Posts Tagged ‘Hollywood’

What is it about this Robin Hood that has kept him from being as popular as previous incarnations?

Not much has been made so far about Ridley Scott’s newest film Robin Hood, starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. The historical epic which attempts to tactfully incorporate elements of the centuries-old legend doesn’t seem to have won over the hearts of Americans like its creators were hoping, as after nearly two full weekends it has yet to top $70 million at the domestic box office (considering the production budget was a reported $200 million, such returns will be deemed relatively minimal by Universal). The film’s rating on RottenTomatoes.com is a pedestrian 45%, and on MetaCritic.com an unflattering grade of 53. Exactly what is it about the film that has audiences and critics keeping it at arm’s length? Read the rest of this entry »

Jemaine Clement

Jemaine Clement of HBO’s Flight of the Conchords fame has reportedly been cast as the villain in the next Men in Black sequel.

Jonah Hex‘s Josh Brolin has also signed on to the project and will reportedly play a younger version of Tommy Lee Jones’ character K, though Jones and Will Smith will also return, along with director Barry Sonnenfeld.

Etan Cohen (Idiocracy, Tropic Thunder) has written the script, which some suspect entails time travel due to the involvement of Brolin’s alleged role.

Source: Ain’t It Cool News

Quick Opinion: I’ve heard many complain about how Men in Black II was not as good as the first, and not often were those complaints based on the film’s casting. The original Men in Black struck a chord with audiences because of how fresh it was, and MIB II might have failed simply because screenwriter Robert Gordon was unable to keep that element moving forward. Looking back, this is somewhat surprising being that Gordon also gave us the wonderfully self-aware Galaxy Quest. But come to think of it, a sequel to that film would probably not work either for the same reasons. So why be excited about MIB III? New pedigree has been added, again, in the form of Josh Brolin and Jemaine Clement, which is to be expected with Hollywood sequels. But the real upgrade might come through Etan Cohen’s screenplay. Idiocracy has become a sort of cult classic for its jabs at modern society and scarily convincing premise which suggests the meek may actually inherit the earth. Tropic Thunder was about as self-aware as movies get, de-glorifying the action and war movie genres as well as Hollywood in general. Because of this background it is fair to believe that Cohen can bring the freshness of the first MIB back to the series. On the other hand, I’m sure that’s what they were hoping for from Gordon. Like most things, this will probably be a game of “wait and see.”

Film criticism is approaching a crossroads that may not allow future critics to have the great influence that the likes of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert had. That's two thumbs way down.

The 21^st century has not been very kind to the field of film journalism thus far. Critics in particular have had to endure the brunt of the damage that has been dealt by the increased popularity of social media outlets like MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and an innumerable array of blogs.

The CNN article by Todd Leopold that we recognized and commented on earlier this week which questioned whether film criticism was becoming passé is just the latest instance proving that concern for this issue is growing. The advent of the internet and its subsequent rush towards essentiality sparked fear in all fields of journalism that profited from the lure of exclusivity or privileged resources.

But while the entire journalism industry wont be killed off by the internet and its communicative capabilities, the future of the field of film journalism and criticism appears much less certain. Read the rest of this entry »

This May's "Iron Man 2" will be the latest summer vehicle designed to appeal to the biggest audience possible. How is it this came to be? Is it a good thing?

With the summer movie season nearly upon us (officially beginning with the release of Iron Man 2 on May 7^th), I naturally got pulled into another conversation with a fellow moviegoer who felt the need to express his contempt for this time of year. According to him, and I’m sure many of you out there as well, the summer months are reserved for when Hollywood likes to flex its corporate muscles and make boat loads of cash by feeding the masses the intellectual equivalent of junk food. Basically, if it’s loud and shiny, it sells. But the movie studios are not entirely to blame, as it’s also the fault of the audiences who readily pay their hard earned money to sit stupefied at a screen while their senses get pushed to the limits (Michael Bay’s Transformers movies were listed as examples several times during the conversation).

This is one way to look at it.

Read the rest of this entry »

This year's version of The A-Team may be part of a new team trend for on-screen heroes

This upcoming summer movie season there are three movies that will be about a group of well trained special ops-type fighters who don’t “play by the rules,” starting with this weekend’s The Losers. This film, inspired by the comic book series of the same name, deals with a group of individual CIA black ops operatives who band together to find and kill whoever betrayed them and left them for dead. The other two films similar to this are The A-Team and The Expendables. The former is, if you don’t know already, based off of the TV series of the same name that first aired in 1983 about four ex-military men who were framed for a crime they didn’t commit and go about trying to clear their names, and the latter deals with a group of mercenaries hired to overthrow the vicious dictator of the small South American country of Vilena.

Well what’s so interesting about the fact that these films are releasing within a couple months of each other? Everyone one knows that Hollywood is a copycat town, right? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, studios like to hang their hats on proven formulas and trends, but that some trends appear at all is often reflective of the cultural mood of our country. Over the past few years there has been a heavy influx of films dealing with individual heroes, many of them being of the “super” variety. But aside from Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man, there were John McClain, Rambo, Indiana Jones, and James Bond. Obviously, none of these rogue stand-alone men did everything by themselves (Batman had Alfred, Iron Man had Pepper Pots, James Bond had MI6, etc.), but by and large they did all of the most difficult and dangerous things by themselves. Americans love heroes that are individualistic and autonomous. They’ve loved them like that for decades and will continue to love them for decades more. What seems so peculiar about The Losers, The A-Team, and The Expendables being released in one summer season, then, is that the team concept stands out so sharply from this crowd of actioners.

These three movies are hardly pioneering new ground, of course, as the X-Men trilogy made the point during the middle of the first super hero wave of the new century that working as a team for a common goal is the real and only way to make progress. However the three films in question seem to have their sights set a lot lower than achieving social understanding and ridding the world of prejudice. In the case of The Losers, for example, the goal is simply to get revenge on the group’s would-be assassinators. So, because the scope is miniscule and the benefits gained from the group’s success are specific to just them, the individualistic sense is still ever-present. And, the same might be said of The A-Team as well. Because the goal in The Expendables is to overthrow a dictatorship it can be argued that the benefits of the heroes victory would not be exclusive to just them but would also include the entire citizenship of Vilena. So, you could say the sense of individual empowerment would at least not be the same variety found in the other two films. However, it is interesting to point out that The Expendables are a group made up of mercenaries, who are a breed of people not known for their team mentalities.

What do you all make of this? Is the concept of working as a team against evil going to become the new wave in action movies, or is it just a phase? Do you expect to see these films come close to enjoying the type of success that Iron Man 2 will no doubt garner? Which type of hero do you emulate the most? Which do you enjoy watching the most? Voice your opinions and let it be known what you think a true hero really is.

We’ll revisit this topic once all three films have been released (which will be mid-August) and ask you these same questions again. Then we’ll compare your responses to try and come to some sort of conclusion. Till then, just enjoy the movies!

Hollywood Video already filed for bankruptcy, and all the signs indicate that Blockbuster will be next

In an editorial for IGN.com, writer Cindy White examines the unenviable situation that video stores are in with having to compete with elements like Netflix, Hollywood studios, new customer standards, and age. White pays particular attention to Blockbuster Inc., which at one time was the lone video rental giant but is currently staring down the proverbial barrel of the Chapter 11 gun.

The CEO of Blockbuster, Jim Keyes, recently spoke to the L.A. Times and suggested that what Netflix doesn’t provide his company does, which is the immediate availability of new releases. What perhaps Keyes fails to understand about the renting market is that people who wish to rent movies are more interested in renting what they want from a greater selection than  catching up on what the industry has recently pumped out. Mainstream video stores have never been famous for their wide selections, and charging per-movie viewing fees from their online collection is probably not the way to compete with Netflix’s offering of unlimited online viewings for subscribers.

What White eventually concludes is that Blockbuster is holding on to the past, and that is why they are failing. The company recently signed an agreement with Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, and Universal which will allow them to show all new DVD releases from these studios without having to wait the 28 day window that Netflix and Redbox must. This gives them a leg up by having the most updated selection, but Netflix in particular agreed to the delay in exchange for a greater selection for online viewing. All of Blockbuster’s moves to fend off bankruptcy indicate that it’s thinking more about the present, while Netflix is clearly thinking about the future.

By the end of her article White comes to the same conclusion that most have, which is that Blockbuster is simply delaying the inevitable. She claims that despite the company’s best efforts so far, it’s quickly heading towards irrelevancy. Mind you not all video rental stores are as doomed as Blockbuster. The business that once nearly had the video rental market cornered is simply proving that without proper management and a sharp eye on the horizon no company is big enough to survive the changing of the times; And you best believe it, the times they are a changin’.

Quick Opinion: Though the article hardly goes into much detail, the point is well made that in the video rental market the tides are changing and Blockbuster is being left behind. What stinks even more for the company is that even though they reportedly signed with the three big studios to make sure they are allowed to rent new DVD releases the possibility still exists that those same studios will eventually forbid rental companies from renting out new releases in order to raise actual DVD sales. In many cases studios get more money from DVD sales than theater grosses, but because DVD sales on the whole have been dipping slightly over the past year they’re trying everything to get them to go back up. If a buy-only period comes to pass, Blockbuster will lose its only redeeming quality with customers. Such a loss would be the final nail in the coffin, assuming Blockbuster stays alive long enough to see the day that happens. The company’s main downfall has been its lack of quality service (it reinstated late fees), higher prices, and limited selection. In other words, it failed to meet the demands of the market. My guess as to why this is the case is probably the same as yours in that the suits who ran the company probably felt so empowered by their success at the height of the rental store era (1999 or so) that it didn’t take competitors like Netflix seriously. Would’a, could’a, should’a.

Nicolas Cage and Jay Baruchel in the upcoming "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," about a wizard training a teenager in magic

There have been a number of films to come out the past few years that incorporate young leading actors, particularly teenagers (or at least roles written to be teenagers), such as Twilight (1 and 2), Percy Jackson and the Olympians, and the Harry Potter series. And what’s more, the trend is continuing with films like Kick-Ass, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, the ongoing Twilight series, I Am Number Four, and I’m.Mortal. All of these films not only star young actors but appeal to the teenage demographic as well – naturally. I’m.Mortal, for instance, is a story about earth as a place where people never look older than 21, and so teenagers appear identical to their parents and others older than them.

The Hollywood Reporter claims that this is because studios are convinced that movies starring young actors can work in any genre. Plus, it helps support the idea that what are popular right now with audiences are fresh faces. The trick, they claim, is “casting astutely and marketing shrewdly;” finding young actors that can fit the parts – just like with adult roles – as well as prove marketable to whatever the film’s target audience is (teenage girls or teenage boys, say).

What all of this could mean is that, if these films prove profitable, you can expect to see more of them in the future.

Source: Hollywood Reporter

Quick Opinion: I’m not at all surprised to see more movies being made that gear towards teens. The teenage demographic is one of the largest for Hollywood movies (perhaps second only to families), and that was since before the recession. It only makes good business sense that the industry focus on these two primary audience types during a time when they’re trying to make the safest business decisions they can. What’s good about this new attention to teen audiences is that with more teen-geared projects to make, studios can afford to be more daring with which projects they green light. The teen movie genre has opened up to include material that is created for more niche audiences, who would have otherwise probably been ignored.

Add all of this to the following facts:

• some audiences are in fact getting tired of seeing the same faces over and over again and so introducing new talent will potentially raise the interests of a lot of people.
• Young actors are cheap and willing to work, so not only are they cost-effective but you know you’re going to get their best efforts. Less money spent on the cast means more money can be spent on hiring better hands and directors to build the film, increasing the overall quality of the product while also assuring at least decent quality performances (in theory).

The release of Kick-Ass, for example, might spark hope in some of you that niche teenage audiences are finally getting the attention they deserve. However, I wouldn’t be fooled into thinking that this new attention will continue any longer than until the time when they stop acting as a crutch for the studios. Once the recession ends, whenever that may be, I predict that the teen genre will go right back to where it was before – focused on boy-meets-girl high school dramedies. In the end, though, what’s really important is the job market for young Hollywood actors. Congratulations to them!

Gossip magazines like this Photoplay have been around since the dawn of the film industry, but why are they so popular?

For as long as I can remember I have been enormously bewildered as to why so many people find gossip publications like The Inquirer, People Magazine, Star Magazine, and US Weekly so appealing. Beyond having a lack of interest in fashion I fail to recognize the purpose behind holding celebrities’ figures and overall looks under a microscope; praising one on a given week and criticizing them the next. And aside from all of this I also fall short of understanding the undying interest in celebrities’ social and romantic lives. This is not all to say that I consider celebrities uninteresting, quite the contrary, however the sex life of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt is not anywhere near the top million interests I have in the film industry and the people who are part of it.

But why is this? Why do so many people follow the romantic storylines of celebrities’ lives? All judgments aside, because for many the interest is indeed a guilty and harmless pleasure, the answers could lie in the history of the film industry – particularly the history of the “star system.” Read the rest of this entry »

The online video rental giant Netflix has grown even stronger

After signing new, separate deals, Netflix will have access to more 20th Century Fox and Universal Studios‘ films. Under their new deals, Neflix will agree to wait 28 days after any of their films release on DVD to offer them through their website. Also, Universal agreed to license more of their films for streaming (online viewing) and Fox has agreed to a first-time license that will allow Netflix to stream certain Fox TV shows.

Netflix also made a similar 28 day delay deal for new releases with Warner Bros. earlier this year.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said in October studios were wrestling with declining DVD sales as the rental market has been modestly growing and that some studios are considering introducing a DVD retail sales-only window for a few weeks. – Hollywood Reporter

Source: Hollywood Reporter

Quick Opinion: The 28 day delay deals certainly make sense for the studios, particularly 20th Century Fox because they own the distribution rights to James Cameron’s Avatar (which in case you’ve been living under a rock has become the most successful film in history). Having that 28 day window will allow the studio to grab all the money they can from those who don’t wish to wait 28 extra days to rent the movie – and you can bet that will be a lot of people. On the flip side, Netflix’s side of the deals only make sense because they’re getting something in return, and good enough for them it’s something that will actually improve their profits. With more streaming movies and wider selections the company will have an even firmer grasp on the video renting market. And, even though they have 28 day delays for the 3 biggest Hollywood studios, they don’t have to wait that long to make every new DVD available, as they can still provide newly released DVDs from everyone else.

What is discouraging about the last bit of news is this: With the rental market slowly rising and DVD sales somewhat declining, is there any reason to assume that this is not because of the current recession? With less money to play with, of course people are going to forgo spending $20+ on a new DVD and spend $5, $6 or $7 on a rental instead. It’s smart consumerism, especially if you’re not head over heals for a particular movie or haven’t seen it before (regardless of what some people might think there are some people who have yet to see Avatar, so why should studios expect people who haven’t seen it to spend $20+ to own it?). If the studios decide to make up for their losses with DVD sales by creating a sales-only window after releases there could possibly be some serious consequences. Ma and Pa video stores, already barely getting by (as the switch from VHS to DVD nearly wiped them out as it is), would no longer be able to provide their hottest commodity, which is new releases. Most of these stores at this point get by through offering great selections and immediate service (as opposed to Netflix’s 2 to 3 days wait period), but any more hits to this small market and I fear they’ll start disappearing for good. Creating a sales-only window might help studios beat the current lull in DVD sales, but the lull is only temporary and the window’s possible effects could be permanent. It would be a step towards getting rid of all video rental stores period instead of just the one rental giant Blockbuster, which looks like it will soon file for Chapter 11.

Should 'Avatar' be considered exemplary of what Hollywood should regularly strive to create?

Much has been made about James Cameron’s newest cinematic juggernaut Avatar. With the film’s production said to exceed a record-setting $400 million, it has made back roughly 75% of that cost just 5 days after its release (domestic + foreign). The vast majority of that price tag is due to the groundbreaking special effects and 3D presentation (as I’m sure you’ve all heard), which required the kind of technology and personnel that only the likes of a Hollywood studio can provide. Many like to deride Hollywood because of its “gross” financing for projects intended for mass consumption, however on occasion (such as with Avatar) we are reminded that Hollywood is capable of delivering us something truly striking and amazing. Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy is another example that can be referenced from this decade. Big name studios love cashing in on such films, and audiences love paying to see them. When done right (unlike with, say, Waterworld) big budget extravaganzas have the ability, and by all accounts likelihood, to be very notable and even pivotal artifacts within the world of movies. So, then, what could all of this mean? What could the tremendous success of Avatar lead to? Read the rest of this entry »