.</span></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><i></i>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, <i>Resident Evil: Afterlife</i> 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 <i>Resident Evil: Afterlife </i>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.</span></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">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 <i>My Bloody Valentine</i>. But they're not really similar, so let's get down to it... The first <i>Resident Evil</i> grossed $17.7 million over its opening weekend in 2002. In 2004, Part 2, <i>Apocalypse</i>, jumped substantially to $23m. Three years after that, <i>Extinction</i>, the immediate predecessor to this new film, opened to $23.7m. This means <i>Extinction</i> was about even with <i>Apocalypse</i> after accounting for inflation, suggesting the amount of interested viewers hit a ceiling.</span></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">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 <i>Resident Evil: Afterlife</i> to a stellar </span><span class="Apple-style-span">$31.1 million</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">.</span></b></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKLC6j1RJVLv0O8jZ_V3NTZ9tVrA8cyCUr7AUiXhrhAmgOkyQzqPiqqtkT8gHZF4LrqBdg19_ZdajIFCpgCbYchVdb9wCJ22RTTyKuXweNO8tGA1RXNBhDXGo8VQO28xRTI0vjhm8h5zyS/s1600/imstillhere_smallposter.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKLC6j1RJVLv0O8jZ_V3NTZ9tVrA8cyCUr7AUiXhrhAmgOkyQzqPiqqtkT8gHZF4LrqBdg19_ZdajIFCpgCbYchVdb9wCJ22RTTyKuXweNO8tGA1RXNBhDXGo8VQO28xRTI0vjhm8h5zyS/s400/imstillhere_smallposter.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5515086192262439794" style="float: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 101px; height: 150px; " /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcA8Lmz8z6cVHb_SXbanWXBmmmvELRiFCgQHjXr3bUMZtb8NAlxUtmPDzRduln-gD2cwr_x4WjbshPwsbpKbJi2wPZ2psP1jaYSY8AKclOdVMguduXtGUgMJqVK1EjiiqTEcZP7tm8ABu3/s1600/910.jpg"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcA8Lmz8z6cVHb_SXbanWXBmmmvELRiFCgQHjXr3bUMZtb8NAlxUtmPDzRduln-gD2cwr_x4WjbshPwsbpKbJi2wPZ2psP1jaYSY8AKclOdVMguduXtGUgMJqVK1EjiiqTEcZP7tm8ABu3/s1600/910.jpg"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcA8Lmz8z6cVHb_SXbanWXBmmmvELRiFCgQHjXr3bUMZtb8NAlxUtmPDzRduln-gD2cwr_x4WjbshPwsbpKbJi2wPZ2psP1jaYSY8AKclOdVMguduXtGUgMJqVK1EjiiqTEcZP7tm8ABu3/s1600/910.jpg"></a><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">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, </span><i>I'm Still Here</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">, 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.</span></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; "><b>My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:</b></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">1. <i>Resident Evil: Afterlife</i> ... $31.1m ($9,710 PTA)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">2. <i>The American</i> ... $6.3m ($2,224 PTA) -52.2%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">3. <i>Takers</i> ... $5.4m ($2,465 PTA) -50.3%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">4. <i>Machete</i> ... $4.1m ($1,531 PTA) -64.0%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">5. <i>Going the Distance</i> ... $3.4m ($1,122 PTA)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">6. <i>The Last Exorcism</i> ... $3.2m ($1,172 PTA) -56.4%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">7. <i>The Expendables</i> ... $3.2m ($1,046 PTA) -51.7%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">8. <i>The Other Guys</i> ... $2.9m ($1,291 PTA) -45.1%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">9. <i>Eat Pray Love</i> ... $2.8m ($1,197 PTA) -41.7%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">10. <i>Inception</i> ... $2.7m ($1,706 PTA) -40.9%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#000000;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Historically, post-Labor Day weekend drops have been brutal, and I don't expect this weekend to be any exception.</span></span></span></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#000000;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:130%;color:#000000;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: normal;font-size:16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><i>Have thoughts on this new feature? Like it, don't like it, want something added? Shoot me an e-mail at <a href="mailto:webmaster@bucketreviews.com" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); ">webmaster@bucketreviews.com</a>.</i></span></span></span></div></span></span></b></div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-52997172260028976362010-09-08T13:05:00.000-07:002010-09-26T12:02:27.379-07:00Review: Get Low (2010) - 3 Buckets<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTdqjBwFaC1W4ApFoBIlm63uvY2i8y50asDRQPf_sY_twT-Wzv6bz8ZCvpQqqcWRryzfgui7Lw4R3RHpYyZHjsv_3FA2J4CPuH52Ff6XCzz3r64Ysyaet4QS2RjwCZOiOIl-HlXpK5_Taa/s1600/get_low_01.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 267px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTdqjBwFaC1W4ApFoBIlm63uvY2i8y50asDRQPf_sY_twT-Wzv6bz8ZCvpQqqcWRryzfgui7Lw4R3RHpYyZHjsv_3FA2J4CPuH52Ff6XCzz3r64Ysyaet4QS2RjwCZOiOIl-HlXpK5_Taa/s400/get_low_01.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5514637355483940386" /></a><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 123px; height: 50px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8FCKnxGcd_x_cbAXMxcM9Oxzi-rgSkH0JlHmNUTk28o5C66XHHGl3XhyphenhypheniHr9Ro56Rr7kYOFpVdUYJzyJRBXDp_Ojz1DU0ZAtEHjjsTYMSzNvvt5gl-EpnI5g_BlP2Kiv05gpktgyMz6S0/s400/ratings3_blog.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5514636854943562818" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; ">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 <i><b>Get Low</b></i>. 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 <i>Get Low</i> 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.</span><div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="Times New Roman"font-family:";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>While independent film connoisseurs may remember a similar premise in Sol Tyron’s little-seen <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">The Living Wake</i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Get Low</i> 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.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="Times New Roman"font-family:";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="Times New Roman"font-family:";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The scene in which Duvall reveals his secret in front of hundreds of onlookers is emblematic of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Get Low </i>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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Get Low</i> is lacking, it’s still worth seeing for Duvall; he’s that great.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="Times New Roman"font-family:";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The other three main actors are quite good, as well. After delivering one of the most embarrassingly awful<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span> performances in recent memory in the horror film <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Legion</i>, 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.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="Times New Roman"font-family:";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s tempting to compare <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Get Low</i> 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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Get Low</i> 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?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span style="Times New Roman"font-family:";">* * *</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="Times New Roman"font-family:";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:arial;font-size:13px;"><i>Get Low </i>(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.</span></span></p> <!--EndFragment--> </div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-44743799900011533912010-09-06T09:12:00.000-07:002010-09-26T12:03:30.811-07:00Review: Going the Distance (2010) - 2 1/2 Buckets<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ1Pp2PMcbfkUGrnlfkrCKisQMaFgiWcpvItDSj7JpGfG4EVq6OkSyPgguGzY5eSeUWwGA2AKabVrEV4H1xfScOXdlsktbnSEdYiUJlcB_KXgQ8DV0FH97OrKTAyVwIbXnjFdbYu8T55cy/s1600/going-the-distance.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 269px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ1Pp2PMcbfkUGrnlfkrCKisQMaFgiWcpvItDSj7JpGfG4EVq6OkSyPgguGzY5eSeUWwGA2AKabVrEV4H1xfScOXdlsktbnSEdYiUJlcB_KXgQ8DV0FH97OrKTAyVwIbXnjFdbYu8T55cy/s400/going-the-distance.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5513835478758616946" /></a><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 123px; height: 50px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiusEqWBzLXIvEdT6zrOE-hh_5Oyh57KbfLFMBxBsjmlIUpwK9f0tfivI3Dr4_l9PToBkJEbvynQSuPLFpevMTaL0S-ua5BQ535EoXXo9NBV3Cs4YD_wfAsZi0MgzdsLvHHXP9KXyXve65E/s400/ratings2_half_blog.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5513835319053650210" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; "><i><b>Going the Distance</b></i> 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, <i>Adventureland</i> and <i>(500) Days of Summer</i>, were essentially cliché romantic comedies bolstered to greatness by original writing, style, and structure. Like those films, <i>Going the Distance </i>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.</span><div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, when watching <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Going the Distance</i>, 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. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Going the Distance</i> 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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The movie was directed by Nanette Burstein, whose previous works are the documentaries <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Kid Stays in the Picture</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">American Teen</i>. 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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Going the Distance</i> 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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Going the Distance</i>: 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.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; ">* * *</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:arial;"><i>Going the Distance </i>(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.</span></span></p><p></p> <!--EndFragment--> </div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-60847553494943062902010-09-04T15:29:00.000-07:002010-09-26T12:01:34.434-07:00Review: Machete (2010)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdGZmnYyZWGZVInF-NTaCuPHhgToan8BpaxfAMZOjULC7QWZ1m2yTFHQphy4Z7uhfZTuvGDu81bFHRW3AXjk1GzYidEhVlGiyF8luusrGahn3KPUZd5MvwyRdt6vLxen1M2YnXxQfiyqrs/s1600/machete-movie-trailer.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 267px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdGZmnYyZWGZVInF-NTaCuPHhgToan8BpaxfAMZOjULC7QWZ1m2yTFHQphy4Z7uhfZTuvGDu81bFHRW3AXjk1GzYidEhVlGiyF8luusrGahn3KPUZd5MvwyRdt6vLxen1M2YnXxQfiyqrs/s400/machete-movie-trailer.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5513189965685467874" /></a><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:arial;">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.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> OK, perhaps an extended Mexican food analogy is too obtuse, but </span><i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Machete</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Machete</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> What I mean is, it’s clear that some viewers, particularly in the young Latino community, will take </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Machete</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Machete</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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 </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Machete</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">’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 </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Machete</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> as a call to arms and then dumbly deem it representative of the views of all Mexican-Americans.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> But because </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Machete</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> Danny Trejo, in perhaps his most commanding performance ever, reprises his role from a fake trailer in Rodriguez’ </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Grindhouse</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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? </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> But even more than </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Machete</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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 </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Machete</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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 </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">thinking</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">!?” 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.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> Hopefully the dramatic turn from skepticism to praise seen in this review will highlight the dilemma that </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Machete</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> 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 </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Machete</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>Rating taking cultural responsibility into account: </b></span></i><b><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmJ09BuSdHhnn5qlOVvTK0vTc66oKL-SC74j6wkvarSfX8OwoUiYvLQfXBh5nAcPB9rqYU7gdqocUY9fIEyLWv5oKI0hmsSzZUC92g2QbzEKHhCuCi8-1CA3vADDjC76qy3KvbXnLKiQ_o/s400/ratings1.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5513190140587604962" style="cursor: pointer; width: 123px; height: 27px; " /></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>Rating throwing caution to the wind: </b></span></i><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0jSx1g0QHe2LVD4zovSfjaN2zQe0J-37K8D-W1StPILPLFQtkyIwirAAYxJ6REXUucEeX4UFDwkkfzUKHT7RJoHZ5fQvMaUvv4pBsMjhs5PIQe8kKU9jDAaijd5VHUVZ9xA0O9857F_0X/s400/ratings3_half.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5513190311228677426" style="cursor: pointer; width: 123px; height: 27px; " /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:arial;font-size:13px;"><i>* * *</i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:arial;font-size:13px;"><i>Machete </i>(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.</span></p> <!--EndFragment-->DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-4631120277486067322010-09-03T07:05:00.000-07:002010-09-03T09:30:16.513-07:00Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 9/3<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1SJBv0Q2uYD28eH39Ef5YAJhhTdn9WkfJrK6QNdw5mWkb-5t18Sux57XduyXN1RU1oqv99zV1lPIHrdrIs1EKMx3TTXg0QbWZnT-yX6vtmQraxSv8do8gb9NPPsj6rGS4-tMGt6I5am9U/s1600/93.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 165px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1SJBv0Q2uYD28eH39Ef5YAJhhTdn9WkfJrK6QNdw5mWkb-5t18Sux57XduyXN1RU1oqv99zV1lPIHrdrIs1EKMx3TTXg0QbWZnT-yX6vtmQraxSv8do8gb9NPPsj6rGS4-tMGt6I5am9U/s400/93.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5512724260211962434" /></a><div>Hey, how about that--I was relatively accurate last weekend! Aside from completely underestimating <i>Takers</i>, which almost everybody did, and wrongly assuming <i>Nanny McPhee Returns </i>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.</div><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 101px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjumIX0iQTN0m3DSTBXa8dbOlRvgliO6tBFfjSmOxpMd0n39xqvIbDPOFJTd_zQ0pXxdntDVrqkqaj70nnjQzTFSyjtAjbX2LadpdCpTXBCGetpzflZ_sPqsSajfH81B5cMJZMTKXBmo6Su/s400/theamerican_smallposter.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5512718428946158434" /><div>The reviews on George Clooney's R-rated <i><b>The American</b></i> 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. <i>The American</i> actually opened on Wednesday (to $1.7m), and <a href="http://www.boxofficefollower.net/">diligent Hollywood Stock Exchange user and box office aficionado Yun Xia</a> 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 <i>The Constant Gardener</i>, which multiplied its Wednesday gross by 11.79 over the four-day weekend; <i>Traitor</i>, which multiplied by 12.63; and <i>Vanity Fair</i>, which multiplied by 10.45. Of those, <i>Vanity Fair</i> seems the best comparison because it featured a big star like Clooney (though Reese Witherspoon isn't <i>as</i> 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 <i>The American</i> a multiplier of 9.5, that'd put its four-day weekend at $16.2m.</div><div>But before I cement that prediction, let's take a look at a couple more comparisons. Clooney's <i>Michael Clayton</i> 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 <i>The American</i> doesn't have. I would be inclined to put <i>The American </i>in the same ballpark or lower, due to this factor, but there's one more thing to account for: <i>Michael Clayton</i> opened opposite two similarly adult-targeted films, <i>We Own the Night</i> and <i>Elizabeth: The Golden Age</i>. <i>The American</i>, on the other hand, will be the first choice for most 35-plus adults, with only the weeks-old <i>Eat Pray Love</i> leftover to scrounge for sloppy seconds. Had <i>Michael Clayton</i> siphoned off half of the audiences of its two competitors, it would have had a four-day of $20.4m.</div><div>Another solid comparison is <i>Michael Clayton</i> director Tony Gilroy's second feature, <i>Duplicity, </i>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 <i>American</i> prediction. In fact, accounting for the Labor Day boost, I now see no problem sticking with it. <b>$16.2 million </b>for Clooney, I say!</div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline; "><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPKJJCgPAvbG68uuq452KDn6yZcBImnuvX8wEW5mrCQOIt-RyciQulMCv6FiaSi4gsZcfzNn5IYgcsi5SYy9pJG3UG3Gr9ieyarAvlyYllnt7nd5iZ_OGGnhl9wdjZqd7wkRK23d5qDAvq/s400/machete_smallteaser.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5512718787511122770" style="float: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 101px; height: 150px; " /></span><div><i>The American</i>'s big competitor for #1 is the also R-rated <i><b>Machete</b></i>, 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 <i>Once Upon a Time in Mexico</i>, 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. <i>Machete</i> is more specialized in interest.</div><div>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, <i>Machete</i> might stir up a sort of nationalist rally among those who denounced it.</div><div>But the race factor is only half the battle with <i>Machete</i>. The film originated as a fake trailer in Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's <i>Grindhouse</i>, paying homage to low-budget, violent action films of years ago. <i>Grindhouse</i> 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 <i>Machete</i> 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 <i>Machete</i> prediction simply by averaging <i>Once Upon a Time in Mexico</i> and <i>Grindhouse</i>'s inflation-adjusted numbers, with one minor tweak. <i>Once Upon a Time in Mexico</i> 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 <b>$19.7 million </b>for <i>Machete</i>. I'm sure everyone at Fox would be very happy with that number, as it would certainly mean a win on the weekend.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-ejLEFwXcMX3gA4hDkE2Ziu-Fq9GReKbhyu0M-kNrTjUhfb09vQZJFylq4xZzmXc8NTkycvv0aAz5B23Wpe1zdL3V7eGPvKXYLH1nS30wv2bduqhR-VP8G5Ryvf2iPJDvmfdzoKtI2-OT/s1600/goingthedistance_smallfinal.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-ejLEFwXcMX3gA4hDkE2Ziu-Fq9GReKbhyu0M-kNrTjUhfb09vQZJFylq4xZzmXc8NTkycvv0aAz5B23Wpe1zdL3V7eGPvKXYLH1nS30wv2bduqhR-VP8G5Ryvf2iPJDvmfdzoKtI2-OT/s400/goingthedistance_smallfinal.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5512719096670974610" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 101px; height: 150px; " /></a><div>The third film of the weekend is sure to finish as a footnote. It's the Drew Barrymore/Justin Long romantic-comedy <i><b>Going the Distance</b></i>, 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, <i>Going the Distance</i> 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, <i>A Lot Like Love</i>. 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 <i>A Lot Like Love</i>'s first non-holiday Monday a 33% increase to account for greater Labor Day attendance, the figure works out to an even <b>$9 million</b>. It's a haphazard prediction, but I'm sticking with it.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>My prediction of what the full FOUR DAY top 10 will look like:</b></div><div>1. <i>Machete</i> ... $19.7m ($7,378 PTA)</div><div>2. <i>The American</i> ... $16.2m ($5,739 PTA)</div><div>3. <i>Takers</i> ... $11.4m ($5,168 PTA) -44.4% on last (3-day) weekend</div><div>4. <i>Going the Distance</i> ... $9.0m ($2,970 PTA)</div><div>5. <i>The Last Exorcism</i> ... $8.3m ($2,888 PTA) -59.2%</div><div>6. <i>The Expendables</i> ... $8.3m ($2,443 PTA) -12.9%</div><div>7. <i>Eat Pray Love</i> ... $5.6m ($2,103 PTA) -17.8%</div><div>8. <i>The Other Guys</i> ... $5.3m ($2,033 PTA) -15.7%</div><div>9. <i>Inception</i> ... $4.6m ($2,700 PTA) -5.7%</div><div>10. <i>Nanny McPhee Returns</i> ... $4.2m ($1,551 PTA) -10.9%</div><div><br /></div><div>Three R-rated movies on the same weekend -- you don't see that very often. Can they pull it out?</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><i>Have thoughts on this new feature? Like it, don't like it, want something added? Shoot me an e-mail at <a href="mailto:webmaster@bucketreviews.com" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); ">webmaster@bucketreviews.com</a>.</i></span></div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-37093470224389257832010-08-28T12:45:00.001-07:002010-09-26T12:01:39.968-07:00Review: The Last Exorcism (2010) - 3 Buckets<div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7xWyZEwI6gs3jMACvSn60msWdprN2HDDw4FW5Dtf9ElJqH4FA95YGNjbQG6nw4Di5bNVObx8CSPiI1zFWWOp1AbTERgLL8sPTmdchS_H1k3sAJJpYSO0X2xsn0hkMaUNaSi5WBxAnjCtT/s1600/lastexorcism.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 248px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7xWyZEwI6gs3jMACvSn60msWdprN2HDDw4FW5Dtf9ElJqH4FA95YGNjbQG6nw4Di5bNVObx8CSPiI1zFWWOp1AbTERgLL8sPTmdchS_H1k3sAJJpYSO0X2xsn0hkMaUNaSi5WBxAnjCtT/s400/lastexorcism.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5510551885652284658" /></a><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 123px; height: 50px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHYztf5Vnb-YB3BVdkn6SqN3epY5a7n38yRxEvhIzq-6Gkxnz6-UvAk5UykFFKc7zcN5CNeh9bcrI1Fc7VQ6B8kj9vN21w7WWFOojYoJeWKlOju8U56PGDfIyTEQSlFNjYfuPhQHuKPIKN/s400/ratings3_blog.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5510551294999673426" />Had you asked me before I saw <i><b>The Last Exorcism</b></i>, 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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Last Exorcism</i> is it. Sold by distributor Lionsgate as a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Paranormal Activity</i>-esque fright-fest, this actually may be the smartest motion picture American teenyboppers ever voluntarily see. It isn’t high art, but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Last Exorcism </i>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. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">The Exorcist</i>,” 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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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?</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Just as interesting as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Last Exorcism</i>’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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As the cherry on top of it all, there’s what <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Last Exorcism</i> 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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Last Exorcism</i> 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, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Last Exorcism</i> represents multiplex fare at its best.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; ">* * *</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:arial;"><i>The Last Exorcism </i>(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.</span></span></p><p></p> <!--EndFragment--></div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-55649620631087221052010-08-26T20:16:00.000-07:002010-08-27T15:07:28.114-07:00Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 8/27<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYUePA3THmLlIkEtktm-xsTUI9FbMsMzlAH-T_QhStGieEC_X8nUA6jP_Xv-nu1JG4KyFIdX_w1eSxBdWHBWrkS19_rR66DEBJdrj7EAZs_ydOsHLCMGu5P8hCji3PZf-2ZScSHnfGobrL/s1600/827.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 165px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYUePA3THmLlIkEtktm-xsTUI9FbMsMzlAH-T_QhStGieEC_X8nUA6jP_Xv-nu1JG4KyFIdX_w1eSxBdWHBWrkS19_rR66DEBJdrj7EAZs_ydOsHLCMGu5P8hCji3PZf-2ZScSHnfGobrL/s400/827.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5509948041700241778" /></a><div>Well, after last weekend's predictions, my credibility in this arena has reached a new low. The only opener I came close to predicting with 100% accuracy was <i>Piranha 3D.</i> And that's unfortunate, because the highly entertaining bloodbath deserved better than its paltry box office total of $10.1m, much like fellow bomb <i>Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</i> did two weeks ago<i>. </i>But fear not... unlike <i>Scott Pilgrim</i>, <i>Piranha 3D</i> didn't cost very much to make and a sequel is already in the works. So long as another penis is dismembered by a flesh-hungry ancient fish in spectacular 3D, I'm totally game.</div><div>This weekend brings us two new films and another in re-release: the low-budget horror mock-doc <i>The Last Exorcism</i>, the urban action flick <i>Takers</i>, and a certain indie with 3D blue people that grossed next to nothing (I forget what it's called).</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0rNvOp4QTDRayH4YBCEp932nqpXfWfuMGt8ZYExZufLspB8iMFzv6PrQ8FvpHT49-EOwzq846MNrFp2k55j05cQKv1aPRuFiVEWV9hziqEICGwlppExG7wiVoQ7F8y5tSsaAwgI4iK-qs/s1600/thelastexorcism_smallteaser2.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0rNvOp4QTDRayH4YBCEp932nqpXfWfuMGt8ZYExZufLspB8iMFzv6PrQ8FvpHT49-EOwzq846MNrFp2k55j05cQKv1aPRuFiVEWV9hziqEICGwlppExG7wiVoQ7F8y5tSsaAwgI4iK-qs/s400/thelastexorcism_smallteaser2.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5509948187002196850" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 101px; height: 150px; " /></a><div>With a viral Internet marketing campaign and abundant use of handheld camera, <i><b>The Last Exorcism</b></i> is most conveniently compared to last year's smash-hit <i>Paranormal Activity</i>. But that's a tricky proposition because of two factors: 1) <i>The Last Exorcism </i>is rated PG-13 whereas <i>Paranormal Activity</i> was R, meaning they may find different audiences, and 2) <i>Paranormal Activity</i>'s release pattern (midnight only, then limited, then wide) makes it impossible to form a true opening weekend comparison. For the record, <i>Paranormal Activity</i> made $21.1m in its first weekend of wide release, but I'm only including that figure because I may have gotten you to wondering.</div><div>I think a better comparison is <i>The Haunting in Connecticut</i>, which had a different style but similarly supernatural themes. It was also similarly PG-13, catered to a younger audience, and was distributed by mini-major Lionsgate. Also, <i>The Haunting in Connecticut</i> debuted the first week after many teens and college students went back to school from spring break, just as they doing are now from summer break. That Virginia Madsen-starrer grossed an even $23m opening weekend.</div><div>Another potential comparison of teen horror with better-than-average reviews and marketing is <i>The Ring</i>, which made $15m in its opening weekend back in 2002. Adjusting for inflation, that number would be around $17.8m today. However, if we want an August PG-13 horror comparison, we have to go back to 2001's <i>The Others</i>, which made $14.1m opening weekend but had legs that took it to $96.5m total, which <i>The Last Exorcism</i> is unlikely to have. If you appropriate <i>The Others</i>' run to be more front-loaded and account for inflation, the number comes close to $30m... which'd be a great, strong surprise for <i>The Last Exorcism</i>.</div><div>Other similar PG-13 horror comparisons include <i>The Exorcism of Emily Rose</i> ($30m, a true surprise when it was released), <i>The Stepfather </i>($11.6m), <i>The Unborn</i> ($19.8m), and <i>1408</i> ($20.6m). So, removing outliers, the range seems to be high teens to mid-twenties. Because it falls within that range, I'm sticking with the <i>Haunting in Connecticut</i> comparison and saying <b>$23 million</b>.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg_ujfOSWfqRQC7ZOpfxNJrOWci7o-9TK5Y0ZFcNb27Xkrcx1e9saeGw0GqP9JzxlScDZK6Xj7GiJSHDPiKAmGHczCezzwC5TjEuK9lxYbK1Ut6F287KeyHrIuoez9M8OzzvfTO0vcqDji/s1600/takers_smallposter4.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg_ujfOSWfqRQC7ZOpfxNJrOWci7o-9TK5Y0ZFcNb27Xkrcx1e9saeGw0GqP9JzxlScDZK6Xj7GiJSHDPiKAmGHczCezzwC5TjEuK9lxYbK1Ut6F287KeyHrIuoez9M8OzzvfTO0vcqDji/s400/takers_smallposter4.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5509948298141510610" style="float: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 101px; height: 150px; " /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYUePA3THmLlIkEtktm-xsTUI9FbMsMzlAH-T_QhStGieEC_X8nUA6jP_Xv-nu1JG4KyFIdX_w1eSxBdWHBWrkS19_rR66DEBJdrj7EAZs_ydOsHLCMGu5P8hCji3PZf-2ZScSHnfGobrL/s1600/827.jpg"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYUePA3THmLlIkEtktm-xsTUI9FbMsMzlAH-T_QhStGieEC_X8nUA6jP_Xv-nu1JG4KyFIdX_w1eSxBdWHBWrkS19_rR66DEBJdrj7EAZs_ydOsHLCMGu5P8hCji3PZf-2ZScSHnfGobrL/s1600/827.jpg"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYUePA3THmLlIkEtktm-xsTUI9FbMsMzlAH-T_QhStGieEC_X8nUA6jP_Xv-nu1JG4KyFIdX_w1eSxBdWHBWrkS19_rR66DEBJdrj7EAZs_ydOsHLCMGu5P8hCji3PZf-2ZScSHnfGobrL/s1600/827.jpg"></a><div><b><i>Takers</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">, on the other hand, has far fewer easy comparisons. The only example of a similarly-targeted August action film I can think of is </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">S.W.A.T.</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">, which played to a massive $37.1m back in 2003. I think it's safe to say that isn't going to happen here. <i>Takers</i> doesn't have the buzz, the big theater count, or the widely-appealing stars. In fact, in terms of that last part, the presence of everybody's least favorite abusive boyfriend Chris Brown may actually hurt its box office take.</span></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">That being said, I think those prognosticators who are calling <i>Takers</i> an August dump-job that will gross in the single digits are wrong. Comparisons to <i>Armored</i> ($6.5m) and <i>The Losers</i> ($9.4m) just don't sit right with me, especially given the film has an ad campaign that has done a solid job targeting the African-American community. In this regard, I think <i>Takers</i> has more in common with its distributor Sony/Screen Gems' big hit last summer, <i>Obsessed</i>, which opened to a huge </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">$28.6m. Of course, it doesn't have Beyoncé or that film's high theater count, so it has absolutely no chance of breaking into the 20s or even the mid-teens. But I say it's good for at least 2/5 of <i>Obsessed</i>'s gross--yep, I'm sure feeling arbitrary tonight--which is </span>$11.4 million</b>.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgocn_hy7V_4Xt-EPOtJGZVgI6TWMusQOwaFOzxVJi-HvhG28z8CGH5H4lm6TKgEcR59xB3jyvQw_ZTbdj-koSmcGPi8UtwO0QEXUkuJf1ZAW59bo9rkfdfF8cZqyLHIrAUojvqTOCIgXbU/s1600/avatar_smallteaser.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgocn_hy7V_4Xt-EPOtJGZVgI6TWMusQOwaFOzxVJi-HvhG28z8CGH5H4lm6TKgEcR59xB3jyvQw_ZTbdj-koSmcGPi8UtwO0QEXUkuJf1ZAW59bo9rkfdfF8cZqyLHIrAUojvqTOCIgXbU/s400/avatar_smallteaser.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5509948526107045858" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 101px; height: 150px; " /></a><div>Then there's the matter of the <i>Avatar</i> re-release. Even more so than is the case with <i>Takers</i>, there is a complete lack of applicable comparisons here. This substantial a re-release (811 theaters) hasn't occurred at this interval (9 months since initial release) in a very long time. Thus, trying to compare it to the re-releases of the <i>Star Wars</i> or <i>Toy Story</i> movies is just silly.<i> </i>All we know is that there probably is some degree of interest in seeing the film again on the big-screen despite the fact it's on DVD and Blu-Ray because A) it's the highest grossing film of all time so some people must be interested in an additional nine minutes of footage, B) audiences clearly identified the 3D and the IMAX factors as special the first time around, and C) it's being re-released in a dead month with little desirable competition. So what is there to do but throw out a number? I'll say the movie does a solid $7,500 per theater accounting for increased 3D and IMAX ticket prices (yep, I'm really pulling numbers out of my ass now), meaning a total of <b>$6.1 million </b>on the weekend. That'll easily get it past the $750m threshold Fox wants it to exceed for prestige.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:</b></div><div>1. <i>The Last Exorcism</i> ... $23m ($8,003 Per Theater Average)</div><div>2. <i>Takers</i> ... $11.4m ($5,168 PTA)</div><div>3. <i>The Expendables</i> ... $8.5m ($2,501 PTA) -50.0%</div><div>4. <i>Eat Pray Love</i> ... $7.4m ($2,381 PTA) -38.9%</div><div>5. <i>The Other Guys</i> ... $6.4m ($2,012 PTA) -37.3%</div><div>6. <i>Nanny McPhee Returns</i> ... $6.3m ($2,252 PTA) -25.1%</div><div>7. <i>Avatar</i> ... $6.1m ($7,512 PTA0</div><div>8. <i>Vampires Suck</i> ... $5.5m ($1,701 PTA) -54.9%</div><div>9. <i>Inception</i> ... $4.9m ($2,357 PTA) -37.5%</div><div>10. <i>Lottery Ticket</i> ... $4.8m ($2,433 PTA) -54.9%</div><div><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; ">-No longer in the top 10- </span>The Switch</i> ... $4.5m ($2,231 PTA) -46.7%</div><div>-No longer in the top 10- <i>Piranha 3D</i> ... $3.9m ($1,566 PTA) -61.4%</div><div><br /></div><div>Looks like late August, smells like late August, feels like late August. Next weekend, good movies will hopefully bloom anew.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><i>Have thoughts on this new feature? Like it, don't like it, want something added? Shoot me an e-mail at <a href="mailto:webmaster@bucketreviews.com" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); ">webmaster@bucketreviews.com</a>.</i></span></div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-71041938516509956112010-08-19T16:33:00.000-07:002010-08-19T19:04:50.332-07:00Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 8/20<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP3nJDzK_8N68UmrjUJatdcZ-0TtUVwKRFJH93jiHA2tTs5jGeyJPahwOBXAvaoDdHC7oEiHx20U539LhdstL3HUqnxGjsgzOymnqsYJ0cq2UzZMYgEy0cS7yPwJpSHVMnxh4LJLkUhObn/s1600/THE-SWITCH-7-550x365.jpg"></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYpBjZSKvQBBg-SDHxtZ5N0PsTVuq1oLLVkgrVpcabFVd7oiPO-NxY2Vvt9riwsfOZqK4fUpxM1VOhHVO6JC9z6c-69lRr0KW3EH7a9XHsYZRrIsN_KXrKspJw1a-FvNDouIjTj0vEd0h_/s1600/posters820.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 119px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYpBjZSKvQBBg-SDHxtZ5N0PsTVuq1oLLVkgrVpcabFVd7oiPO-NxY2Vvt9riwsfOZqK4fUpxM1VOhHVO6JC9z6c-69lRr0KW3EH7a9XHsYZRrIsN_KXrKspJw1a-FvNDouIjTj0vEd0h_/s400/posters820.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5507296226461727154" /></a><div>Another weekend means new box office predictions. My inaugural guesses faired OK last weekend--I got the order mostly right and got within 10% on most of the holdovers--but there's a lot of room for improvement. This upcoming weekend is really anyone's guess; it brings us five new films that are basically August dump-jobs. Audiences get to pick from the family sequel <i>Nanny McPhee Returns</i> (read my review <a href="http://thebucketblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/nanny-mcphee-returns-2010-2-12-buckets.html">here</a>), the urban comedy <i>Lottery Ticket</i>, the latest Friedberg/Seltzer paro-trocity <i>Vampires Suck</i>, the 3D-gorefest <i>Piranha</i>, and an old Miramax release called <i>The Switch</i> that has been gathering dust on the shelf for awhile.</div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline; "><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj398yFjOYWT_Hx7w1w8Tfn2hevqp8MqOT0lkNk_oW2YnHT3sZwziRswcoy5bTlW-HvyegG2e19tBpGcHSs9nYVWm1NIiAzqc08NeQBxQwMD2zcYv5qaUjScjRpm65VwNmcGiiCEE6x15sw/s200/the-expendables-20090629110110575_640w.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5507300473542900578" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 134px; " /></span><div>With the exception of maybe <i>Nanny McPhee Returns</i>, I don't think any of those films have a chance at seizing the #1 slot. Once again, it would seem the battle is between Sylvester Stallone's <i><b>The Expendables</b></i> and the Julia Roberts-vehicle <i>Eat Pray Love</i>. Sly's action-extravaganza dominated the box office last weekend with a strong $34.8 million, but it's likely to have a big drop this weekend. Sly's 2008 <i>Rambo</i> dropped 60.9% week-over-week and I don't think there's a better comparison. That would put <i>The Expendables</i> in line for a weekend of <b>$13.6m</b>.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPHsR3cwfZDOx_yo9LzrQ85kkgjMBsqvJW-EJf5HSE6zDB_xnXKTUQkzFrswM7_gqsAerLC87vqQG6sVixfzfYBLZcH94pVHyPZntWsYuHy6H5e0U17GzZ5bcAQnG_rwU9bM2lkfZI4RTh/s1600/movie-eat_pray_love-stills-8014335.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPHsR3cwfZDOx_yo9LzrQ85kkgjMBsqvJW-EJf5HSE6zDB_xnXKTUQkzFrswM7_gqsAerLC87vqQG6sVixfzfYBLZcH94pVHyPZntWsYuHy6H5e0U17GzZ5bcAQnG_rwU9bM2lkfZI4RTh/s200/movie-eat_pray_love-stills-8014335.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5507300724405016994" style="float: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 134px; " /></a><div><i><b>Eat Pray Love</b></i>, on the other hand,<i> </i>opened to significantly less last weekend ($23.1m), but its drop should be comparatively soft. Last year's <i>Julie & Julia</i>, the best comparison, dropped 39.8% on its second weekend. I think <i>Eat Pray Love</i> will fall a little more than that because selling-point Roberts and the beloved source material suggest more front-loading. On this one, I'll go with a drop of 42.5%. That'd put <i>Eat Pray Love</i> in the neighborhood of <b>$13.3m</b> -- it'll be a real cage match for #1 among these two holdovers.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXFTWeN_PktIViBt5M3GdO4R05rb8W_XhXZfDAA8GsPtUjsyOAdJAn1o1-2v85R3KZ3xYMNN6po4E-DlUSNknkqQVrgoFvsM4j9p4kSfO_b5p2m-bNDdGzcG2L8VgiJPCzmpn2E71qRJjs/s1600/article-0-08DA3946000005DC-152_468x286.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXFTWeN_PktIViBt5M3GdO4R05rb8W_XhXZfDAA8GsPtUjsyOAdJAn1o1-2v85R3KZ3xYMNN6po4E-DlUSNknkqQVrgoFvsM4j9p4kSfO_b5p2m-bNDdGzcG2L8VgiJPCzmpn2E71qRJjs/s200/article-0-08DA3946000005DC-152_468x286.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5507301423890434258" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 122px; " /></a><div>Close behind (if not ahead), undoubtedly, will be <i><b>Nanny McPhee Returns</b></i>. Yes, on one hand, the original did open to a very strong $14.5m in only about 2/3 of the theaters of this sequel. But the follow-up has two things going wrong for it: 1) it isn't as good as the first (contrary to the critical consensus) and 2) lots of kids are going back to school Monday, meaning they may spend the weekend shopping for supplies and getting ready rather than going to the movies. Last year, the kids film <i>Shorts</i> debuted in the same frame to a paltry $6.4m. That being said, I could definitely eat my words on this one come Sunday. For now, I'll go with my gut and pick a moderate number out of the sky -- <b>$13.1m</b>, I think.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline; "><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqBrFGld2x-0hwiKOU4YgIBxnXFDjxHDMUe1DVmnGgVfQGTbqy2JswSYsTEIpFkAnpXIWNoOqTi0hbG5wGZ1ZZxoy8pLaX3LPkN-IkXlktSBWEAIC-o6jZBiA7y1UasGrhgAaEoHGJXsWo/s200/The-Lottery-Ticket-movie-image-1.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5507301634986272738" style="float: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 133px; " /></span><div>Another noteworthy debut is <i><b>Lottery Ticket</b></i>. Over the years, box office prognosticators have been taught to never underestimate the urban comedy, which has a tendency to be marketed in African-American areas and nowhere else. Thus, those of us who live in other places are often unaware of the potential for success. <i>Lottery Ticket</i> could represent such a case. Marketing-wise, I sense a lot in common with <i>First Sunday</i>, which was likewise "dumped" in January to the unexpectedly profitable tune of $17.7m. However, the presence of the church in that film may have attracted the potent Tyler Perry audience more than this film will. Not to mention, <i>Lottery Ticket</i> skews pretty young, with once kid-rapper Bow Wow headlining. Bow Wow's previous film, 2005's <i>Roll Bounce</i>, opened in about 300 less theaters (1,625 vs. 1,937) to only $7.6m. Even calculating for inflation from 2005, that'd put <i>Lottery Ticket</i> at only around $8.3m by direct comparison. But my gut tells me the best comparison here is 2006's similarly young, African-American targeted <i>ATL</i>, which opened to $11.6m. Accounting for a little inflation, that'd put <i>Lottery Ticket</i> in line for an opening of <b>$12.3m</b>.</div></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline; "><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtGzZ6m4HNN0-6ojxY0Ajoh0N0oNSjbEEFQSxVvHr5N5782jlgDwTwUM2PwTSbceOnjhyxnDis5FigGfTybsJpM5SIV_3bsQI9qq89WjNAEqgCagaPzDhc2d3pSSDQVxEJuKHLbTfaybVb/s200/Vampires-Suck-550x366.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5507301839818735602" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 133px; " /></span><div>Next up is Friedberg/Selzer's <b><i>Vampires Suck</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">, which debuted yesterday to the tune of $4m. With most of the audience still out of school and the potential for front-loading rife, my guess is that Friday only matches that gross, and maybe even sees less. Not to mention, the Wednesday opening should fare worse for its over-the-weekend internal multiplier than the writer/director duo's previous August release, <i>Disaster Movie</i>, as most of the first-choice audience will have seen it already by Friday. <i>Disaster Movie</i> managed to multiply its Friday gross by an impressive 2.88, but I think <i>Vampires Suck</i> will be more in the realm of 2.5. That'd put its weekend at an even </span>$10m</b>.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3vT16YS79-xUE92Pv4YW_AwSO45zHAV_vIZMaV91-iQZwBYEiim5cLD-DbOAh7OAvPWqejZ_1UqTlHFTiIaeUTyBfh2p-pnFvH2FE0ebuGnEhoRQcyyOfOw7aKb6LiS0CFxY93TJddIif/s1600/piranha_3d_movie_01-550x366.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3vT16YS79-xUE92Pv4YW_AwSO45zHAV_vIZMaV91-iQZwBYEiim5cLD-DbOAh7OAvPWqejZ_1UqTlHFTiIaeUTyBfh2p-pnFvH2FE0ebuGnEhoRQcyyOfOw7aKb6LiS0CFxY93TJddIif/s200/piranha_3d_movie_01-550x366.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5507302292046918434" style="float: right; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 133px; " /></a><div>Then there's the very-adult <b><i>Piranha 3D</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; ">, which has nifty ads, momentum online, and good early reviews funneling in. (After last weekend's <i>Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</i> bombing, however, one must be skeptical of all three things.) With a similar theater count to last year's <i>My Bloody Valentine 3D</i>, one <i>could</i> make a case that this one has a chance at coming out of left-field and replicating that picture's successful $21.2m opening, even considering internal problems at distributor Weinstein. But I wouldn't buy that argument for a second. Murderous piranhas and washed up '80s stars may sound cool to me and many other geeks online, but they don't make for the kind of mainstream success that the former 3D horror film enjoyed. The camp factor is high here. Very optimistically, I could go for the argument that this matches <i>Snakes on a Plane</i>'s $13.8m, including the 3D-surcharge. But I think it will probably be lower, as the mainstream appeal just doesn't seem to be there. Another significant factor is that urban audiences make up a big percentage of the horror demographic, and they will be siphoned away by <i>Lottery Ticket.</i> Ultimately, I'm going to be a pessimist on this one. I'll go with last year's tropical horror film <i>A Perfect Getaway</i>'s $6m opening, plus a big increase for 3D (I'd expect about 75% of tickets to be sold in that format), plus another $1.5m for additional geek interest. That'd put <i>Piranha 3D</i> at </span>$9.9m<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; ">, figuring average 2D ticket-prices of $8 and 3D of $11.</span></b></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP3nJDzK_8N68UmrjUJatdcZ-0TtUVwKRFJH93jiHA2tTs5jGeyJPahwOBXAvaoDdHC7oEiHx20U539LhdstL3HUqnxGjsgzOymnqsYJ0cq2UzZMYgEy0cS7yPwJpSHVMnxh4LJLkUhObn/s1600/THE-SWITCH-7-550x365.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP3nJDzK_8N68UmrjUJatdcZ-0TtUVwKRFJH93jiHA2tTs5jGeyJPahwOBXAvaoDdHC7oEiHx20U539LhdstL3HUqnxGjsgzOymnqsYJ0cq2UzZMYgEy0cS7yPwJpSHVMnxh4LJLkUhObn/s200/THE-SWITCH-7-550x365.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5507302555038234530" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 132px; " /></a><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; ">The last film of the lot is </span><i>The Switch</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">, which boasts all of the signs of a huuuge bomb. My best guess is it ends up splitting the difference between stars Jennifer Aniston and Jason Bateman's previous late-summer releases. Those would be <i>Love Happens</i> ($8.1m) and <i>Extract</i> ($4.3m), respectively, putting my prediction at </span>$6.2m</b>, well below the standards of these actors and the genre.</div><div>So, if I'm on the right track, what we end up with are some OK holds and some OK openings, but nothing special. Sounds like late August to me...</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; "><b>My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:</b></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">1. <i>The Expendables</i> ... $13.6m ($4,159 Per Theater Average) -60.9%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">2. <i>Eat Pray Love</i> ... $13.3m ($4,315 PTA) -42.5%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">3. <i>Nanny McPhee Returns</i> ... $13.1m ($4,707 PTA)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">4. <i>Lottery Ticket</i> ... $12.3m ($6,234 PTA)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">5. <i>Vampires Suck</i> ... $10m ($3,358 PTA)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">6. <i>Piranha 3D</i> ... $9.9m ($4,008 PTA)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">7. <i>The Other Guys</i> ... $9.4m ($2,707 PTA) -46.0%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">8. <i>Inception</i> ... $7m ($2,915 PTA) -38.0%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">9. <i>The Switch</i> ... $6.2m ($3,082 PTA)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; ">10. <i>Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</i> ... $6.2m ($2,199 PTA) -41.6%</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; "><br /></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; "><i>Have thoughts on this new feature? Like it, don't like it, want something added? Shoot me an e-mail at <a href="mailto:webmaster@bucketreviews.com" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); ">webmaster@bucketreviews.com</a>.</i></div></span></div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-21306512757136518912010-08-19T10:14:00.000-07:002010-09-26T12:03:39.578-07:00Nanny McPhee Returns (2010) - 2 1/2 Buckets<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7ZTJgQ5NIc8RiKc5lVxZzk6vHhkcAVrKqn4MEZjv67rlZZkwFOi375Fp2HOa8r8bDRMWqc0pH7ignvRO3gCgrcpLhcRg51LcMfOg6s2OmRSRCJLZIEhtDrpAZLzzGjdYMUMEdv6OQNZ2n/s1600/nanny-mcphee-returns.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 269px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7ZTJgQ5NIc8RiKc5lVxZzk6vHhkcAVrKqn4MEZjv67rlZZkwFOi375Fp2HOa8r8bDRMWqc0pH7ignvRO3gCgrcpLhcRg51LcMfOg6s2OmRSRCJLZIEhtDrpAZLzzGjdYMUMEdv6OQNZ2n/s400/nanny-mcphee-returns.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5507171428134380722" /></a><div><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 123px; height: 50px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZZ1gAZAFf5KRMIvhfEG0caJYDoBGwKpzmNZ0mxDBL9H3kzq6ak689MghWjFhq32SqyXfUdWd2Kw6p1FzZ94Gmtz4ju7rv8snF8USAQTqS__NZm-xHPR7JR0whd_QbsyM4b2odJayyr3kk/s400/ratings2_half_blog.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5507170908387933154" /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">The original <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Nanny McPhee</i> was a pleasant surprise, arriving on the scene billed as just another dumper of a January kids’ flick but then proving itself to actually be rather funny and touching. The magic of the movie was that it allowed the audience to both laugh at its child cast’s mischievous antics <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">and</i> root for the title Nanny (an unrecognizable Emma Thompson) in rearing them. A then 16-year-old friend and I went to see it because it was the only thing we hadn’t yet caught and I could get us in for free as an employee of the theater. We came out floored that even we, the antithesis of the target audience, had laughed and had ourselves a jolly good time.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><i><b>Nanny McPhee Returns</b></i> is not a bad movie, but its lack of originality and humor compared to the first film seem like more severe offenses than they really are because of the high standards in place. This time, writer/star Thompson and new director Susanna White place Nanny McPhee and her subjects into a conventional wartime weepy and, while it beats <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Tooth Fairy</i> or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">The Spy Next Door</i> as family fare any day, one could definitely argue that viewers would be better off watching its predecessor again instead.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This time around, the ill-behaved children are those of Isabel Green (Maggie Gyllenhaal, doing her best British accent), who live on a farm in the English countryside circa World War II. Their father (Ewan McGregor) is off fighting and his lack of presence is obviously taking a toll on the family. The kids’ antics wear on Isabel, who’s already stressed because she may have to sell the farm if she can’t come up with her monthly tractor payment. So what better idea but to add two more to the mix? The Cousins, as they’re dubbed, arrive at the farm, apparently because their London home is unsafe due to the firebombing. More ruckus ensues. Enter Nanny McPhee, who will surely teach the kids how to behave and how to care.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The biggest error Thompson and Grant make is not using Nanny McPhee enough. It feels as though the staple of the franchise is reduced to a footnote here, showing up when the strike of her whimsical cane is needed but otherwise simply looming in the background. This character is who audiences are paying to see, so why minimize her part?</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Then again, maybe Nanny McPhee’s role in the first movie only seems comparatively larger because the surrounding story was better, meaning her absences were less of an issue. Unlike this sequel, the original film offered a lot of juicy narrative elements, like the love story between dad Colin Firth and maid Kelly Macdonald. While the original was hardly unpredictable, it was always entertaining because it engaged the viewer’s sense of wonder. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Nanny McPhee Returns</i>, on the other hand, features a family story that is conventional not only in plot, but emotion. We know from the beginning that the two main crisis-points for the family will be 1) whether or not their father dies in combat and 2) whether or not they have to sell the farm. Based on this short synopsis, I bet you can guess the outcomes of both story threads.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Nanny McPhee Returns</i> also relies on cutesy trifles that are mildly amusing, but that simply amount to diversion where the first would have relied on heart. Yes, CGI pigs performing a synchronized swimming routine are worth a laugh and will undoubtedly amuse kids, but then again, are they really that funny and aren’t kids amused by anything? The same goes for the CGI baby elephant and Nanny McPhee’s trusty bird that uses its gas problem for the greater good.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But all this criticism is simply an indicator of the fact that I feel <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Nanny McPhee Returns</i> is inferior to the first film, not that it’s a very bad film itself. As a Saturday matinee babysitter, it may not be Pixar, but it certainly won’t be a painful watch for parents. Maggie Gyllenhaal, for one, is delightful in the lead role. Her character may be too standard-issue to make much of an emotional impact, but viewers will enjoy Gyllenhaal’s sparkling presence throughout. The entire cast of kids, too, delivers strong performances that don’t suffer from the typical difficulties child actors often face. And, minimized as she may be, Nanny McPhee is just as charming as ever, so much so that one might still find oneself hoping Thompson reprises this role again, despite the sequel’s significant drop in quality. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Nanny McPhee Returns</i> settles for pleasant, moderate fun, but is unlikely to elicit strong enthusiasm from any moviegoer over the age of 10.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; ">* * *</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:arial;"><i>Nanny McPhee Returns </i>(2010; UK, France, USA). Produced by Tim Bevan, David Brown, Liza Chasin, Lindsay Duran, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward, Debra Osbourne, and Emma Thompson. Directed by Susanna Grant. Written for the screen by Emma Thompson, based on the characters created by Christianna Brand. Starring Emma Thompson, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Oscar Steer, Asa Butterfield, Lil Woods, Eros Vlahos, Rosie Taylor-Ritson, Rhys Ifans, Maggie Smith, and Ewan McGregor. Distributed by Universal Pictures. Rated PG, with a running time of 109 minutes.</span></span></p> <!--EndFragment--> </div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-16362572906254345622010-08-16T11:31:00.001-07:002010-09-26T12:03:43.814-07:00Review: Salt (2010) - 3 Buckets<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgftMQPK0nBag337OuQz14ma_Y9FHMG9M5FvH0r5tb4gqJkeixwMs0UjKFRKH7eZ2hSn49Hd_PdbwldfOSEVtRdzqjhiSLPhsO2iNNghhg0qBemxUpNosG8Q34ikq3U4K12STBPHfSd2Vdp/s1600/Salt-Movie-Stills-042.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 266px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgftMQPK0nBag337OuQz14ma_Y9FHMG9M5FvH0r5tb4gqJkeixwMs0UjKFRKH7eZ2hSn49Hd_PdbwldfOSEVtRdzqjhiSLPhsO2iNNghhg0qBemxUpNosG8Q34ikq3U4K12STBPHfSd2Vdp/s400/Salt-Movie-Stills-042.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5506077709597487314" /></a><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span></div><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 123px; height: 50px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTpEPToHtHyIbKmOeAeSjyrdFeTpKgoIQcWFWTf3q0Chl_Jaw4CpA0iU-66uaW4UDgx5xhXwkHzG1NGIFSDPlti4Eu14-SIwbcP_VIrZKNrIGIPsZq5OdKSP39uMfclcW13QMPVDp9oATL/s400/ratings3_blog.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5506077190396122402" /><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">My requirements of a thriller break down like this: 1) it’s suspenseful and keeps me </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">guessing until the final reveal, 2) it features an interesting protagonist and villain, even if who’s who is often in question, and 3) it handles action deftly, without any additional fat to bog up the plot. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>Salt</b> </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">holds to these core values. While detractors of the film may argue it’s pretty empty, with a thin story only designed to move the characters from one improbable action set piece to another, I think they’re overanalyzing things. There’s nothing ignoble about what </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Salt </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">sets out to do—entertain with supreme skill and style—and it executes its plan masterfully. This certainly doesn’t make it a masterpiece, but it will make for a jolly good Friday night guessing-game at the cinema. I can’t think of anything released in the past three months that better embodies the spirit of summer movie-going, thanks to star Angelina Jolie and director Philip Noyce.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The movie’s tagline summarizes it pretty well: “Who is Salt?” We first meet Evelyn Salt (Jolie) as an American CIA agent, in a flashback sequence where we see her being freed from a torture camp in North Korea. Flash-forward several years and she’s still with the organization, working out of Washington D.C. She’s asked to interrogate a Russian national named Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski), who claims she is a Russian spy who will participate in a doomsday plot called Day X. He alleges that this will begin the next day when Salt assassinates the President of Russia at the late U.S. Vice President’s funeral. Provided he has not “beat” the lie detector test, Orlov is telling the truth.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">It’s clear Evelyn has some part in Day X when she breaks out in a sprint, fighting to make her way out of the secured building in a grandiose chase sequence involving even a makeshift fire-gun. And surprise, surprise—we learn Orlov is aligned with Salt, as he kills two guards and escapes. Surely enough, the next day, Salt shoots the Russian President at point-blank range at the funeral in yet another extravagant, preposterous action sequence. She’s momentarily taken into custody but once again—you guessed it—escapes, only to then kill Orlov at their secret meeting place before continuing on with the Day X plot. The viewer quickly realizes there must be more to the story, but what? Just who is Salt and who exactly is she working for? Could she be a triple-agent?</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Angelina Jolie was born to play this role. It’s ideal for her because, not only does she have the chops to handle the action sequences, the character also doesn’t require her to be likable. Jolie, despised as a public figure and an actress by a vocal minority, usually plays powerful women the viewer must love in order to truly get absorbed in the plot. But here, her character is shrouded in mystery and the viewer isn’t supposed to know whether they like her or not. As a result, even those who don’t consider themselves Jolie fans will make for potential fans of </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Salt</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">. You don’t find many action films or thrillers where you don’t need to root for the main character to find them engaging, but this is that rare exception. And, man oh man, is Jolie photogenic as ever in the wham-bam action sequences. Rumored to have done many of her own stunts, she delivers a strong physical performance that keeps the adrenaline-level at maximum throughout. Whether Salt is actually with the good guys or the bad, there’s no denying she kicks ass.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Sealing the deal is the superior staging and pacing of director Philip Noyce, who hasn’t made an action film since 1997’s </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The Saint</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> starring Val Kilmer. Noyce moves from one action-packed sequence to the next, making </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Salt</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> a supreme popcorn movie if there ever was one. (I might be compelled to use the phrase “testosterone-filled” if not for the fact that there’s a female lead.) And yet, even though Noyce is unrelenting in his approach, the action is very clear and understandable, making it so much more engrossing than that of the music video-style genre-efforts that have become ubiquitous in Hollywood. Noyce’s vision puts the audience in a visceral position, making them feel the thrust of each punch and the sound of each gunshot. In a silly movie with no real consequences such as this one, this sort of feeling is very important for a director to maintain in order to keep hold of the audience. In this respect, Noyce is even more integral to the film’s success than Jolie; he’s the true puppeteer of the play.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">If you require more of a thriller than that it is well-constructed action with audiovisual power, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Salt </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">may not be your cup of tea. But for the rest of us, it’s a good reminder that a simple, lean popcorn flick can actually be done satisfyingly. (When condemning the latest Michael Bay film mainly for lacking in the substance department, I usually forget that there are movies like </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Salt</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> and the recent </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> that actually do the style-only thing pretty well.) Noyce’s movie is filled with enough technical prowess that viewers don’t need to follow that dumb old adage: “Turn off your brain.” They simply need to redirect their mind’s attention to the good stuff </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Salt </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">has to offer, which is admittedly not intellectual, but it sure is entertaining.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">* * *</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-size:13px;"><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Salt</span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> (2010, USA). Produced by William M. Connor, Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Samuel Dickerman, Ric Kidney, Hannah Minghella, Sunil Perkash, and Mark Vahradian. Directed by Philip Noyce. Written for the screen by Kurt Wimmer. Starring Angelina Jolie, Liev Schrieber, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Daniel Olbrychski, and August Diehl. Distributed by Columbia Pictures. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 95 minutes.</span></span></span></p> <!--EndFragment-->DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-5606965248717378782010-08-15T10:28:00.000-07:002010-09-26T12:01:57.510-07:00Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010) - 3 Buckets<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmXcFI4uCmmnVFBvgvf2_DuEPwuFQ5ODjKT_l7GxqXudYhOLwFcwcJ-2oYVer_Jwkc-9nqmpNfHDgRaPXLnPv7P3OOuxJsiXn7NT77cj3BCivDCiX0nOqRoPZqLhjsAgbUe-idf_C47IzX/s1600/scottpilgrim.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 224px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmXcFI4uCmmnVFBvgvf2_DuEPwuFQ5ODjKT_l7GxqXudYhOLwFcwcJ-2oYVer_Jwkc-9nqmpNfHDgRaPXLnPv7P3OOuxJsiXn7NT77cj3BCivDCiX0nOqRoPZqLhjsAgbUe-idf_C47IzX/s400/scottpilgrim.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5505690622932192754" /></a><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUaMe14ZR-ueDZTNQYORC-kxc4uDpa3-mDgG7lGunmdoFGzfBPr77l2oKGQVWE7cMr5Y8FPNZ_jXzH-6TwATdnBfbXSnmiXGDMfsYKqjw2421kI_dZ6yLCCQkysGpLIdcSpgzvoAyU_cAq/s400/ratings3_blog.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5505690245978887794" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; cursor: pointer; width: 123px; height: 50px; " /><i><b>Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</b></i> is one of those movies we must admire for its accomplishments all the more because of all the ways it could have gone horribly wrong. The movie promises nearly two hours of comic-book action done in the style of a video game, with a repetitive plot to boot. Can you imagine what that might have meant had Paul W.S. Anderson been the man in charge? Throw in the fact that lead Michael Cera was all but guaranteed to pull of his action-star role and the delightful final product that writer/director Edgar Wright has concocted seems like a minor-miracle. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This really is an auteur piece for Wright, in spite of how <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIR2XYGDxCo&feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">faithfully</a> he’s adapted (with Michael Bacall) Bryan Lee O’Malley’s source comic. His previous quasi-parody charmers made with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Shaun of the Dead</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Hot Fuzz</i>, showed that he definitely had a knack for comedy and action, but they were comparatively calm and low-budget. Thankfully, Wright has no problem pulling off the schizophrenic kinetics and whip-snap jokes of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</i>, assembling them with such command that it’s fair to compare his work to Quentin Tarantino’s, with a little Diablo Cody thrown in for good measure.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Michael Cera is the title Scott Pilgrim, a sorta-likable 22-year-old deadbeat who plays in a Toronto rock band called Sex Bob-omb. We first meet him when he’s begun dating 17-year-old Knives Chau (Ellen Wong) in a pathetic attempt to try to get over a big heartbreak, at the behest of his younger sister Stacy (the always-great Anna Kendrick) and even his admittedly dysfunctional gay roommate Wallace (Kieran Culkin). But Scott’s interest in Knives wanes quickly when he sets his sights on the new girl in town, a punk American named Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). After an awkward first exchange at a party, he’s able to score a date with her on their second encounter, which unleashes something he never bargained for… Scott must battle Ramona’s “seven evil exes” to win her for himself. We meet them as they come, from actor/skateboarder Lucas Lee (Chris Evans) to twins Kyle and Ken Katayanagi (Shota and Keita Saito) to the big one at the end, the mysterious Gideon (Jason Schwartzman).</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The movie’s aesthetic is dizzyingly complex, borrowing elements from both comic books and video games. Interjections like “Wham!” and bright colorful lines signifying action and noise spring from the characters, just as they would in a panel of the former medium. And, as you’d see in the latter, superfluous points are recorded onscreen as Scott battles it out with Ramona’s exes. Likewise, special weapons are awarded to the players for certain achievements and, when Scott defeats an ex, they explode into coins. And yet I would not consider <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</i> to be a “video game movie.” Yes, it contains many of the rapid cuts and excessive stylizations that have fostered that derogatory term. But Wright not only implements these elements far more skillfully than we’ve ever seen before, he also uses them to comment on the sensibilities of the video game era in general. The film’s style is as much about observing these young characters’ need for instant gratification and ubiquitous communication as it is offering those elements to actual teens and 20-somethings in the audience. As such, those who don’t usually like seeing such frenzy on the screen (myself included) will actually find it enlightening, not annoying here.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Wright also deserves credit for keeping the interest level so high in a rather long film (an hour and 52 minutes) that is recurrent in nature. While the weapons and the players change, Scott battles all seven of Ramona’s exes in structurally similar fights. The film could’ve easily mirrored the agonizing experience of watching two friends play a video game and not being able to participate, but instead it’s entertaining throughout. One reason for this is that Wright and Bacall’s screenplay is filled with a constant barrage of witty allusions and quips that keep the viewer on their toes. Another is that the action, for all its in-your-face relentlessness, is quite formally interesting. Perhaps <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Hot Fuzz</i> was good training for Wright because, in spoofing directors as diverse Michael Bay and Sam Peckinpah, he learned what would and what wouldn’t work in his own turn at large-scale action.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 274.5pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The performances aren’t exceptionally memorable, but they fit the bill nicely and keep things high-energy. Cera plays a version of the geek he always is and, for the most part, it works. That he has the chops for this kind of action shows he may not just be a one-trick pony. It’s also worth noting that all but the most awkward of young adults won’t be able to live vicariously through Scott, which is often a tactic that this type of movie is able to win viewers over too easily with. Instead, Cera does a good job at playing Scott for the loser he kind of is, but ensures the audience sympathizes for the character enough to be rooting for him to win the battles and get the girl. Likewise, Mary Elizabeth Winstead understands that Ramona may not be the great prize Scott thinks she is and she certainly has intimacy issues, but she’s nevertheless the one that Scott wants. (I was about as attracted to her as a square like me could be to a girl with purple and blue hair.) In smaller parts, Culkin, Kendrick, Schwartzman, Wong, Evans, Aubrey Plaza, Brandon Routh, Thomas Jane, and Brie Larson all offer their own distinct amusements.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So why am I not about to call <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</i> a masterpiece or even a really, really good movie?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Because the heart isn’t there. It may seem like I’m contradicting myself given I just praised the fact that the movie doesn’t manipulate the viewer by creating disingenuously appealing characters. Thus, where could it find the heart I desire? I dunno; maybe it’s a Catch 22. But for me to truly love a movie, I must get an unwavering feeling in my gut that it’s something amazing and special. In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</i>’s case, I may cognitively think it’s those things, but the visceral passion isn’t there. Yes, the characters are interesting enough and the style is overflowing and even groundbreaking in that it’s the first movie to really use the video game aesthetic right. But, as I established years ago when <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Kill Bill</i> came out, I don’t think style—even when it’s what the movie is about—can become substance. Style can be moving and memorable, but it isn’t lasting in the emotional sense. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, it’d be a shame to end on a negative note because <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</i> really is great fun – a roaring Friday night at the movies. Box office numbers for opening weekend have just come out as I’m writing this and I see the movie was only able to sell a paltry $10.5 million worth of tickets, which is a shame because I’m sure a broad spectrum of people would like it. For now, it will have to be content in joining <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">She’s Out of My League</i> as one of 2010’s best kept secrets: that rare Hollywood picture that appeals to both guys, for its action and its comedy, and girls, for its romance. I already can’t wait for Wright’s next movie.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; ">* * *</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><em>Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</em> (2010, USA). Produced by J. Miles Dale, Eric Gitter, Lisa Gitter, Jeff Kirschenbaum, Jared LeBoff, Adam Merims, Joe Nozemack, Nira Park, Marc Platt, Steven V. Scavelli, Adam Siegel, Scott Stuber, Ronaldo Vasconcellos, and Edgar Wright. Directed by Edgar Wright. Written for the screen by Edgar Wright and Michael Bacall, based on the graphic novels by Bryan Lee O'Malley. Starring Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ellen Wong, Kieran Culkin, Anna Kendrick, and Jason Schwarzman. Distributed by Universal Pictures. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 112 minutes.</span></p> <!--EndFragment-->DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-1162913673477606682010-08-12T16:58:00.001-07:002010-08-18T22:31:09.315-07:00Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 8/13<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7ySnWKNYE6DUbmyKWfwiacFeFOZam2TEZEAsoo-AYPr1s2GCOnNnrpg84lvivQ6rw7fydCB2yC2UkBIKcaMVwSdNZ5M8YcYK02L2XpCz7vKWVzl4DcQeckecrCd71LTaod44OrSd320R1/s1600/BoxOffice1.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 285px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7ySnWKNYE6DUbmyKWfwiacFeFOZam2TEZEAsoo-AYPr1s2GCOnNnrpg84lvivQ6rw7fydCB2yC2UkBIKcaMVwSdNZ5M8YcYK02L2XpCz7vKWVzl4DcQeckecrCd71LTaod44OrSd320R1/s400/BoxOffice1.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504695989998802082" /></a><div>I've always been just as fascinated by the numbers behind movies as I am by the movies themselves. As a result, I don't see any reason not to join the cool kids and post weekly box office predictions. And what better time than now, when I'm revamping Bucket Reviews and getting back into the groove of reviewing and 'blogging, to do so? Without further adieu...</div><div>This weekend--the last before we hit true August "dumping ground" territory--brings three relatively big releases, two of them battling it out for #1. They are Sylvester Stallone's testosterone extravaganza starring practically every male action star that's ever lived, <i>The Expendables</i>, and the estrogen-magnet that is Julia Roberts in <i>Eat Pray Love</i>, based on the bestseller. The third release is Edgar Wright's comic-book adaptation <i>Scott Pilgrim vs. The World,</i> starring Michael Cera, which should place between third and fifth depending how well <i>The Other Guys</i> and <i>Inception</i> hold.</div><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 101px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB72GNc0DDHzWUqF_RxaKuWA_jz5DmzX0HSTcXSlxEIbDv4ev6Ta4Lm_gB4aiwzeSaTmQtbnk-1Z9OPGtPpaqzVqy10n5VFoo9ctnS5JYqYovK1AgnRwV270DQTzLIoQtXwjU5NIIH33kT/s400/theexpendables_smallfinal.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504696385042111922" /><div>While <i>Eat Pray Love</i> has a chance at upsetting, I'm going to agree with the general consensus and say <i><b>The Expendables</b></i> will come out on top. While its R-rating may hurt its take among the banned teenage audience, the picture should do well among males of all ages over 17. (Not to mention, quite a few under-17s may end up a part of the total revenue given this could prove the ideal father-son outing.) Stallone's last <i>Rambo</i> picture only opened to $18.2m a couple years back, but <i>The Expendables</i> seems to have much broader appeal, as it features a long list of other headliners (Willis, Statham, <span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 15px; font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:small;"><em style="font-style: normal; ">Schwarzenegger</em></span>, Lundgren, Rourke, etc) and isn't as dependent on the nostalgia factor.</div><div>There aren't that many R-rated, non-technology based (AKA not <i>The Matrix</i>) comparisons from recent years, which may actually work out in <i>The Expendables</i>' favor as demand for this type of film may be high due to scarcity. An obscure, but possibly apt comparison in terms of its appeal to several generations of males may be Clint Eastwood's <i>Gran Torino</i>, which pulled in $29.5m in its first weekend of wide release. Perhaps more similar are the <i>Kill Bill</i> films, which opened to $22.1m and $25.1m ($25.7m and $28.3m accounting for inflation), respectively. But <i>The Expendables </i>is playing in more theaters than any of those films (3,270 vs. 2,808; 3,102; and 2,971) and seems to have quite a bit of momentum on the advertising front, so I'll go out on a limb and say it does a strong <b>$30 </b><b>million</b>.</div><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 101px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw1m0MsNMpSVOUR9WJOpwDTDr8ZG2mc2yulMAWOrPnkmwoouWNsINy45SU0fUwoSYZ_f5OD03VluMmxO0EtUYIT3Hm60s3LzJa-5Pw_2MOW0NSn_6SXQB3zDWiUYi_iMZq4wnpWbSuoj7A/s400/eatpraylove_smallposter.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504696586242484578" /><div>Speaking of momentum-filled ad campaigns, you might think <i><b>Eat Pray Love</b></i> bought out every 30-second spot on every TV station this past week. Sony is clearly putting a lot of money behind this one and, after a success-filled summer (<i>The Other Guys, Salt, Grown-Ups, The Karate Kid</i>), they seem to know what they're doing. Reviews are horrendous, but then again, women love the book and they certainly love Julia Roberts, so this one may be critic-proof.</div><div>The easiest comparable to <i>Eat Pray Love</i> is <i>Julie & Julia</i>, which opened to just over $20m targeting the same audience on the same weekend last year. However, while that picture boasted great reviews and Meryl Streep, it had nowhere near the ad push that this one has. Couple that with the fact that <i>Eat Pray Love</i> appeals to a broader demographic of women than <i>Julie & Julia </i>due to the apparent increased interest of those under 40 (thanks to Roberts). I think <i>Eat Pray Love</i> should definitely open better than <i>J&J</i> and other older skewing chick-flicks like <i>It's Complicated</i> ($22.1m). But it definitely doesn't have the "date movie" appeal of something like <i>Couples Retreat</i> ($34.3m) because no healthy male would ever want to be subjected to such drivel. I'm going to go with <b>$27.5 million </b>on this one, which would certainly be a success by genre standards.</div><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 101px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin6q4s2S7-MUu8dPK0OELui9f9ex718PgCy5P3b2RVQBWx3VgshQT0vvFLnNN2QgZA_lbin44krKDhaSg4_bpQA8xIO1xZYhryS8COHO6AVw7mIEzfR5IH85evlYy36IyXmfpP_g-1ZkFB/s400/scottpilgrim_smallposter.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504696723183162802" /><div>Then there's <i><b>Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</b></i>, which is certainly what I am most anticipating as a moderately cerebral young male. The blogosphere would have you believe that this movie is as big as <i>Harry Potter</i> because it's made up of, well, dudes exactly like me. However, in truth, I'm sure distributor Universal would be enthralled if the movie just came in third place.</div><div>Michael Cera isn't exactly a huge draw as the lead. His top two openings are <i>Superbad</i> ($33m), which came out before he was a household name, and <i>Year One</i> ($19m), which also starred big-draw Jack Black. The only two wide-release films in which he has been the main draw are <i>Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist</i> ($11.3m) and <i>Youth in Revolt</i> ($6.8m), but those both played to different audiences than the one <i>Scott Pilgrim</i> is targeting. Likewise, writer/director Edgar Wright's previous two features, <i>Shaun of the Dead</i> ($3.3m) and <i>Hot Fuzz </i>($5.8m), played to niche audiences in smaller release-platforms and are therefore not good comparisons. I suspect <i>Scott Pilgrim</i> will do moderately well with teens, 20-somethings, and comic-book devotees but hardly anyone else, which optimistically puts it in line for a <b>$15 million</b> opening.</div><div>There are hardly any limited releases of note this weekend. Disney is testing the waters with Hayao Miyazaki's son Goro's first feature, <i><b>Tales of Earthsea</b>, </i>in five sites. Sony Classics is putting out the Aussie drama <i><b>Animal Kingdom</b></i> in a similarly small release, with expansions to come. Don't count on either making more than $10,000 per site.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:</b></div><div>1. <i>The Expendables</i> ... $30m ($9,174 Per Theater Average)</div><div>2. <i>Eat Pray Love</i> ... $27.5m ($8,761 PTA)</div><div>3. <i>The Other Guys</i> ... $18.8m ($5,149 PTA) -47.1%</div><div>4. <i>Scott Pilgrim vs. the World</i> ... $15m ($5,323 PTA)</div><div>5. <i>Inception</i> ... $12.8m ($4,103 PTA) -30.8%</div><div>6.<i> Step Up 3-D</i> ... $7.2m ($2,952 PTA) -54.5%</div><div>7. <i>Despicable Me</i> $6.6m ($2,262 PTA) -28.9%</div><div>8. <i>Salt</i> ... $6.3m ($2,223 PTA) -42.2%</div><div>9. <i>Dinner for Schmucks</i> ... $4.9m ($1,609 PTA) -52.8%</div><div>10. <i>Toy Story 3</i> ... $2.6m ($2,133 PTA) -16.6%</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Have thoughts on this new feature? Like it, don't like it, want something added? Shoot me an e-mail at <a href="mailto:webmaster@bucketreviews.com">webmaster@bucketreviews.com</a>.</i></div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-44042498067417441452010-08-11T15:25:00.000-07:002010-09-26T12:03:51.673-07:00Review: The Other Guys (2010) - 2 Buckets<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDR8gR-nDACoSoIUYsdIMg4BkVV7hMTx5RAmLPmiscUNErRUYAVMkFB6fp3uJwP0eQt5qU_8TRcofSjYuIiQC9t35XPDxjOt6rQhbQWTUtmUGkVKJZZTDguwsUnD7-VUo4V_UCqFCr4RbF/s1600/TheOtherGuys.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 281px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDR8gR-nDACoSoIUYsdIMg4BkVV7hMTx5RAmLPmiscUNErRUYAVMkFB6fp3uJwP0eQt5qU_8TRcofSjYuIiQC9t35XPDxjOt6rQhbQWTUtmUGkVKJZZTDguwsUnD7-VUo4V_UCqFCr4RbF/s400/TheOtherGuys.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504282730675325058" /></a> <img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 123px; height: 50px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNcTrBQUgVi4-mP0AyLJaCFeLm6Qv02LxHovJdfOKPpZF5KDguoTueQftI5nm5v4o3hlhpx2jgSwCbVLtSnfC8yXiGcuCuhJMT_2yhBg_UpPIM1dih-ph9XwmshsUgqnb8oP-r6eraTS4a/s400/ratings2_blog.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504282582179949650" />Leave it to Hollywood to release two ‘80s cop movie send-ups—not exactly a burgeoning genre—within six months of each other. Thankfully, comedy team Adam McKay and Will Ferrell spare audiences another atrocity in faring better with the material than Kevin Smith, Bruce Willis, and Tracy Morgan did in their dreadful <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Cop Out</i>. Then again, that isn’t much of a compliment given how abysmal <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Cop Out</i> was. In fact, only by comparison to that dud does <i><b>The Other Guys</b></i> seem like a clever riot. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Let’s get the good out of the way first. One thing McKay and Chris Henchy admittedly get right is their use of genre references, which is far broader and more story-focused than that in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Cop Out</i>. Whereas Kevin Smith’s film just felt like a long string of nods to ‘80s clichés, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">The Other Guys</i> seems like its own modern movie. For instance, at the beginning of the film, McKay and Henchy have the hilarious team of Dwayne Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson play super-cops who are so full of themselves, they leap off a skyscraper in order to catch criminals at ground level, falling to their deaths. This isn’t a recognizable reference to any particular movie, but a wildly hyperbolic parody of an ‘80s cop movie prototype. This is much funnier than a more specific approach would have been. In fact, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">The Other Guys</i> leaves most of its pointed references for more obscure topics, like TLC songs. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The plot itself is built around a topical villain—Ponzi scheme artist David Ershon (Steve Coogan)—but remains within the realm of an homage thanks to protagonists Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell) and Terry Holz (Mark Wahlberg). They’re your typical low-level NYPD partners who never see any action. Allen has no aspirations beyond paperwork at the bureau and Terry’s accidental shooting of Derek Jeter during the World Series put the kibosh on his goal of becoming a distinguished officer.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Early on, Terry decides he wants to live large once again and begins suckering Allen into attempting real police work, albeit out of Allen’s ruby-red Prius. They aren’t very successful at first, but mistakenly strike gold when Allen goes after the mysteriously wealthy Ershon for scaffolding violations on his construction projects. The duo isn’t smart enough to piece together the their suspect’s fraudulent scheme right away, but somehow they slowly string evidence together. As they inch towards cracking the Ponzi scheme Ershon has cooked up—against orders to stay off the case, of course—one misadventure after another ensues.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are several laughs to be had, but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Other Guys</i> ends up unsatisfying. The main reason for this is the script gets progressively less funny, further descending into mindless action rather than comedy. The most entertaining segment of the film is its first ten minutes, which feature the aforementioned Johnson/Jackson antics, not leads Ferrell and Wahlberg. That’s never a good sign, as the viewer naturally becomes more impatient and in need of compelling material as a picture moves, making its absence even more bothersome. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Other Guys</i> only runs an hour and 47 minutes, but it feels longer because the comedy is poorly paced.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Another crushing blow to the funny-factor is that Ferrell’s ridiculous antics just aren’t as amusing as they once were. His delivery of a bit in which he explains to Wahlberg how a family of tuna could hunt a lion probably would have been hilarious five years ago, but now it just feels like Ferrell rehashing a previous performance. As a staunch defender of Ferrell over the years, I’ve previously never wanted to join detractors in commenting: “Yes, we get it – you’re obnoxious, dumb, and do not understand other people’s emotions, what’s the big deal?” But <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Other Guys</i> sadly had me ready to scream those words at the screen on a few occasions. Ironically, Ferrell proves the funniest here when he’s at his most understated. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Then there’s McKay’s weird inclusion of political commentary, which misses being interesting and just seems out-of-place. There are several strangely serious anti-corporate jabs throughout <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Other Guys</i>, capped off with an end-credit sequence full of statistics about bank bailouts, Ponzi schemes, and other related topics. I’m all for comedy being topical and resonant, but McKay just throws in these ideas haphazardly and the result is that the movie always seems to be hinting at something grander but that never confronts it. Viewers who read McKay’s regular politically-charged Tweets might cast their own projections on this aspect of the film, but looking at it objectively, it just seems like a vague distraction to the story.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Ultimately, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Other Guys</i> feels like it would have been better off as a series of shorts on McKay and Ferrell’s FunnyorDie.com so as to not wear out its welcome. While that may have led to budgetary constraints making Jackson and Johnson’s big gag at the beginning impossible, the rest of the truly funny material would’ve remained intact as it doesn’t stem from expensive action. Instead, it’s the little things, like Michael Keaton’s police chief, who makes constant humorous references to the fact he must work a second job at Bed Bath & Beyond to put his bisexual son through a frou-frou program at NYU. Unfortunately, these are exactly what disappear as the movie reaches its bullet-filled finale, succumbing to mediocrity. Sure, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Other Guys</i> is better than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Cop Out</i>, but with so many lame ‘80s cop flicks surely about to find new life on Blu-Ray, why do we need new ones at all?</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; ">* * *</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><em>The Other Guys</em> (2010, USA). Produced by Joshua Church, William M. Connor, Patrick Crowley, Jessica Elbaum, Will Ferrell, Chris Henchy, David B. Householter, Adam McKay, Rizelle Mendoza, Kevin J. Messick, and Jimmy Miller. Directed by Adam McKay. Written for the screen by Adam McKay and Chris Henchy. Starring Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg, Steve Coogan, Eva Mendes, Michael Keaton, Samuel L. Jackson, Dwayne Johnson, and Lindsay Sloane. Distributed by Columbia Pictures. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 107 minutes.</span></p> <!--EndFragment-->DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-68914936340417272042010-08-10T13:07:00.000-07:002010-09-26T12:03:56.847-07:00Review: The Kids Are All Right (2010) - 3 1/2 Buckets<div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD002l-oSZ_j7Cz0ZKuQuCOW_Jxi3ThlXdTCvmyeNMgD1yz0wz9vc3mani67Gfi5DwdSLzjZxmAwCfQvL-6FBs6R2v6sk9xoFb2SuzHmuEfYnEE6AsbOzhkKAj6f8o3Rqmbp8qOYcjZTw3/s1600/kids_are_alright_movie_image_annette_benning_julianne_moore_josh_hutercherson_mia_wasikowska_mark_ruffalo_01.jpg"><img style="text-align: left;display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 254px; " src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD002l-oSZ_j7Cz0ZKuQuCOW_Jxi3ThlXdTCvmyeNMgD1yz0wz9vc3mani67Gfi5DwdSLzjZxmAwCfQvL-6FBs6R2v6sk9xoFb2SuzHmuEfYnEE6AsbOzhkKAj6f8o3Rqmbp8qOYcjZTw3/s400/kids_are_alright_movie_image_annette_benning_julianne_moore_josh_hutercherson_mia_wasikowska_mark_ruffalo_01.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5503876084219365154" /></a></div><div><!--StartFragment--> <img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 123px; height: 50px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEe88_C2kyruTTIe4YQ0wSOFRfsV0XwmXRPAybGsTN0O50F7mpx9H9xM98iQHkOqNfSUeKZFS1mBmXDwGVPPopgSr_G5w6DSwjg1rNqHrpP-ADBP6ahJ9wS9QXKuuLwhNygHoUMgmAupvo/s400/ratings3_half_blog.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5503876580474347250" /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"></span>What we have here is that increasingly rare type of movie that trusts its actors to flesh out its characters properly. The script, penned by Stuart Blumberg and director Lisa Cholodenko, doesn’t see the need to spell out every one of these people’s motivations in dialogue because, after all, life isn’t like that. Thankfully, the cast is top-notch—established veterans Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, and Mark Ruffalo join promising newcomers Mia Wasikowska (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Alice in Wonderland</i>) and Josh Hutcherson (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Bridge to Terabithia</i>)—and the result is a film that tells us more about people than any other so far this year.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You wouldn’t think I’d be saying that about an agenda film, much less a progressive agenda film I’m keen to disagree with. The reason I’m extolling such praise is because <i><b>The Kids Are All Right</b></i>, quite simply, is not an agenda film despite its subject matter and its Hollywood funding. While I’m sure the movement to defeat Prop 8, fresh off its victory in a California court, would love to make the case that the years-long relationship between Moore’s Jules and Bening’s Nic makes a good case for gay marriage, they’re ignoring the point.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The movie itself simply exists and lets the viewer make his own decisions, to the point at which politics are a non-issue. Yes, it was made by progressives on a progressive topic, but it focuses on ideas that all viewers can relate to (family, relationships) and not more alienating ones. In a less authentic movie, a skeptic might even have reason to question the statement being made by characters driving a Prius. But here, it’s quite clear that hip and educated Los Angeles teens like Wasikowska’s Joni and Hutcherson’s Laser would naturally be sporting the popular hybrid. Just as organic, surprisingly, is Cholodenko’s graphic depiction (still clearly censored for the MPAA) of not only female, but male gay sex.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Now down to what matters, the nitty-gritty of this terrific story and its characters. Teenagers Joni and Laser have grown up under the roof of their loving, but very different moms. Nic is the disciplinarian – a control-freak who makes sure everything’s in order when she gets home from working long shifts as a doctor. Jules, on the other hand, mostly stays at home with the kids and floats from one flimsy small-business idea to the next; this time, it’s landscaping.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Matters complicate and pre-existing frictions are unleashed, however, when now 18-year-old Joni, at underage Laser’s request, seeks to meet their sperm-donor. (Jules and Nic each pooled from the same man’s genes to conceive the kids.) After a few phone calls, the teens—unbeknownst to their parents, who would flip if they found out—find themselves meeting Ruffalo’s lackadaisical, motorcycle riding Paul for an awkward, locally-grown meal. (He’s a gardener and aspiring restaurateur.) Next, after Laser spills the beans to Jules and Nic, the whole family meets Paul in just as awkward a fashion. Shortly thereafter, we realize Nic may be an alcoholic, Jules and Paul have started to have sex, and the kids are feeling smothered by these less-“all right” adults. Chaotic, yes, but doesn’t the American family endure?</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is not exactly a groundbreaking story by itself—we’ve seen heterosexual variants of it a million times before—but it becomes one thanks to the actors. While Cholodenko enriches the film with drama, the performances are complex enough that they’d remain just as believable if the movie were a verite-style mock-doc. Contrary to what progressives might suggest for political gain in the heat of an argument, lesbian relationships are certainly not “just like” straight ones. They, of course, come with their own distinct characteristics because of the unique sensibilities of women. This fact makes the work of Moore and Bening, two straight actresses, all the more remarkable in that they capture this foreign dynamic in performances that feel effortless and natural. Certainly, they had the—ermmm—first-hand knowledge of Cholodenko in their director, but the relationship the two capture is nonetheless remarkably fresh and authentic. This is important, because when their partnership is flung into crisis-mode due to Jules’ infidelity, the experience takes on a visceral power that it would not have achieved without a strong baseline.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Consider also the fact that simply showing what is—or, most pessimistically, once was—a stable lesbian relationship functions as something far more powerful and dare I say progressive than anything more inherently political would have. As one who is somewhat isolated in the California bubble of acceptance, I must remember that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Kids Are All Right</i> has come out at a time when a large population of Americans still don’t accept the gay lifestyle in general. While it’s safe to say the bulk of this population won’t be seeing it, Cholodenko’s film functions as a desirably progressive, even informative cultural text in this regard. Yes, Jules and Nic certainly aren’t an ideal example of relationship health—in fact, one of the kids even observes that their “perfect gay image” is tarnished in the third act—but it’s impossible to invalidate their accomplishments as a couple.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But I realize it’s a shame that properly reviewing this complex picture requires reducing it to the gay element. Just as integral to the movie’s success are Joni and Laser, excellently played by Wasikowska and Hutcherson, and their interactions with Paul. From the teens’ first strained attempts to figure out exactly what it is they’re searching for in their biological father to the ensuing heartbreak when he causes the family turmoil, Wasikowska and Hutcherson capture their characters so realistically it was almost uncomfortable for someone so close in age as myself to watch. And yet, Joni and Laser are clearly pliable, as any healthy member of their age-group is. Ruffalo plays no small part in the success of these two as characters; he refrains from ever succumbing to “lovable loser” status and plays all Paul’s flaws for what they are. Even if <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">The Kids Are All Right</i> doesn’t get everything right—though I might argue it does—one certainly cannot fault its pitch-perfect human element. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Raw and observant, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Kids Are All Right</i> stands as one of the few semi-big budget American indies (and certainly Sundance entries) that doesn’t rely on “quirky” situations or ridiculous character eccentricities to move the plot along. Instead, the audience is provided a journey in the company of rich characters experiencing life as it comes – all that a movie should be and more.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; ">* * *</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 60); line-height: 16px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><em>The Kids Are All Right</em> (2010, USA). Produced by Charles E. Bush Jr., Gary Gilbert, J. Todd Harris, Jordan Horowitz, Neil Katz, Todd J. Labarowski, Jeffrey Levy-Hinte, Riva Marker, Camille Moreau, Joel Newton, Anne O'Shea, Celine Rattray, Laura Rosenthal, Andy Sawyer, Steven Saxton, Christy Scott Cashman, Ron Stein, Bergen Swanson, and Daniela Taplin Lundberg. Directed by Lisa Cholodenko. Written for the screen by Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg. Starring Julianne Moore, Annette Bening, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson, and Mark Ruffalo. Distributed by Focus Features. Rated R, with a running time of 106 minutes.</span></p> <!--EndFragment--> </div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-57275304486375033002010-08-09T16:25:00.001-07:002010-09-26T12:04:01.342-07:00Review: Dinner for Schmucks (2010) - 2 Buckets<div><div><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 269px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5EFWVoCWaFoVQf7EP2J5g39ozo4bJrIAYUvA5CcNMbmW3c7yVvzpwKFCbp69kDGrTYgnoZS2BbF0BERB3JO3Nsd-QvMsigNP6R1xcf3PNQ50hoIqWXypD7xAzSptKX8Yi8O3Y_BJppMXA/s400/dinnerforschmucks.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5503557002230938194" /></div><div><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 123px; height: 50px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5CM7zHewGZNdC65MQZWbBuqBsBzHf8wIhzuCvq0ZehVLQZqhoxIxPEA-CcQqIf3PorWtERG1ZqYQXKVQrKVMJcc-EYsxgAiZJ3Nhj7E62x4Lj5XoAJgobAfZ-9s5Yh3L2a5DtcwGAApV8/s400/ratings2_blog.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5503559169196566866" /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"></span>In general, it’s a good thing when the viewer is surprised by a comedy, a sign that said comedy is doing its job. When a laugh arrives at a moment the viewer would least expect it, for instance, it may seem funnier than it actually is. The ensuing sense of uproar could be dismissed as artificial by cinema purists, but I find that it’s satisfying when the surprise is done right. <i><b>Dinner for Schmucks</b></i>, on the other hand, is a good example of how a comedy should not surprise the viewer.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The premise is rife with potential for nasty, mean comedy that goes straight for the jugular. Paul Rudd plays a deep-down good guy who, in order to climb the corporate ladder, must moonlight as a jerk by finding the “biggest idiot” he can to bring to a mockery-filled company dinner-party. His ability to score a promotion hinges on how much he can entertain his boss.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Going into the movie, I felt ready to indulge my dark side for two hours by playing along with the soulless execs at the party. What’s the harm in laughing at idiots when it’s all just make-believe, right? And with Rudd (who’s uncharacteristically good at capturing the fine line between likable bro and the despondent asshole) and Steve Carell (born to play men even more idiotic than Michael Scott) at the helm, how could <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Dinner for Schmucks</i> steer me wrong?</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But instead of running in the right direction and surprising with unique idiot-gags, director Jay Roach (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Meet the Parents</i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Austin Powers</i>) and writers David Guion and Michael Handelman surprise by going in the complete opposite direction and ruining a perfectly good idea. The result is a picture that seeks to be heartfelt (in a phony, Hollywood kind of way) by teaching Rudd’s Tim that it’s not OK to abuse uhh… less-smart guys like Carell’s rat-taxidermy connoisseur Larry for selfish purposes. Unfortunately, this means the movie is not only less funny than it would’ve been had it been meaner, but also that it feels like it wants to have things two ways. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Dinner for Schmucks</i> wants us to sympathize for simple ‘ol Larry, but also realizes his blunt stupidity is the only thing funny about the material so it ultimately exploits him just as much as Tim does.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yes, there are still several laughs. How could there not be with this cast, which, in addition to the mighty Rudd and Carell, features comedy-prodigy Zach Galifianakis and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Flight of the Conchords</i> deadpan-artiste Jermaine Clement? But they are, as any rational viewer would expect, mostly centered on how moronically Larry and his “extraordinary” counterparts behave at the title dinner. As a result, even when you’re laughing, you’re either wishing the movie had gone farther in this funny direction or dreading the lame morality-lesson that will undoubtedly follow.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Worse still is the ultimate feeling <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Dinner for Schmucks</i> leaves with the viewer: that it isn’t trying. Instead of doing something crafty with an interesting idea—actually taken from a 1998 French film that will be fun to rent for comparison—it settles for Hollywood clichés. Even with some enjoyable moments, there’s nothing here reflective of the outside-the-box comedy its cast and crew are capable of. Typically, I’d dismiss it as a good rental—not substantial enough to merit a theatrical viewing but inoffensive and sorta-OK—but this time I just can’t approve of such mediocrity. As alluring as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Dinner for Schmucks</i> might seem on paper, it proves just as lazy as any other Hollywood comedy.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; ">* * *</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><em>Dinner for Schmucks</em> (2010, USA). Produced by Gary Barber, Sacha Baron Cohen, Roger Birnbaum, Laurie McDonald, Walter F. Parkes, Jon Poll, Jay Roach, Amy Sayres, and Francis Veber. Directed by Jay Roach. Written for the screen by David Guion and Michael Handelman, based on the film "The Dinner Game" written by Francis Veber. Starring Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, Zach Galifianakis, Jermaine Clement, and Stephanie Szostak. Distributed by Paramount Pictures. Rated R, with a running time of 114 minutes.</p> <!--EndFragment--> </div></div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-76239634540521557622010-03-07T11:49:00.000-08:002010-03-09T13:33:13.070-08:002010 Oscar Picks & Predictions **UPDATED WITH WINNERS**<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi6ScnIYb2FTxbZ1hW3BY4UN95L_R6VVSvqiRSAC82iALld_xydYKD8aveaa8HpZtkrx_-n2njb3Ou3iUMN8B_bE72o8L0U2ucG2zfhMZYgGvxXp3ct2eMfmRRBg8ouQFX7cMKZlC0Zr47/s1600-h/oscars2010.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi6ScnIYb2FTxbZ1hW3BY4UN95L_R6VVSvqiRSAC82iALld_xydYKD8aveaa8HpZtkrx_-n2njb3Ou3iUMN8B_bE72o8L0U2ucG2zfhMZYgGvxXp3ct2eMfmRRBg8ouQFX7cMKZlC0Zr47/s400/oscars2010.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5446006733694880914" /></a><div style="text-align: left;">Hey folks. While Bucket Reviews is only partially up and running--I'm writing a few reviews a week and working hard on <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bucketcast/id316264331?uo=6" target="itunes_store">The BucketCast</a> with co-host Michael Lester--there's no way I could resist offering my picks and predictions for tonight's Oscars. Keep in mind that I didn't see a few notable nominees due to illness (<i>Invictus, </i><i>A Single Man</i><i>, </i><i>Nine</i><i>, </i><i>The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus</i>, <i>Coco Before Chanel</i>, and <i>The Last Station</i> all escaped my grasp). But I'd say I'm still pretty qualified to comment, and maybe I can help you in your Oscar pool. So without further adieu...</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"><b>My Final Predictions Tally: </b>14 out of 24 (<b>58%</b>). I've done worse before, but this was NOT a great showing for me! I should have stuck with the prognosticators and realized a <i>Hurt Locker</i> sweep. </span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Picture</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "Avatar", "The Blind Side", "District 9", "An Education", "The Hurt Locker", "Inglourious Basterds", "Precious", "A Serious Man", "Up", and "Up in the Air".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "Avatar". <i>The Hurt Locker</i> may be the "chosen" one, but I think it'll be tough for voters to rid their minds of the fact that <i>Avatar</i> is the biggest movie ever made, and it was pretty damn good, too.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "Inglourious Basterds". Tarantino made his best film to date and he deserves to take home the trophy. But, barring a miracle vote-split between <i>Avatar</i> and <i>The Hurt Locker</i> due to the new Academy tabulation rules, this WWII-set Western doesn't have a shot. Look for it to be honored in the Supporting Actor and Original Screenplay categories instead.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"><b>Winner:</b> "The Hurt Locker". I guess the "chosen one" was going to win after all!</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Director</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> James Cameron for "Avatar", Kathryn Bigelow for "The Hurt Locker", Quentin Tarantino for "Inglourious Basterds", Lee Daniels for "Precious", Jason Reitman for "Up in the Air".</div><div><b>My Prediction: </b>Kathryn Bigelow for "The Hurt Locker". There's no doubt that she'll be the first woman to take home the golden trophy, and deservedly so.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> James Cameron for "Avatar". Ironically, here's where <i>Avatar</i> really deserves the love. Cameron helmed a sprawling, massive opus with <i>so</i> much control and precision it's just astounding.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> Kathryn Bigelow for "The Hurt Locker"</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Actor</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> Jeff Bridges for "Crazy Heart", George Clooney for "Up in the Air", Colin Firth for "A Single Man", Morgan Freeman for "Invictus", and Jeremy Renner for "The Hurt Locker".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> Jeff Bridges for "Crazy Heart". A lock.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> Jeremy Renner for "The Hurt Locker". I love Bridges' work, but Renner edges him out, if only because it may be easier for me to recognize the grandness of the performance because it's so physical and hangs on the actor's sleeve.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> Jeff Bridges for "Crazy Heart".</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Actress</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> Sandra Bullock for "The Blind Side", Helen Mirren for "The Last Station", Carey Mulligan for "An Education", Gabourey Sidibe for "Precious", and Meryl Streep for "Julie & Julia".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> Sandra Bullock for "The Blind Side". It's pretty certain, but there could be a Streep or (in my dreams) Mulligan upset.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> Carey Mulligan for "An Education". By far and away the best performance and, I think it's the one that would win if Hollywood politics weren't so deeply involved in the voting process.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> Sandra Bullock for "The Blind Side". Is it just me, or was that speech taken from an early draft from Bullock's <i>Miss Congeniality</i>?</span></div><div><br /></div><div><div><i>Best Supporting Actor</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> Matt Damon for "Invictus", Woody Harrelson for "The Messenger", Christopher Plummer for "The Last Station, Stanley Tucci for "The Lovely Bones", Christoph Waltz for "Inglourious Basterds".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> Christoph Waltz for "Inglourious Basterds". Another lock.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> Christoph Waltz for "Inglourious Basterds". He gave what may end up the singular most iconic performance of 2009.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> Christoph Waltz for "Inglourious Basterds". How disappointing was it that his speech didn't live up to those that he delivered at previous awards shows?</span></div></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Supporting Actress</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> Penélope Cruz for "Nine", Vera Farmiga for "Up in the Air", Maggie Gyllenhaal for "Crazy Heart", Anna Kendrick for "Up in the Air", and Mo'Nique for "Precious".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> Mo'Nique for "Precious". Locks, locks, and more locks.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> Maggie Gyllenhaal for "Crazy Heart". Frankly, at this point, I'm ABM (Anybody But Mo'Nique). Yeah, she was brilliant in <i>Precious</i>, but listening to the woman deliver yet another heavy-handed acceptance speech is a miserable (if inevitable) sounding prospect. An unexpected Gyllenhaal or Anna Kendrick upset would be so blissful I might spontaneously combust if it were to happen.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> Mo'Nique for "Precious".</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Original Screenplay</i></div><div><b>The Nominees: </b>"The Hurt Locker", "Inglourious Basterds", "The Messenger", "A Serious Man", and "Up".</div><div><b>My Prediction: </b>"Inglourious Basterds". I have enough love for Tarantino dialogue that I'm not even considering the potential <i>Hurt Locker</i> spoiler people have been talking about.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "Inglourious Basterds". But, I must say, it's a solid category all-around, my quibbles with "Up" aside.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "The Hurt Locker". Blah!</span></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><i>Best Adapted Screenplay</i></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "District 9", "An Education", "In the Loop", "Precious", and "Up in the Air"</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "Up in the Air". Yet another lock!</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "Up in the Air". Yeah, Jason Reitman may be a bit of a hot-head, but he's got the goods to back it up. This was one terrifically written movie. We'll have to see if he and co-writer Sheldon Turner get along or continue a rumored feud when they accept their statues.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "Precious". What a surprise! I'm not complaining -- Fletcher's speech was heartfelt. But one wonders if the bad press about Reitman was responsible for <i>Up in the Air</i>'s loss here.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Film Editing</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "Avatar", "District 9", "The Hurt Locker", "Inglourious Basterds", and "Precious".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "Avatar". Isn't it funny that the longest movie always tends to win?</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "Inglourious Basterds". Along with <i>Precious</i>, it's the only one of the nominees I didn't have certain problems with in the editing category (i.e. the way-too-long final battle in <i>Avatar</i> and the off-the-rails third-act in <i>The Hurt Locker</i>).</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "The Hurt Locker".</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Animated Feature</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "Coraline", "Fantastic Mr. Fox", "The Princess and the Frog", "The Secret of Kells", and "Up".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "Up". Are there enough locks already? Pixar triumphs every Oscars they're in...</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "Coraline". It's the only one of the nominees I'm a HUGE fan of. Why didn't <i>Ponyo</i> or <i>Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs </i>make the cut?</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "Up".</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Art Direction</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "Avatar", "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus", "Nine", "Sherlock Holmes", "The Young Victoria".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "Avatar".</div><div><b>My Pick: </b>"Avatar".</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "Avatar".</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Cinematography</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "Avatar", "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince", "The Hurt Locker", "Inglourious Basterds", and "The White Ribbon".</div><div><b>My Prediction: </b>"Avatar".</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "Inglourious Basterds". <i>Avatar</i> may be the most technical of the bunch, but I'll stand by Tarantino's precise opus as the best lensed.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "Avatar".</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Documentary Feature</i></div><div><b>The Nominees: </b>"Burma VJ", "The Cove", "Food, Inc.", "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsburg and the Pentagon Papers", and "Which Way Home".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "The Cove". What was I saying about locks again?</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "Burma VJ". It's absolutely heartstopping doc that you should make an effort to see when it's out on DVD!</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "The Cove". I felt so bad that director Louis Psihoyos, who's so passionate about the film and the cause, was cut off before he even got to speak! They should've brought the guy back up because, frankly, docs matter too.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Documentary Short</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of the Sichuan Province", "The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner", "The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant", Music by Prudence", and "Rabit a la Berlin".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant". Your guess is as good as mine, however -- I'm just going by the titles on this one.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> n/a -- Why don't they make these available on VOD like the Animated and Live Action Shorts?</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "Music by Prudence".</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Animated Short</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "French Roast", "Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty", "The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)", "Logorama", and "A Matter of Loaf and Death".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "A Matter of Loaf and Death". Just by virtue of the fact that Wallace and Gromit are an established name in animation and this is a pretty fun outing for the duo... but in my dreams there'll be an upset by...</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)". It's visually astounding in every shot, energetic and surprising at every turn, blissfully funny--just perfect. Hope it wins!</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "Logorama". The worst of the bunch. The lesson: if your film contains a bunch of anti-corporate messages, you can win an Oscar too!</span></div><div><object width="450" height="276"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HmOrWzblBPs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HmOrWzblBPs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="450" height="276"></embed></object><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Live Action Short</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "The Door", "Instead of Abracadabra", "Kavi", "Miracle Fish", and "The New Tenants".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "The Door". I haven't gotten around to watching these yet--we'll cover them on next week's <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bucketcast/id316264331?uo=6" target="itunes_store">BucketCast</a> once I have--but film-friends tell me this is the best of the bunch and will win.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> n/a -- Again, stay tuned for next week's <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bucketcast/id316264331?uo=6" target="itunes_store">BucketCast</a> to find out.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "The New Tenants". Look forward to seeing this one!</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Costume Design</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "Bright Star", "Coco Before Chanel", "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus", "Nine", and "The Young Victoria".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "The Young Victoria". When in doubt, go with the most lavish, British costumes!</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "Bright Star". It's not as showy as the other nominees, but the costumes here really allowed director Jane Campion to present us the most naturalistic vision of this time period the screen has ever seen.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "The Young Victoria". A speech with some food for thought -- how about that!</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">Best Makeup</span></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "Il Divo", "Star Trek", and "The Young Victoria".</div><div><b>My Prediction: </b>"Star Trek", just 'cuz it's more elaborate than the other two.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "Star Trek".</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "Star Trek".</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Foreign Language Film</i></div><div><b>The Nominees: </b>"Ajami", "El Secreto en Sus Ojos", "The Milk of Sorrow", "Un Prophete", and "The White Ribbon".</div><div><b>My Prediction: </b>"Un Prophete". While common wisdom would tell you that "The White Ribbon" will win, I think the momentum has been moving in the direction of this just-released French film.</div><div><b>My Pick</b>:<b> </b>n/a -- You know it was a down Oscar season for me when I didn't see a single one of the always-excellent Foreign Film nominees. But so it goes, I'll catch up with them soon enough.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "El Secreto en Sus Ojos". Oh, how the rules of the award--that voters have to see all five nominees--can result in surprise victories!</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Original Score</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "Avatar", "Fantastic Mr. Fox", "The Hurt Locker", "Sherlock Holmes", and "Up".</div><div><b>My Prediction: </b>"Up". Because the brilliant Michael Giacchino deserves to receive his due.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "The Fantastic Mr. Fox". While I love Giacchino's work and won't be unhappy at all to see him finally win, it was Alexendre Desplat's wonderful, zany score for the Wes Anderson animated film that I loved the most.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "Up".</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Original Song</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "Almost There" from<i> </i>"The Princess and the Frog", "Down in New Orleans" from "The Princess and the Frog", "Loin de Paname" from "Paris 36", "Take it All" from "Nine", and "The Weary Kind" from "Crazy Heart".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "The Weary Kind" from "Crazy Heart". Another sure thing.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "The Weary Kind" from "Crazy Heart". It is indeed the best.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "The Weary Kind" from "Crazy Heart".</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Sound Editing</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "Avatar", "The Hurt Locker", "Inglourious Basterds", "Star Trek", "Up".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "Avatar". It seems like it'll sweep the technicals, but I wouldn't be surprised if <i>The Hurt Locker</i> or even <i>Star Trek</i> won.</div><div><b>My Pick:</b> "Avatar".</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "The Hurt Locker". I think you can join me in giving this a colossal "WTF!?"</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Sound Mixing</i></div><div><b>The Nominees:</b> "Avatar", "The Hurt Locker", "Inglourious Basterds", "Star Trek", "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "Avatar". See the above category.</div><div><b>My Pick: </b>"Star Trek". The blue guys can't win <i>everything</i>, can they? This is the best sound I heard all year, and it's brilliantly preserved on the Blu-Ray's Dolby 5.1 soundtrack.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "The Hurt Locker". Again, no offense to the movie, but WTF!?</span></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Best Visual Effects</i></div><div><b>The Nominees: </b>"Avatar", "District 9", and "Star Trek".</div><div><b>My Prediction:</b> "Avatar". I'd suspect ballot-fraud for the whole show if one of the other two won.</div><div><b>My Pick: </b>"Avatar". Because, you know, it was kind of the best.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "Avatar".</span></div><div><br /></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>The Film to Take Home the Most Oscars:<i> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;">"Avatar"</span></span></i></b>, with 7. Which is really an achievement given it wasn't nominated in many categories that it perhaps should have been. Look for it to sweep the technicals. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); "><b>Winner:</b> "The Hurt Locker" with 6. Wild that Cameron's technical behemoth only took home 3!</span></div><div><br /></div><div>And that's that, folks. Join me in watching the Oscars live tonight at 5 PM PST / 8 PM EST, only on ABC.</div></span></b></div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-82030164504295919252009-07-10T23:49:00.000-07:002009-07-11T00:01:14.689-07:00BucketCast: Episode 24<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSI1aksNSiewOf6isxJPQo565uozuQRIXImga9ze3XJX2B_REdFPaWS16z3axkSGGNihfj1HaueH0Emn5mFb3Jc9CMYLXjsDXfahD3PGybIC50dEhmacOYwyPKpvhmvQWFmF0rXLVtL0Wh/s1600-h/BucketCast24.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSI1aksNSiewOf6isxJPQo565uozuQRIXImga9ze3XJX2B_REdFPaWS16z3axkSGGNihfj1HaueH0Emn5mFb3Jc9CMYLXjsDXfahD3PGybIC50dEhmacOYwyPKpvhmvQWFmF0rXLVtL0Wh/s400/BucketCast24.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357091312714612242" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:85%;">From left-to-right: Reid, Michael, Danny, and Eric.</span></span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><a href="http://www.bucketreviews.com/bucketcast/bucketcast24.mp3">Today's BucketCast</a> is just a barrel 'o goodies. It's a Subman powwow with Friday regular Reid Ackerman (<a href="http://www.twitter.com/ocdavenger">Twitter</a>), plus Michael "Retrospectives Guy" Lester and BucketCast virgin Eric Bruck (<a href="http://www.bucketreviews.com/wolfgang3312">Twitter</a>).<br /><br />First, we talk <span style="font-style: italic;">Bruno</span> (my full review to come tomorrow), which we all caught at the local Midnight show. Then, the discussion opens to the other new releases <span style="font-style: italic;">I Love You Beth Cooper</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hurt Locker</span> (expanding to 50 cities).<br /><br />Finally, we scheme our ComicCon schedules up for Thursday and Friday. After all, the schedules are out now at the <a href="http://www.comic-con.org/">official website</a>!<br /><br />So what are you waiting for? <a href="http://www.bucketreviews.com/bucketcast/bucketcast24.mp3">Listen</a>!<br /><br />And S&R if you haven't already. You know the drill.<br /></div></div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-8601818584316463692009-07-10T14:26:00.000-07:002009-07-10T14:33:22.621-07:00BucketCast: Episode 23<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIxY8Y6oErK42CDPPV3aD8hmlHImLsWjemINjyg-Jx7vrYCONEndpC1SRWzokx7lVBHWwjlJ6LCUXomJ0QHEoKM1tHtjt-9zJWShxh-b8CS4Cf_K27zLNuQnjTQABK1zu9qEPChBNO-Dxl/s1600-h/bucketcastlogo.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 390px; height: 79px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIxY8Y6oErK42CDPPV3aD8hmlHImLsWjemINjyg-Jx7vrYCONEndpC1SRWzokx7lVBHWwjlJ6LCUXomJ0QHEoKM1tHtjt-9zJWShxh-b8CS4Cf_K27zLNuQnjTQABK1zu9qEPChBNO-Dxl/s400/bucketcastlogo.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5356947644912185842" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiPyDmQp9nba-UbveeoJKImrsUAmgd8Z29x8LXUjf3jxXsKhyphenhypheneeVg_o5OjQAhE4kSFd6l5XeISPvY2IbRUqbRJ2mOGdt1SruiPYimDn-5Qrvym2NdoQIbe9rNdWnXbd84ntA7u6RgvGT-O/s1600-h/mergingretro4.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiPyDmQp9nba-UbveeoJKImrsUAmgd8Z29x8LXUjf3jxXsKhyphenhypheneeVg_o5OjQAhE4kSFd6l5XeISPvY2IbRUqbRJ2mOGdt1SruiPYimDn-5Qrvym2NdoQIbe9rNdWnXbd84ntA7u6RgvGT-O/s400/mergingretro4.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5356947742205414434" border="0" /></a>On <a href="http://www.bucketreviews.com/bucketcast/bucketcast23.mp3">today's Podcast</a> (well... yesterday's... the <span style="font-style: italic;">Bruno</span> midnight festivities got in the way of a punctual post), Michael and I once again do retrospectives, this time for Tod Browning's <span style="font-style: italic;">Dracula</span> (1931) and Jonathan Demme's <span style="font-style: italic;">Stop Making Sense</span> (1984). It's a good episode -- be sure to listen.<br /><br />Also, as you may have noticed, the BucketCast just spent another week without daily episodes. This is because I'm thinking about re-working it--and the whole Bucket Reviews site in general--and have been devoting the time to exploring my options. If you would like to see more/less of something on the BucketCast, or something new altogether, please don't hesitate to e-mail me at <a href="mailto:webmaster@bucketreviews.com">webmaster@bucketreviews.com</a> or contact me at Twitter handle "<a href="http://www.twitter.com/bucketreviews">bucketreviews</a>".<br /><br />Your support is appreciated, and the sliver of the BucketCast audience I am able to track is really more than I could have hoped for. Now S & R if you haven't, why don't you!DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123406504329728753.post-9441046767635720812009-07-04T14:05:00.001-07:002009-07-05T00:01:26.794-07:00BucketCast: Episode 22<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK8yJ3qQ6yyg-5wuvWpLKCX09gy48K8s2zMyFFX3r6y5CkFvVMP2QXMKZXGzlKpuIFeM1NWn6LT1sH0rj_mbJusi8ow5fpFrQ0Prm6JhaMpci1RA9hQtzHHzK5ugCS6Ta30RzVNIT1ERkC/s1600-h/bucketcastlogoretro.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 173px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK8yJ3qQ6yyg-5wuvWpLKCX09gy48K8s2zMyFFX3r6y5CkFvVMP2QXMKZXGzlKpuIFeM1NWn6LT1sH0rj_mbJusi8ow5fpFrQ0Prm6JhaMpci1RA9hQtzHHzK5ugCS6Ta30RzVNIT1ERkC/s400/bucketcastlogoretro.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5354867621895009602" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZcj8htI-bM_JH7KRc7dZSOX_YNYfY_SP18VIJp3RuKpO97AGFt3nPlyqPIrWBpQjzt1HCC2SiYtOPFbe_V3GZgLtJik4ztBQJdIjOLduERkU_v9M3aTm0TOgMFNrjYS6U-q7YOfTdEjkH/s1600-h/mergingretro3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 213px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZcj8htI-bM_JH7KRc7dZSOX_YNYfY_SP18VIJp3RuKpO97AGFt3nPlyqPIrWBpQjzt1HCC2SiYtOPFbe_V3GZgLtJik4ztBQJdIjOLduERkU_v9M3aTm0TOgMFNrjYS6U-q7YOfTdEjkH/s400/mergingretro3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5354859242560125138" border="0" /></a>On <a href="http://www.bucketreviews.com/bucketcast/bucketcast22.mp3">a special Saturday edition</a> of the weekly BucketCast retrospectives show, Danny and Michael discuss picks <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Anatomy of a Murder</span> (1959) and <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Do the Right Thing</span> (1989), both of which had significant anniversaries this week.<br /><br /><div><div>Apologies for the notch-below-average audio quality; a new mic stand is on order to rectify the situation.</div><div>S & R, please.</div></div>DANNY BALDWINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01805551248348287118noreply@blogger.com