Dear Readers,
I am sorry that I haven't posted any reviews lately. The truth of the matter is that my health no longer permits me to see any films in the theater. Additionally, my ability to write creatively has also decreased--again, because of my health--so I am not even able to write about recent DVD purchases. Please bear with me as I go through this whole process with the kidney disease.
As soon as I am physically able, I'll be going to the movies once again, and writing my impressions of those films that I watch.
Thank you for following my reviews.
ScottW
Showing posts with label Movies; Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies; Commentary. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, September 6, 2010
Summer Movie Wrap-Up
The follow excerpts are a 2010 Summer Box Office wrap-up covering receipts, trends, etc. The story that these excerpts were taken from was published in the NY Times. The reporter is Brooks Barnes.
--Hollywood’s summer may have been tepid — movie theater attendance was the lowest in over a decade — but the big-budget, big-risk stretch delivered an unusually robust array of tea leaves for studios to read as they make decisions for the seasons ahead.
--First, the numbers. Attendance from the first weekend in May through Labor Day is projected to total about 552 million, the lowest tally since 1997, when 540 million people turned up in the same period, according to Hollywood.com, which compiles box office data. Revenue for the period — which typically accounts for 40 percent of the industry’s annual ticket sales — totaled $4.35 billion, a 2 percent increase from last year.
--Sharply higher prices for tickets across the board, but especially for 3-D presentations, drove the increase. The worry, as seen in poor results for recent 3-D releases like “Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore,” is that theater chains and studios have overreached on pricing. “We suspect some consumers are choosing 2-D movies solely to reduce the cost of their movie-going experience,” wrote Richard Greenfield, an analyst at the financial services company BTIG, in an Aug. 23 research note.
--So studios are starting to think more carefully about which titles make sense to release in 3-D and which do not. Part of the challenge in a post-“Avatar” Hollywood, however, is that presenting a film in 3-D is one way to build a release into a must-see event — a crucial part of movie marketing in the age of 50-inch flat-screen televisions.
Some studios were burned over the summer by pushing too hard to “eventize” movies. Walt Disney Studios, for instance, trumpeted May 28 in enormous red lettering on virtually every piece of advertising for “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.” The goal was to blast the film’s opening date into the minds of consumers, but instead the tactic drove expectations so high that “Prince” was quickly branded a bomb despite selling $330 million in tickets at the global box office.
--“You can hype up a movie like crazy, but consumers are smart and can smell a con job,” said Phil Contrino, editor of BoxOffice.com. “It has to be substance over style.”
--No one would accuse Mr. Nolan of soft-pedaling substance. His “Inception,” backed by Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures, was the breakout blockbuster of the summer, racking up about $660 million in ticket sales. “Everybody looked at us and said, ‘Why are you releasing a movie this smart in the middle of July?’ ” said Dan Fellman, Warner’s president for distribution. “Guess what? The summer isn’t just for dopes.”
--Stars received a sharply mixed reception, which has been the case lately. It was certainly a good summer for Leonardo DiCaprio, who starred in “Inception” as an invader of people’s dreams. Also faring well were Angelina Jolie, who turned an old-fashioned spy caper (“Salt”) into a hit, and Adam Sandler, who powered an ensemble comedy (“Grown Ups”) into the stratosphere.
--Flopping this summer were Nicolas Cage, whose “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” died on arrival, and Michael Cera, whose quirky “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” won positive reviews but failed to draw a mainstream audience. Mr. Cera badly needed a hit: “Pilgrim” was his fifth big-screen dud in a row. Also disappointing were Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, who fizzled in the action comedy “Knight and Day,” and Zac Efron, whose weepy “Charlie St. Cloud” landed with a thud.
--The No. 1 movie of the summer had no stars, at least on screen: “Toy Story 3” topped the North American box office with over $405 million and had a global total of over $1 billion. “Iron Man 2” was second, with $312 million ($622 million total), and “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse” was third, with $298 million ($655 million total).
It was a quiet summer for specialty films, with no picture managing to cross over to a mainstream audience. “The Kids Are All Right” came the closest with about $19 million. (The threshold for a crossover hit is typically in the vicinity of $30 million.)
--[It was] an uncharacteristically soft summer for Warner [Brothers]. The success of “Inception” was counterbalanced by a disastrous result for “Jonah Hex,”which sold just $10.5 million in tickets and cooled off Megan Fox’s career. The critically reviled “Sex and the City 2” was also a substantial disappointment; ticket sales lagged behind the first installment by 30 percent.
--[Universal's] “Despicable Me” was a runaway hit, selling over $237 million in tickets ; but “Get Him to the Greek” and “Robin Hood” both misfired.
--Of the major studios Fox had the worst summer. None of its titles cracked the Top 10, as “The A-Team,” “Marmaduke” and “Knight and Day” all went down in flames.
--Paramount Pictures was the most successful by volume; for the summer its releases racked up over $770 million at the domestic box office. “The Last Airbender” and “Dinner for Schmucks” and “Shrek Forever After,” [led the way for the studio].
--Sony’s modestly budgeted remake of “The Karate Kid” was one of the summer’s biggest surprises, rocketing to $176 million in North America. Although “Eat Pray Love” was soft, the studio also scored with “Grown Ups,” “Salt” and “The Other Guys.” (By Brooks Barnes, NY Times 05 Sept. 2010)
*So, not a stellar summer for 2010. I personally believe that Hollywood's trend of remaking films to "updated" versions is beginning to backfire. This is likely most true amongst the over 35 year old theater goers who are just getting tired of remakes that generally end up being worse than the classic original. Looking ahead, the movie landscape looks fairly bleak through the end of the year.
Aside from the next Chronicles of Narnia installment, Clint Eastwood's "Hereafter," "Mega-Mind," the little known SciFi flick "Skyline," the next (oh, Kill me now!) book of "Harry Potter," the much hyped "Tron: Legacy," and the inexplicable remake of "True Grit," the box office does not look to be kind to Hollywood. Let's all hope that 2011 brings better, original material; and tosses aside the lazy screenwriters who are too untalented to draft new, fresh storylines.
--Hollywood’s summer may have been tepid — movie theater attendance was the lowest in over a decade — but the big-budget, big-risk stretch delivered an unusually robust array of tea leaves for studios to read as they make decisions for the seasons ahead.
--First, the numbers. Attendance from the first weekend in May through Labor Day is projected to total about 552 million, the lowest tally since 1997, when 540 million people turned up in the same period, according to Hollywood.com, which compiles box office data. Revenue for the period — which typically accounts for 40 percent of the industry’s annual ticket sales — totaled $4.35 billion, a 2 percent increase from last year.
--Sharply higher prices for tickets across the board, but especially for 3-D presentations, drove the increase. The worry, as seen in poor results for recent 3-D releases like “Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore,” is that theater chains and studios have overreached on pricing. “We suspect some consumers are choosing 2-D movies solely to reduce the cost of their movie-going experience,” wrote Richard Greenfield, an analyst at the financial services company BTIG, in an Aug. 23 research note.
--So studios are starting to think more carefully about which titles make sense to release in 3-D and which do not. Part of the challenge in a post-“Avatar” Hollywood, however, is that presenting a film in 3-D is one way to build a release into a must-see event — a crucial part of movie marketing in the age of 50-inch flat-screen televisions.
Some studios were burned over the summer by pushing too hard to “eventize” movies. Walt Disney Studios, for instance, trumpeted May 28 in enormous red lettering on virtually every piece of advertising for “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.” The goal was to blast the film’s opening date into the minds of consumers, but instead the tactic drove expectations so high that “Prince” was quickly branded a bomb despite selling $330 million in tickets at the global box office.
--“You can hype up a movie like crazy, but consumers are smart and can smell a con job,” said Phil Contrino, editor of BoxOffice.com. “It has to be substance over style.”
--No one would accuse Mr. Nolan of soft-pedaling substance. His “Inception,” backed by Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures, was the breakout blockbuster of the summer, racking up about $660 million in ticket sales. “Everybody looked at us and said, ‘Why are you releasing a movie this smart in the middle of July?’ ” said Dan Fellman, Warner’s president for distribution. “Guess what? The summer isn’t just for dopes.”
--Stars received a sharply mixed reception, which has been the case lately. It was certainly a good summer for Leonardo DiCaprio, who starred in “Inception” as an invader of people’s dreams. Also faring well were Angelina Jolie, who turned an old-fashioned spy caper (“Salt”) into a hit, and Adam Sandler, who powered an ensemble comedy (“Grown Ups”) into the stratosphere.
--Flopping this summer were Nicolas Cage, whose “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” died on arrival, and Michael Cera, whose quirky “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” won positive reviews but failed to draw a mainstream audience. Mr. Cera badly needed a hit: “Pilgrim” was his fifth big-screen dud in a row. Also disappointing were Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, who fizzled in the action comedy “Knight and Day,” and Zac Efron, whose weepy “Charlie St. Cloud” landed with a thud.
--The No. 1 movie of the summer had no stars, at least on screen: “Toy Story 3” topped the North American box office with over $405 million and had a global total of over $1 billion. “Iron Man 2” was second, with $312 million ($622 million total), and “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse” was third, with $298 million ($655 million total).
It was a quiet summer for specialty films, with no picture managing to cross over to a mainstream audience. “The Kids Are All Right” came the closest with about $19 million. (The threshold for a crossover hit is typically in the vicinity of $30 million.)
--[It was] an uncharacteristically soft summer for Warner [Brothers]. The success of “Inception” was counterbalanced by a disastrous result for “Jonah Hex,”which sold just $10.5 million in tickets and cooled off Megan Fox’s career. The critically reviled “Sex and the City 2” was also a substantial disappointment; ticket sales lagged behind the first installment by 30 percent.
--[Universal's] “Despicable Me” was a runaway hit, selling over $237 million in tickets ; but “Get Him to the Greek” and “Robin Hood” both misfired.
--Of the major studios Fox had the worst summer. None of its titles cracked the Top 10, as “The A-Team,” “Marmaduke” and “Knight and Day” all went down in flames.
--Paramount Pictures was the most successful by volume; for the summer its releases racked up over $770 million at the domestic box office. “The Last Airbender” and “Dinner for Schmucks” and “Shrek Forever After,” [led the way for the studio].
--Sony’s modestly budgeted remake of “The Karate Kid” was one of the summer’s biggest surprises, rocketing to $176 million in North America. Although “Eat Pray Love” was soft, the studio also scored with “Grown Ups,” “Salt” and “The Other Guys.” (By Brooks Barnes, NY Times 05 Sept. 2010)
*So, not a stellar summer for 2010. I personally believe that Hollywood's trend of remaking films to "updated" versions is beginning to backfire. This is likely most true amongst the over 35 year old theater goers who are just getting tired of remakes that generally end up being worse than the classic original. Looking ahead, the movie landscape looks fairly bleak through the end of the year.
Aside from the next Chronicles of Narnia installment, Clint Eastwood's "Hereafter," "Mega-Mind," the little known SciFi flick "Skyline," the next (oh, Kill me now!) book of "Harry Potter," the much hyped "Tron: Legacy," and the inexplicable remake of "True Grit," the box office does not look to be kind to Hollywood. Let's all hope that 2011 brings better, original material; and tosses aside the lazy screenwriters who are too untalented to draft new, fresh storylines.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Movie Remakes...Right, or Wrong?
It seems like Hollywood is on a remake bender the last few years.
Nothing seems to be off limits to the screen hacks employed by the studios these days. I recently read that a classic, Oscar winning movie is slated for the rehash bin.
While I will be the first to admit that some films have turned out far better than the originals ( Robin Hood, Clash of the Titans, 3:10 To Yuma, The 300, Dune mini-series, Alice in Wonderland, etc), the majority are just a way for lazy screen writers to "update" films with gratuitous violence, filthy language and nudity/sex.
It reminds me of today's hip-hop artists who remake classic songs, and the end product is just garbage. Do you know what I mean? For instance, "Killing Me Softly" is a slow, mournful ballad; not a fast-paced, rap oriented, obnoxious noise-fest as was presented a few years ago! What a travesty of artistic interpretation! I wish that version could be unmade. So it is with some of these "re-do's" that have been popping up. Some of the real dogs that have reared their ugly heads are War of the Worlds, Starsky & Hutch, The Taking of Pelham 123, S.W.A.T., The Fog, Death Race, etc.
Now I'm reading that over the next few years, Hollywood studios will be filming upwards of 125 "re-imaginings" of previously released movies. Among the probable list, Conan the Barbarian, Highlander, Metropolis, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Westworld and The Warriors. Add to the list now, Academy Award winner, True Grit. What? Remake a classic, award winning film?....and John Wayne no less? Seriously?!!!
Yeah...somebody is going there!
That list is also exclusive of this years' remaining "do-overs" that include The Karate Kid, Red Dawn, The A Team, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Tales From Earthsea, Tangled, and Gulliver's Travels.
Notice a trend here?
No wonder Hollywood is wondering why, though gate receipts are up (mostly due to price increases), theater attendance is on the decline. Maybe they ought to look at all the remakes that are being pumped out ad nauseum. Instead of these "re-treads", maybe studio execs should be looking at screenplays that actually have originality in them. I for one am getting tired of seeing movies "recycled" every 15 years or so. With all the literature, all the current events, and all of human history as a rich source of material, why are we seeing "rehash" after rehash of tired, overdone films? Or of movies that should never be touched because the original is the best?
Notice all the terms I've been highlighting? Re-do's, Re-Imagining, Do-Over's, Re-Treads, Recycled, Re-Hash. These are all terms I have seen used by marketers to distract the movie-going public from the fact that so many movies are nothing more than updated remakes of previous products. A remake is a remake; no matter the term used to describe it.
So, tell me what you think about this trend. Is it here to stay? Are the screen writers in Hollywood so creatively dead that they can't write new material? What would you like to see coming out of the studios? Tell me what you think; I'll be doing a follow-up with reader comments in the near future.
Nothing seems to be off limits to the screen hacks employed by the studios these days. I recently read that a classic, Oscar winning movie is slated for the rehash bin.
While I will be the first to admit that some films have turned out far better than the originals ( Robin Hood, Clash of the Titans, 3:10 To Yuma, The 300, Dune mini-series, Alice in Wonderland, etc), the majority are just a way for lazy screen writers to "update" films with gratuitous violence, filthy language and nudity/sex.
It reminds me of today's hip-hop artists who remake classic songs, and the end product is just garbage. Do you know what I mean? For instance, "Killing Me Softly" is a slow, mournful ballad; not a fast-paced, rap oriented, obnoxious noise-fest as was presented a few years ago! What a travesty of artistic interpretation! I wish that version could be unmade. So it is with some of these "re-do's" that have been popping up. Some of the real dogs that have reared their ugly heads are War of the Worlds, Starsky & Hutch, The Taking of Pelham 123, S.W.A.T., The Fog, Death Race, etc.
Now I'm reading that over the next few years, Hollywood studios will be filming upwards of 125 "re-imaginings" of previously released movies. Among the probable list, Conan the Barbarian, Highlander, Metropolis, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Westworld and The Warriors. Add to the list now, Academy Award winner, True Grit. What? Remake a classic, award winning film?....and John Wayne no less? Seriously?!!!
Yeah...somebody is going there!
That list is also exclusive of this years' remaining "do-overs" that include The Karate Kid, Red Dawn, The A Team, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Tales From Earthsea, Tangled, and Gulliver's Travels.
Notice a trend here?
No wonder Hollywood is wondering why, though gate receipts are up (mostly due to price increases), theater attendance is on the decline. Maybe they ought to look at all the remakes that are being pumped out ad nauseum. Instead of these "re-treads", maybe studio execs should be looking at screenplays that actually have originality in them. I for one am getting tired of seeing movies "recycled" every 15 years or so. With all the literature, all the current events, and all of human history as a rich source of material, why are we seeing "rehash" after rehash of tired, overdone films? Or of movies that should never be touched because the original is the best?
Notice all the terms I've been highlighting? Re-do's, Re-Imagining, Do-Over's, Re-Treads, Recycled, Re-Hash. These are all terms I have seen used by marketers to distract the movie-going public from the fact that so many movies are nothing more than updated remakes of previous products. A remake is a remake; no matter the term used to describe it.
So, tell me what you think about this trend. Is it here to stay? Are the screen writers in Hollywood so creatively dead that they can't write new material? What would you like to see coming out of the studios? Tell me what you think; I'll be doing a follow-up with reader comments in the near future.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
An Intro To My Movie Likes & Dislikes
As my first review draws near, I thought I'd let you know a little about my movie preferences.
As with any movie-going fan, I have developed personal likes and dislikes over various genres of film. There are directors I hate to watch, and other films I will see simply because of who directed it. I will elect to see a movie if a select few stars are in it, yet avoid other films for the exact same reason.
When I see any movie I analyze everything I see and hear from the moment it starts. I guess you could say I observe the film more than watch it; from direction to music, cinematography to screenplay, etc. I can often guess the plot outcome around 1/3 of the way through the film. The experience for me then becomes the journey or path of the film itself...how it goes from point A to point B.
When I've really enjoyed a film, I will often see it a second or even third time because the analyzing is [mostly] over, and I can enjoy the film even more. For me, this enhances the enjoyment I get from a film making it far more memorable.
I will go to see pretty much any movie, aside from a few genres. The no-go list includes Horror (stupid!), Musicals (just because I've never liked them.), T & A flicks (I'd like to keep my intelligence intact, thank you), and most [but not all] Comedy (I just don't find most comedies to be funny--aside from a few chuckles). Everything else is pretty much worth a shot.
Directors I love to watch: Ron Howard; Peter Jackson; Steven Spielberg; Jon Favreau; Peter Berg; Ridley Scott; Quentin Tarentino; Kevin Costner; Antoine Fuqua; Lasse Halstrom; Clint Eastwood and Richard Donner.
Directors I just don't enjoy: Martin Scorsese, and an assortment of others who pop up once in a while. (I know, I know...I can hear all the Scorsese fans already as they yell to defend his films. Honestly though, I have not yet seen a Scorsese film that I enjoyed even a little. I just don't like his style, emphasis, etc.)
I have been watching films for over 40 years. The first movies I can remember watching were at a Drive-In outside of Seattle. The films were Snow White and The Seven Dwarves, and Bambi.
Over the years, I have an always growing list of favorites--some are good, some bad, and some are great.
A few of my favorite movies: Ordinary People; Philadelphia; Rocky; The Wild Bunch; Bullitt; Citizen Kane; Father Goose; Duel; Titanic; Gladiator; Unforgiven; Starship Troopers (my guilty pleasure!); Tears of the Sun; Open Range; New York Doll; Scared Straight; Turner and Hooch; That Thing You Do!; Dick; etc, etc, etc.
Remember, like any regular movie viewer, I will not go see a film simply because it is there. It has to capture my interest. So, you may want a review of a film I have no interest in seeing. If that is the case, I recommend the Internet Movie Data Base (imdb.com). They carry trailers, reviews, upcoming release dates, etc. It's a great site.
Lastly, I'll list a few of the films I'm interested in seeing this summer. As always, the list is a mix of genres, and I look forward to seeing them. These include: Iron Man 2; Robin Hood; Jonah Hex; The Last Air Bender; Shrek Forever After; Knight and Day; Predators; Salt; Get Low; Prince of Persia; The Expendables; and a few others.
Let's have a great summer.
As with any movie-going fan, I have developed personal likes and dislikes over various genres of film. There are directors I hate to watch, and other films I will see simply because of who directed it. I will elect to see a movie if a select few stars are in it, yet avoid other films for the exact same reason.
When I see any movie I analyze everything I see and hear from the moment it starts. I guess you could say I observe the film more than watch it; from direction to music, cinematography to screenplay, etc. I can often guess the plot outcome around 1/3 of the way through the film. The experience for me then becomes the journey or path of the film itself...how it goes from point A to point B.
When I've really enjoyed a film, I will often see it a second or even third time because the analyzing is [mostly] over, and I can enjoy the film even more. For me, this enhances the enjoyment I get from a film making it far more memorable.
I will go to see pretty much any movie, aside from a few genres. The no-go list includes Horror (stupid!), Musicals (just because I've never liked them.), T & A flicks (I'd like to keep my intelligence intact, thank you), and most [but not all] Comedy (I just don't find most comedies to be funny--aside from a few chuckles). Everything else is pretty much worth a shot.
Directors I love to watch: Ron Howard; Peter Jackson; Steven Spielberg; Jon Favreau; Peter Berg; Ridley Scott; Quentin Tarentino; Kevin Costner; Antoine Fuqua; Lasse Halstrom; Clint Eastwood and Richard Donner.
Directors I just don't enjoy: Martin Scorsese, and an assortment of others who pop up once in a while. (I know, I know...I can hear all the Scorsese fans already as they yell to defend his films. Honestly though, I have not yet seen a Scorsese film that I enjoyed even a little. I just don't like his style, emphasis, etc.)
I have been watching films for over 40 years. The first movies I can remember watching were at a Drive-In outside of Seattle. The films were Snow White and The Seven Dwarves, and Bambi.
Over the years, I have an always growing list of favorites--some are good, some bad, and some are great.
A few of my favorite movies: Ordinary People; Philadelphia; Rocky; The Wild Bunch; Bullitt; Citizen Kane; Father Goose; Duel; Titanic; Gladiator; Unforgiven; Starship Troopers (my guilty pleasure!); Tears of the Sun; Open Range; New York Doll; Scared Straight; Turner and Hooch; That Thing You Do!; Dick; etc, etc, etc.
Remember, like any regular movie viewer, I will not go see a film simply because it is there. It has to capture my interest. So, you may want a review of a film I have no interest in seeing. If that is the case, I recommend the Internet Movie Data Base (imdb.com). They carry trailers, reviews, upcoming release dates, etc. It's a great site.
Lastly, I'll list a few of the films I'm interested in seeing this summer. As always, the list is a mix of genres, and I look forward to seeing them. These include: Iron Man 2; Robin Hood; Jonah Hex; The Last Air Bender; Shrek Forever After; Knight and Day; Predators; Salt; Get Low; Prince of Persia; The Expendables; and a few others.
Let's have a great summer.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
An Introduction
Thank you for visiting my blog of movie reviews.
I started this blog because I am tired of reviewers who are more interested in showing everyone how educated and cutthroat they are by dissing everything ever made, rather than just telling us about their movie viewing experience. I hate those those guys. More often than not, they are just plain wrong.
I decided a long time ago to go see a movie if it interested me, and ignore the so-called critics. They base their reviews on some stolid, upper-crust maxim that few regular viewers even understand. These men and women feel that because they know by rote the whole history of film art, they they know better than anyone what makes a good movie.
I say rubbish!
A film doesn't have to be the greatest piece of art in order to be great or even good. The viewer is who ultimately decides the success, or failure of any film. My job here is to tell you how I enjoyed a movie, what I liked and disliked about it, and whether or not I would see it again. That's it. After that, you folks will decide if you want to see it at all.
Thank you for joining me. Now, let's go to the movies!
I started this blog because I am tired of reviewers who are more interested in showing everyone how educated and cutthroat they are by dissing everything ever made, rather than just telling us about their movie viewing experience. I hate those those guys. More often than not, they are just plain wrong.
I decided a long time ago to go see a movie if it interested me, and ignore the so-called critics. They base their reviews on some stolid, upper-crust maxim that few regular viewers even understand. These men and women feel that because they know by rote the whole history of film art, they they know better than anyone what makes a good movie.
I say rubbish!
A film doesn't have to be the greatest piece of art in order to be great or even good. The viewer is who ultimately decides the success, or failure of any film. My job here is to tell you how I enjoyed a movie, what I liked and disliked about it, and whether or not I would see it again. That's it. After that, you folks will decide if you want to see it at all.
Thank you for joining me. Now, let's go to the movies!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
