First, because I’m a both a Beatles fan and a sucker for even the corniest of musical biopics, we have “Nowhere Boy” starring Aaron Johnson as the teenage John Lennon, minus the scuba suit and sporting an accent from his home country. Oh, and if you think 19 year-old Johnson looks young, check out the kid playing a certain future vegetarian musical elder-statesmen (Thomas Sangster of “Love Actually,” it turns out). Turns out, he’s 19 also. It certainly beats the traditional Hollywood practice of having 28-35 year-olds playing teens. (H/t /Film.)
I’m sure many of you have long since seen the new trailer for Christopher Nolan’s all-star Phillip K. Dick-esque opus, “Inception,” which came out late last week. Just in case you’re like me and have managed to miss it up to now, here it is. I think I get why this one is shaping up as the next really big summer movie.
Well, maybe just a little, seems to be the collective answer for this coming movie weekend. Both Daniel Frankel of the Wrap and THR‘s ever jolly Carl DiOrio seem to agree that those mysterious tracking figures point to a strong, if not really earth-shattering, performance for this “secret origin” tale of the quasi-mythological hero, “Robin Hood.”
The film reteams director Ridley Scott for the fifth time with today’s ultimate A-list macho man, Russell Crowe, but the reception will not be that of a “Gladiator.” The problem, I think, is that there’s another general consensus developing about the film amidst the very mixed reviews: it’s just not a whole lot of fun.
Our own Will Harris, in his 2.5 out of 5 star review, admits the film looks terrific but also that it feels completely unnecessary. Roger Ebert is even more pointed. After opening up his review about the slow death of innocence and joy in movies — something we’ll all forget about the next time Pixar releases something — and remembering great Robins of yore, he moves in for the rhetorical kill:
Have we grown weary of the delightful aspects of the Robin Hood legend? Is witty dialogue no longer permitted? Are Robin and Marion no longer allowed to engage in a spirited flirtation? Must their relationship seem like high-level sexual negotiations? How many people need to be covered in boiling oil for Robin Hood’s story to be told these days? How many parents will be misled by the film’s PG-13 rating? Must children go directly from animated dragons to skewering and decapitation, with no interval of cheerful storytelling?
Okay, so I think Roger is still a bit grumpy that he’s one of the few critics and filmgoers who wasn’t thoroughly charmed by “How to Train Your Dragon,” but his point is well taken. It really does seem at times like the movies have largely ceded real wit and fun to television, and his view of this “Robin Hood” really does mirror the reaction I’m hearing pretty much everywhere. Of course, it’s not like people listen to critics, but critics are, I once again remind you, people. The lack of emotional resonance could hamper the film’s chances of making a large profit over time, especially given its engorged $200 million budget. Universal is a studio badly in need of a home run. This may not be it.
In any case, at a projected $40-50 million or so, “Robin Hood” stands not much chance of beating “Iron Man 2” in it second weekend. For all the sense of mild-letdown the Marvel-Paramount superhero flick generated from the first film, it’s reviews and word-of-mouth are pretty darn solid. Even with a rather large possible 60 percent drop in attendance, given last weeks $128 million and change (a relatively steep decline from last weekend‘s estimate of $133.6 million), Tony Stark’s take is expected to be well north of brave and oh-so-gritty Sir Robin.
We two have two cannily counter-programmed PG-rated films aimed at girls and women coming out. “Letters to Juliet” features the very-much up-and-coming Amanda Seyfried, living legend Vanessa Redgrave, and some guys. Its reviews are south of “Robin Hood” — but not as much as you’d think, especially considering that there seems to be some confusion about whether or not it’s a comedy. The Box Office Mojo theater count informs us that it’s booked into 2,968 theaters and should earn between somewhere between about $14 and $18 million or so, based on what Frankel and DiOrio have guessed. This one has “female guilty pleasure” written on it to some degree, so it could do reasonably well for Summit Entertainment, given that it benefits from a reasonable $30 million budget. (Though even that figure sounds high to me for this kind of a movie.)
“Just Wright” from Fox Searchlight might feature a sports backdrop and a somewhat more unconventional female romantic lead in the extremely talented Queen Latifah, working opposite rapper/actor Common and another living legend, Pam Grier. At heart, however, the film strikes in very similar territory in terms of genre, if not in terms of ethnicity and setting, to “Letters to Juliet” right down to it’s mother-daughter-day friendly PG rating. It’s also only in 1,831 theaters as compared to over 3,500 for “Robin Hood” and nearly 4,400 for “Iron Man 2.” It’s expected to earn something approaching $10 million.
The list of Phillip K. Dick adaptations gets one movie longer. This one has a more romantic than usual feeling to it, and also has a stronger-than-usual cast, including Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, the great Terrence Stamp (kneel before him), and John Slattery (“Mad Men” and Tony Stark’s deceased dad in “Iron Man 2“) who is suddenly everywhere these days.
With the super-hum0ngous Cannes Film Festival opening today — with Tim Burton heading the festival jury, btw –the movie news is in a kind of hyper-drive. Also, it’s been a few days since I’ve done one of these newsy posts. So, you’ll have to excuse me as I merely skim the surface.
* Is it that no one’s writing books or plays anymore, or do we really need to keep making movies based on games? Tim Burton, it so happens, is the next to contemplate the matter. Will “MONSTERPOCALYPSE” be the first game-based film to screen at Cannes, or will that be “Checkers: the Movie”?
* Here your fix of Cannes-related glitz, and also details on the rather big film-making names. Meanwhile THR takes a moderately bullish look at the market-side of the event.
Tonight’s episode of “24” felt like a blast from the past. It was pretty lean in terms of storytelling, it contained a hellacious, if predictable, end-around, and ended with one of the most vicious torture scenes in the show’s history. Pity it had one major, major flaw.
I liked that Dominic was so busy trying to nail down Bauer down that he took no notice of Chloe and Merv the Perv conspiring behind his back. Even when he noticed Chloe giving him The Look (you know the one), he just tinted the windows and kept on scheming. Fool. Nobody puts Chloe in a corner. Still, you’d think Dominic would show a little more diplomacy when safeguarding high crimes committed by the White House. By yanking that file away from Arlo, he may as well have stamped “CORRUPT” on his forehead.
As Jack is setting up the meet with White She Devil, I’m thinking to myself, “There has to be a better way to do this.” Not in terms of getting her the evidence (more on that in a bit), but in terms of meeting out in the open like that. So as it’s going down and he shows up, I knew he’d have a plan, and sure enough, he did. He didn’t care about getting caught on camera – he knew the hit man who took out Crazy Jackie would be there, and could then settle two scores for the price of one. Get the intel, and make the motherfucker responsible for Jackie’s death squeal like a stuck pig before ultimately killing him. Re-enter Mr. Blonde, to get the drop on Dmitri Sharpshooter.
But I have another idea.
“Let’s see, stab him, then the lighter fluid, then the blowtorch, then the pliers. No, pliers first. The crowd loves it when I open with that.”
That’s great that he was able to abduct – and torture the bejeezus out of – Renee’s killer, but if he just wanted to make sure She Devil got the video, why didn’t he just go viral with it? Post that puppy to YouTube, text her the link, have her record her own version in the event CTU discovers it, and send it to every TV station in New York City. She Devil said it herself, Starbuck’s tape alone was more than enough evidence to blow the lid off. He didn’t need to risk her life over it, which actually goes to Dominic’s point that Jack has indeed lost it, and is acting not out of duty but out of grief and hell-bent on revenge. I believe Jack has it mostly together; he did check himself after unloading about 20 hay makers on the helpless hit man. But let’s not kid ourselves, people: Jack Bauer is the Crow, and he will not stop until everyone responsible for Renee’s death is dealt with. And by dealt with, I mean gutted like a deer, but not before having a little blowtorch work done. And taking the cell phone memory card out of hit man’s stomach, staring him in the eyes the entire time…wow.
The bottom line is that Jack should go viral with the footage anyway, because once it’s out on the web, the government will not be able to control the message any longer. It’s an instant checkmate, and Jack, of all people, should know this. But hey, the “24” writers, for as advanced as their tech is, are slow on the draw with certain things. They actually used texting to their advantage this week, after passing on a golden opportunity to use it in an earlier episode. Before you know it, they’ll be Facebooking, tweeting, and then, when no one’s looking, sexting. Shhhhh!
I still have one question: has I.M. Weasel revealed how he suspected the Russians were involved in the day’s events? I remember him offering his services to Allison, and then blackmailing Mikhail into submission, but never really being forthright – not his strong suit, sure – with either of them. He must have known something, but what? If he heard chatter, then who was chattering? I hear chatter about lots of things, but I don’t offer my services to the President unless I’m 100% sure of my intel, especially if I’m a disgraced former President looking for redemption.
Time for tonight’s song, courtesy of a mid-’80s AAA-hungry Brian Setzer. This is the first time I’ve heard this song since its release, and all I could think of was Marshall Crenshaw. I’m frankly surprised Crenshaw didn’t write this, because it sounds just like him.
