Category: News (Page 248 of 401)

Multiplex Mayhem: Pacifist Zionist Commando vs. Fightin’ Slacker Panda

Your comedy dollar is going to be hard fought for this weekend, with two cannily commercial entries making their debut, both of which seem destined for a success. But, how much, and which one will emerge on top? Or, could the R-rated counter-programming smash, “Sex and the City,” continue its sensuous reign? Most likely not, but even the mighty Variety feared to make a call between the two action-packed comedies. I’m nevertheless going out on a limb this week, but a pretty strong one….

* “Kung Fu Panda” is set to bring in about $40 million, says Holllywood Reporter resident oracle Carl DiOrio. Could be, could be more, says me. If there is any one set rule in the wacky world of showbiz where no one knows nothin’, it’s that movies appropriate for smallish children that adults get at least a small amount of entertainment always do well and, if they’re entertaining enough, they can be enormous. That’s the formula that’s driven the revolution in digitally animated films that owe a great deal to the anarchy and sophistication of classic era Warner Brothers cartoons.

This newest DreamWorks production seems like a strong enough contender; with a fresh concept and very big names in the voice cast (Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman), there’s no reason this one can’t exceed expectations in a big way. In any case, positive, though not rapturous, reviews indicate that the film has some fairly strong adult appeal, which should help guarantee some longevity for this release.

Also, this is a movie that benefits from what you might call the “40-Year-Old Virgin” rule — movies whose title alone sufficiently explains an appealing premise tend to do well. I mean, what part of “Kung Fu Panda” does anyone over age four not understand? So, the only question is — how much do family audiences like pandas and martial arts? I’d say they like them both plenty. In terms of what’s visible to prospective filmgoers, the only thing “Panda” lacks is the character design genius of Pixar — but there’s only one Pixar.

* Still, I wouldn’t dare mess with “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan,” the latest from Adam Sandler. This is an interesting one, in that I, someone who has never found Adam Sandler even slightly funny (exceptions: the “Hannukah Song” and, for some reason, Opera Man), actually find the premise here — an Israeli super-commando tries to turn his metaphorical sword into scissors and gel as a hair stylist — quite amusing. It might be the participation of two undoubted, though also uneven, geniuses of the funny — Judd “I Rule the Comedy Box-Office” Apatow and SNL writer and Conan O’Brian cohort Robert Smigel, creator of Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog, the Ambiguously Gay Duo (voiced by Stephen Colbert and Steve Carrell), and, even better, the Superheroic Ex-Presidents.

As a stereotypically overly self-conscious liberal American Jew, I find making fun of ultra-confident killer Israelis incredibly amusing if done correctly, and I admit to getting a kick out of just reading the reviews, even if most of them are not all that impressed. However, though you’d never know it on any given night at Canter’s Deli or any Chinese restaurant in Manhattan, my tribe is less than 2% of the population. The Sandler name is going to be main selling point here. I guess the main question here is whether we’re finally ready for comedies touching on issues like terrorism and the Middle East. Should do at least a whole lot better than the disastrous but actually very likable “American Dreamz.”

(Reading tip: those of sharing my obsessions with Israeli stereotypes will want to read this incredibly long and interesting Smigel interview with Nathan Rabin of the Onion AV Club interview. You can also see an old SNL favorite of mine via embed at the AV club — it’s “Sabra Price is Right” in which Smigel first mined the Zohan vein of comedy, with the help of Tom Hanks in absolute top form.)

Meanwhile in Indiewood…. A rather large number of interesting films are opening in limited release, but I’ll give you two this week. First, off, along with “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan”, we have another film with a complete sentence for a title. “When Did You Last See Your Father?” is, of course, in every other way, a very different kettle of fish — a kitchen sink style literary adaptation from the UK debuting on eight screens and starring two of Britain’s best, Colin Firth and Jim Broadbent. Considering all the thud and blunder and silliness in theaters, this could be a stronger than expected bit of counterprograming that might grab middle-aged and older filmgoers with the eternal issue of father/son relationships, or not. Frankly, this is the kind of film which usually needs to grab a few Oscar nominations to make much of an impression, but it’s coming out a bit early for that, though it didn’t hurt last years mini-sleeper, the lovely and sad Canadian flick “Away from Her,” directed by Sarah Polley.

Also benefiting from a bit of critical hoopla is “Mongol,” a violent epic and the first film in a projected trilogy about the life of a certain very famous Mongol leader. (A.O. Scott has already dubbed it “Ghenghis Khan: The Early Years”). This best foreign language picture nominee is from a Russian director, has a Japanese star, and is shot in Mongolian. Can this one break through the subtitle barrier like a Mel Gibson ultraviolence orgy or “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”? Maybe or maybe not, but it looks like it’s worth a look.

And now I suddenly have a craving for Mongolian barbecue. Damn.

Multiplex Mayhem: The Pre-Coital Edition

With the passing of Sydney Pollack and Harvey Korman, it’s been a sad few days in movie land, but the weekend comes whether we live or die….

*This time, expect an unusually severe case of gender apartheid as the biggest new release to compete with all the action fare on tap is the much ballyhoed festival of contemporary femininity, “Sex and the City” — the further adventures of a bunch of characters I don’t know much of anything about, apparently because I’m an ungay guy and, yes, we critics and movie writers are now expected to divulge our our sexual orientations before discussing certain movies. (I’m actually sort of renowned in some circles for liking a great many things that some would consider girly, particularly musicals…but whatever entertainment-preference testosterone I have in my system seemed to go into overdrive the minute I caught even one second of this particular series, forcing me to change channels — and, yes, I like “Entourage” a great deal. I guess biology really is destiny when it comes to HBO comedies.)

In any event, the reviews are mixed, including that of our own Jason Zingale, who was man enough to admit to respecting the television series and critic enough to say the movie had some story problems. And both Jason and Roger Ebert, who was man enough to admit that this movie was not made for him, were charmed by “Sex” newcomer Jennifer Hudson, who really does seem to be one the positive by-product that I’ve noticed so far from this whole “American Idol” business. Female critics seem to skew a bit more positive, but as the WaPo’s Ann Hornaday honestly opines:

…the question isn’t whether it’s good. The question is whether it delivers the goods — the goods being shoes, romance, ribald humor, shoes, sex, shoes, pithy observations about single life in New York and more shoes.

And the general consensus is that the raunchy rom-com+ will provide roughly $30 million worth of goods from the domestic box office from those rarest of creatures at the American multiplex — post-college-age women. At least that’s what the usual experts say, noting that it’s already done well abroad.

Overall, “Sex” should put in a very respectable second place after the “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” juggernaut, which is expected to pull in a solid $50 million. I see no reason to disagree.

There’s another movie that perhaps skews to a younger female demographic, and that is “The Strangers,” a chiller about a couple being menaced at home starring beautiful Liv Tyler and himboish Scott Speedman. This one seems to deliver a certain amount of chills, even if many critics turn up their noses, while others, like Bullz-Eye’s Dave Medsker, see both good and bad. Regardless, it’s nice to hear this one isn’t another (physical) torture fest. Considering the scary commercials and the sex appeal to their respective audiences of the two stars, I’d expect this relatively low budget film to have much better prospects for a decent and long life than its characters might. Still, it will likely be bested by the waning, but still mass audience friendly, powers of “Prince Caspian.”



Meanwhile in Indiewood
….There are a number of new films coming out in limited release this week, but it’s late, I’ve been fighting some kind of mini-micro-bug all week, and some lovely baked chicken is waiting for me downstairs. I will, however, mention two that should be interest to our audience.

First, there is the amazingly well reviewed (100% Fresh, RT-meter) documentary, “Bigger, Faster, Stronger*” about the widespread use of performance enhancing drugs in athletics. Considering the doc’s newsworthy subject matter and the fact that it’s about sports, and not politics or war, it sounds to me to have the makings of yet another break-out nonfiction hit.

Also getting mostly good reviews (though some are simply a bit appalled) is “Stuck” in which more than two decades after his gruesome horror-comedy, “Re-Animator,” director Stuart Gordon goes to a horrendous real life incident for some extra-extra-extra black grisly humor and chills. This time with Stephen Rea as a hapless man who finds himself in self-involved Mena Suvari’s windshield. As someone who had to knock back a few drinks to finally see Gordon’s signature horrorfest not long ago, but had a good time with it once I did, I’m not sure if I want to see this one or not. I am fairly sure it’s not dull.

Gentlemen, in memory of Harvey Korman, please rest your sphincters.

Harvey Korman has died…and, man, am I bummed.

If the guy had never done anything other than “The Carol Burnett Show,” he’d still be a comedy legend, but his resume was filled with plenty of reasons for you to mourn his passing. Heck, the realization that the Great Gazoo will never again call Fred Flintstone “dum-dum” in quite the same way is getting me misty enough that I can forgive him for those appearances he made on “Mama’s Family.” Besides, even if I didn’t like the show, it’s not like I can blame the guy for taking the opportunity to play with Vicki Lawrence again. Plus, he survived the experience of playing no less than three roles in “The Star Wars Holiday Special” – Krelman, Chef Gormaand, and the Amorphian instructor – and that’s the Hollywood equivalent of earning half a dozen Purple Hearts and a couple of Bronze Stars.

Korman was great at playing the too-stern-for-his-own-good authority figure who always got his comeuppance and, when he did, you were laughing all the way. Mel Brooks knew this and took advantage of it, providing him with classic roles like Dr. Charles Montague in “High Anxiety” and Hedy…sorry, Hedley Lamarr…in “Blazing Saddles.” Okay, so his role in “Dracula: Dead and Loving It” might not have been on the same level, but it was still nice to see him on the big screen again.

Over at NewsFromMe.com, Mark Evanier has promised to provide some of his favorite anecdotes about Korman, but he’s already declared him “one of the funniest people I ever encountered…and easily the best audience.” I can absolutely believe that, based on the way he used to explode with laughter at Tim Conway; those two together will likely always be remembered as one of the best comedy duos in the history of TV sketch comedy, and rightfully so.

I suppose it’s only appropriate that, even in the process of researching IMDB.com to write this piece, Korman is still making me laugh, courtesy of the names of the characters he’s played over the years:

Prof. Fagenspahen (“The Munsters”)
Col. Heindreich von Zeppel (“F-Troop”)
Baron Hinterstoisser (“The Wild, Wild West”)

And let us not forget his recurring role in the “Pink Panther” saga: Prof. Auguste Balls.

I’m really gonna miss that guy. Hasta la vista, Harvey.

Multiplex Mayhem: The First Crack of the Whip (Updated)

If there is even the smallest trace of doubt in your mind about what the box-office leader is going to be this Memorial Day weekend, then you’re clearly not paying attention. In fact, the madness has already started.

*With 19 years of pent-up demand for the Indiana Jones franchise, at least among males old enough to have seen the movies the first time around and some of our more respectful children, the only unknown regarding “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is how massive will the inevitable cascade of shekels be for the gang at Paramount. Newshound Nikki Finke is already providing some numbers from the Thursday opening of it’s very long holiday weekend and, so far, it looks potentially ginormous, though it remains to be seen if it will be ultra-super-stupendous ginormous. My personal guess is that it comes up just a little short of the $172 million Memorial Day of “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.” Whatever else was wrong (and many, many things were) with that second/first “Star Wars” trilogy, there was an awful lot of curiosity and suspense built up over just how the series would end, which isn’t quite the case here. I mean, even after hating the first two films in the series, I found myself shelling out to see the third because I just kind of had to. On the other hand, while I didn’t really love either of the two Indy Jones sequels, my strong affection for the genius popcorn rush of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” will carry me giddily into this one. (Though, like most folks in my age group, I likely won’t be seeing it the first weekend…unless I really want to all of a sudden.)

Also, though I’m personally looking forward to seeing Cate Blanchett as a Soviet villain and the long-awaited return of Karen Allen to the series, hats off to the canny casting of talented youth-fave Shia LaBeouf (whose name, I’m told, means “char the beef” in a rarely spoken French-Urdu dialect) to counter the not-quite a septuagenarian Harrison Ford in the title role. There is some concern out there in the moviesphere about the youth appeal factor, but it’s not like Mr. Ford is exactly, you know, old. To quote my man Roger Ebert, Ford “has one of those Robert Mitchum faces that doesn’t age, it only frowns more.”

Speaking of Ebert, the reviews on “Crystal Skull” are largely positive (though significantly less positive with “top critics“). Still, reading many of the reviews and pull-quotes, we see large undercurrents of “well, it’s not the best, but it’s definitely not the worst” or simply a case of critics wanting to not be killjoys to a movie that almost everybody is going to see anyway. Though “Iron Man” and the (finally reviewed by us) “Prince Caspian” will most certainly be hanging in there this weekend, anything less than $130 million would be an insult for Indy. I could say more on the subject, but why? Instead, check out Will Harris‘s fine appreciation of some of the lesser known films in the Harrison Ford oeuvre. Will watched long and hard for us, show him you care.

*Oh, but there are other new releases coming to theaters this week — though probably not to a theater near you if you don’t live in a very large city, as per the Box Office MoJo theater counts. There are several indie flicks of varying levels of interest entering theaters, but I now draw your attention to two attempts at take no prisoners political satire.

By far the weirder of the two is “Postal” — a film crafted by “he’s not just a director, he’s also a punchline” Uwe Boll, whose skills as a pugilist are ranked well above his filmmaking powers. I can’t personally speak to his film talents, as I’ve somehow managed to avoid all of his video game adaptations — as I’ve actually managed to avoid all videogame adaptations. Yet, I can speak to his lack of humor and decency as I just watched arguably the lamest and most offensive trailer since “The Birth of a Nation” on the flick’s website, in which he and some unfortunate but game actors attempt to mine humor from the cockpit of one of the planes that destroyed the WTC on 9/11, stealing it’s main joke from a scabrously effective piece in “The Onion” and missing the point entirely. Seriously crappy stuff.

Intriguingly, Carl DiOrio of the Hollywood Reporter writes that a major release was planned for the “Postal” but megachains Regal and AMC nixed the idea, cutting 1,500 hundred theaters down to somewhere between DiOrio’s estimate of 15 theaters and B.O.Mojo’s four. Gee, could it be that wrapping up a trailer with the destruction of the twin towers isn’t the way to sell your zany comedy? Simply calling it “politically incorrect” doesn’t cut it.

Okay, so the only surprise about the “Postal” reviews is that 17% of critics were willing to go on record as liking it, but the unpleasant surprise for the makers of the new anti-war black comedy, starring and cowritten by critical favorite John Cusack, “War, Inc.” is that only 22% of critics seemed to have much good to say about a movie that should be critical catnip. (Proof, for once and for all, that just putting one’s liberal politics on display does not guarantee good or even decent reviews from film critics.) This is a film that really needs strong reviews, and while it’s likely to go wider, I guess, based on its star power (Marisa Tomei, Hillary Duff, and Ben Kingsley are also aboard), this one seems doomed. Still, “War, Inc.” features Cusack once again playing a likable assassin, once again ably assisted by the wondrous Joan Cusack. While not an actual sequel to “Grosse Pointe Blank,” (Cusack’s character is not named Martin Blank), it might merit a look from those of us who loved that bit of blackest comedy, and our reviewer, Jonathan Flax, seemed to like it.

UPDATE: More on “Postal” and the amazing Mr. Uwe Boll. Here’s an interview with him explaining the situation from MTV (via this morning’s IMDb Movie & TV News). The short version is he’s distributing himself through his own company — and not all that well. It’s not playing in Manhattan, though they were able to get a screen in Brooklyn, and many of the theaters are showing it only once or twice a day. The interview also links to some “remarks” by Boll, which indicates he also has trouble assembling a coherent self-important rant. He really thinks his movie is like Monty Python….

Multiplex Mayhem: “Prince Caspian” Slowed by Bullz-Eye Curse?

I made it clear Friday that, my no-link vengeance notwithstanding, I didn’t see Walden and Disney Media suffering for making it next to impossible for Bullz-Eye to review the second “Chronicles of Narnia” film, “Prince Caspian.” But, suffer they did, though perhaps the blow was not fatal. To be fair, $56 million is always a tidy chunk of change, but a dyslexic comedown considering that expectations were closer to $80 million and the first “Narnia” film, “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” reversed the digits for a $65 million opening weekend. And, see, we reviewed that one!

Still, other theories abound. Nikki Finke blames the film’s more violent nature. At first blush, this makes absolutely no sense, since, well, Peter Jackson’s LOTR films didn’t exactly find this to be an impediment, but I’ll give her the possibility that a significant shift in tone could be responsible. I haven’t seen either movie, so I’ll leave actual viewers to judge whether she’s on the right track or not. However, she may be right if audiences come to the theater expecting strawberry shortcake, but find themselves served steak and eggs instead. On the other hand, Carl DiOrio notes that the film seems to be generating positive reaction, so that it may be sticking around through the fierce competition of this summer’s tent-poles flicks. Other factors might include a case of diminishing returns on religion-based marketing efforts, the subject of an interesting Hollywood Reporter article. Also, quite possibly, increasing gas prices , general economic malaise, and the fact that movies themselves are simply way too expensive these days are making parents think long and hard before spending their increasingly limited cash on the sequel to a movie their families enjoyed but perhaps failed to love. Or, maybe, it really is the curse of Bullz-Eye.

Speaking of curses, “Speed Racer” — despite netting some decent word of mouth at least among some parents I know — dropped to an ignominious fourth place in its second week with $7,645,000. However, I should add that the $160 million budget figure that I mentioned last week is now looking more like $120, so that makes the film $40 million worth less of a disaster for its makers. “What Happens in Vegas” defeated it by about $5 million, which does not warm the cockles of my Ashton Kutcher-disliking heart.

Triumphing over all — at least until next weeks return of Indiana Jones — “Iron Man” continues to evade missiles in the #2 spot with well over $31 million — it’s racked up a terrific $222,485,000 in only three weeks, and that’s just the domestic take. I saw “Iron Man” last night, as it happens, and it’s nice to know that a mix of solid storytelling, laughs mixed with dead serious subtext, an enjoyable romance and, of course, plenty of story-based thrills (even if somewhat muffed in the final act, partially because of a less than compelling main villain) still can add up to big dollars, on occasion.


Meanwhile in Indiewood…
Box-Office Mojo has mysteriously cut back on the amount of information this week to only the top 35 pictures (trying to boost premium memberships?), but I can still glean a few nuggets.

One is that director Tom McCarthy deserves a nod of congratulation for getting his low-key, small-scale drama, “The Visitor,” into this weekend’s top ten while playing in only 224 theaters. The film has been out for some six weeks now and our plaudits to Overture Films for giving this film the kind of slow, steady release it needs. Meanwhile, we won’t even tell you how the too-quickly released “Redbelt” has fared, despite being a solid enough, violentized update of the fun but creaky chestnut, “Golden Boy.” Also, both the Francophile-friendly thriller “Roman de Gare” and the kid-power opus “Son of Rambow” continue to do solid business.

Sadly, according to an article in yesterday’s L.A. Times, “solid” may no longer be good enough, thanks to the possible spread of the vicious home-run mentality that is slowly rotting mainstream Hollywood to smaller indie films as well, where even an epic drama about the violent and sexually charged life of a figure from history who remains both immensely popular (at least on t-shirts) and controversial forty years after his death (Steve Soderbergh’s “Che”) is having a hard time finding a distributor at Cannes. If some folks have their way, all indie films will soon be “My Big Fat Little Miss Pregnancy.”

Still, even with B.O. Mojo getting all stingy on us, at least Variety was kind enough to let us know of the very strong performance (roughly $15,000 per screen) in just three theaters of Norwegian director Joachim Trier’s critically lauded “Reprise,” a narratively adventurous coming of age film and just the kind of production that’s in real danger of complete marginalization. No surprise that it would be a dark horse, but if even an over the top, zany slapstick spy spoof like “OSS 117: Cairo – Nest of Spies” is considered marginal fare on the freakin’ art house circuit, there indeed may be trouble ahead. Ironic that, just as Americans are growing more comfortable with subtitles, the whole market for movies of any language that are something other than “filmed deals” may be drying up for a time.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Premium Hollywood

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑