June 23, 2003

Sunday afternoons aren't as fun as they used to be…

It used to be that Sunday afternoons was a pleasant opportunity to batter and bounce around the official studio position on a movie.  “The second best opening for a comedy in July starring a right-handed bachelor with a grandparent who voted for Kennedy in Chicago and refused a second ballot.”  That kind of thing.  “We’re ecstatic,” she lied about the opening that assured a loss, even after ancillaries.   That thing. 

Now opening weekends are about trying to maintain perspective for both sides of the lie.  Of course, it isn't always a lie on both sides.  Or even one side sometimes.  What’s the other side?  Well, the critical press, of course. 

This is becoming the dominan, unavoidable theme of this summer as we progress.  In the face of enormous success, we in the media seem to be fixated on attaching the stench of failure. 

It’s not just the media.  We have certainly infected the industry and many of the civilians out there are well.  These days, we seem anxious to determine a movie’s fate before we or anyone else even sees it.  Then we elevate the film based our self-determined pre-destiny.  And from that point on, every statistic, every review, every feature is proof, one-way or the other.  The negative can be extracted from a fairly positive review the way pull quotes are lifted from bad reviews.  The positive can be hung onto, in spite of contradictory evidence.

This year, the phenomenon has occurred almost every weekend.  People were surprised they liked X2 so much, so everything about the film was treated in a positive matter.  If you remember, X-Men opened to $54 million in 2000, reached $157 million domestic, but was still perceived as disappointing in light of the opening.  X2 opened to $32 million more than the first film and will total out with about $60 million more than the original.  But that's not a disappointment. 

In the second weekend, Daddy Day Care opened to “just” $28 million.  The vultures came out, tearing at Eddie Murphy as best they could.  His career was over.  He had no audience.  He made only bad choices.  It looks like the film will pass $100 million by the end of the 4^th of July week, if it can hold onto some screens.  Have we heard a word about this success story?  Of course not.

With Matrix Reloaded, we found that a $92 million 3-day could be a problem… a $134 million 4.2-day too!!!  The film looks to top out domestically at about three times that opening 3-day.  That’s a significantly better opening-to-total ratio than X2.  A disaster!  $275 million domestic.  Horrible!!!

Bruce Almighty landed with a critical thud.  But the $68 million opening for Jim Carrey had to be acknowledged.  But surely, the bottom would drop out on the second weekend.  Instead, the holds on the film have gotten better each weekend and the film will get into the $230 million range.  Ho Hum.  

Finding Nemo has been a love fest.  The film deserves it.  Okay… someone got what was coming to them.

2 Fast 2 Furious opened to “only” $10 million more than the first film in the series.  Another “disappointment.”  And of course, it had to crash and burn because the critics didn’t fawn.  But it didn’t.  It looks to top out at around $120 - $130 million in spite of hellacious competition.

And now, The Hulk…

By this time last year, there had been three $50 million openings.  The Hulk makes six so far.  Last year, there were eight over the entire year.  My guess is that we will be at eight this year by July 6. 

Statistics are malleable.  I don’t feel as though The Hulk needs defending.  The best June opening ever is impressive enough.  On the other hand, I have to admit that given the huge wave of films coming after next week’s arrival of the Angels, there is a very good chance that The Hulk will top out at $150 million domestic. And there is no question, that performance will be seen and felt as a disappointment. 

That said, this weekend, like The Matrix Reloaded opening weekend, is mostly a product of grotesquely inflated expectations.   This is not to say that there wasn’t room for some higher numbers for this film.  There was.  But what we are learning this year is just how much the market can carry when everything seems to be working okay. 

In the big picture, what happens to The Hulk from here on is really up to the people, not the critics and not the media.  But I would say that $10 million to $20 million will depend, in the end, on the tone that's being set in newsrooms across the country as I type. 

And what if Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle opens at $58 million.  Win or loss?  T3 at $75 million?  Legally Blonde 2 at $45 million?  What will the evidence show as we sift through the sands of hype?

The trouble is, hindsight is no longer 20/20.  What has happened this summer is unlikely to happen quite the same way again.    So how do analysts write this one up?  Change the titles and the picture would change drastically.  Change the dates and the same is true. 

A 28% domestic gross increase for the second film in the X-Men franchise is nothing to sneeze at.  But flip the dates on X2 and The Hulk and you probably have a $90 million start for The Hulk, on the way to a $240 million total and X2 opening in the 50s on it’s way to pretty much the same $157 it did the first time. 

What will Harry Potter 3 and Shrek 2 do to next June?  Well, you can be sure that one of them will beat the Hulk record.  But why isn’t one of these films moving to May 14?  Maybe one will.  One assumes that Shrek is going to do great wherever it starts, much as Finding Nemo has this year.  But unless someone else is already in there that I don’t know about, May 14 offers the opportunity for a huge opening a week after Van Helsing and three full free weekends with “the kids” before Harry Potter shows up.  And one lesson of 2003 will probably be – you never know until you know – is that May is the seat of most box office ease, not June or July… where, by the way, Spider-Man 2 joins the party.  A May 14 release date would assure that Shrek 2 was past $200 million before Harry Potter showed.  June 18 all but guarantees that the film will face Spidey 2 with less than $150 million in the bank.  You tell me.

But I digress…

After seeing The Hulk, I could only wish that they had taken more time to show the film to a fairly wide-ranging group of “trusted insiders,” who would have pushed Universal to push Ang Lee to cut 20 minutes of the movie.  I deeply believe that a 20-minute pruning would have made the film cleaner for those who didn’t love every moment of the Father’s Day love fest.

Of course this would not have stopped some of the more rabid attacks, which seem to be quite personally aiming at Ang Lee.  For instance, here are two clips from recent reviews by Salon critic Charles Taylor, edited to keep them blind:

1. “A master of the medium who exults in trickery and sex appeal, (He) takes the stuff of cheap movies and invests them with a wicked luster. In his dazzling and luxuriant new thriller, (He) turns trash into chic.”

2. “(He) has developed a considerable reputation as an artist and a craftsman, and except for the slight pleasures of his (unnamed film) (most of them having to do with the cast) I'm damned if I can figure out why. At best, he's a pedestrian storyteller with no feel for pacing or for the visceral, no discernible sense of humor and no sensibility for the enticements of pop entertainment.”

Who is Charles embracing and whom is he ripping? 

Fill in the blanks on Quote #1 with Brian DePalma and Femme Fatale.  Quote #2 speaks Ang Lee and, well, not The Hulk.  Taylor is so busy shredding Lee, you can only wonder why he hasn’t put a hit out on the man.  A review that is anything less than blistering was an impossibility.  (To read Taylor on Femme Fatale, click here - and click here - for The Hulk review.)

In any case, the insanely ballsy move would have been to move the opening to the first weekend of August, which would have allowed some “testing” of the film.  This, of course, would have been impossible to do three weeks ago when Lee delivered a film to the studio that they felt could be seen by human eyes.  So I am not pointing a finger at anyone for not making this move.  But in the world of big budget, big noise films, the cards are being played closer and closer to the vest.  And in Summer 2003, a number of big films will pay the price because the devil is in the lack of details.

TOMORROW:  The IFP/LA Film Festival wrap-up and the Hollywood Reporter Key Art Awards. 

READER OF THE DAY:  THE HAM writes:  “"If Kelly Clarkson could act, she would be perfect. But I am afraid that she can’t. "

Huh?  Kelly Clarkson?  The American Idol?  Perfect as Joplin?  What??  Are they're grassroots T shirts (ala "Free Winona") being printed? 

First off, I have nothing against Ms. Clarkson.  I hope she has a long and prosperous career.....just not in the film business.  Stick with Britney-esque pop and she'll do fine.  But her as JOPLIN?  Are you on Crack?   Have you seen the abomination that is "From Justin to Kelly" (aka The American Idol musical without Simon)?  I was unfortunate enough to see a press screening.   Not only is it bad in a vacuous, "we spent a $1.98 on it, Disney Channel TV movie" sort of way, it may actually drive a nail into the coffin of the Musical that Moulin Rouge and Chicago worked so damn hard to pry back open. 

"If she could act...But I am afraid she can't."  She not only CAN'T act, she offends the profession of acting.  How, in any possible universe where things make sense, can you see even a molecule of similarity between Joplin and Clarkson?  Yes, they're both human and both female.....and the similarities end right there. 

Here's a pull quote:  "Not since the heyday of  "Grease 2"  and Breakin' 2: Electric

Boogaloo...... (fill in the rest yourself).  The sheer ineptitude of this film BEGS for a Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment.  Granted, I'm not this film's target audience (who exactly is the target audience for this kind of drivel anyway?) but  I'm stunned at the slack work from all involved.  Writer Kim Fuller (sister of "Idol" co creator Simon Fuller and writer of razzie winner "Spice World", which is "Citizen Kane" next to this one) can't seem to write coherent dialogue, plot or characters.  A "choose your own adventure story" would have had more dramatic weight and through line than this "musical cell phone commercial" (the product placement cell phones are more lovingly lit and shot than the so called "actors") masquerading as a "real" (full $10 admission price?; shame on you 20th Century Fox) movie. 

Director Robert Iscove, he of "She's All That" ("a roomful of scriptwriters could come up with") fame seems to be obsessed with the free floating master shot.  It has all the mis en scene of a shot on video porn (not that I've seen many of those) and looks like it was completed during a long weekend.   The "music" if instantly forgettable and the "choreography" makes the "She's All That" prom sequence look like a Busby Berkely musical number in comparison.   Not the worst studio flick I've seen this year, but will win a special award of "de-merit" to Fox/News Corp. for cheesiest, most cynical use of corporate "synergy".  Maybe Simon Colwell should do full length commentary on the DVD.  Only then would this be worth the money.  And I thought "Crossroads" was about the lowest you could go with a "singer who wants to act" movie.

The sheer awfulness of FJ2K" aside, what is it exactly that you see in Clarkson that your would even consider her to play Joplin?  Aside from a somewhat similar body shape and (admittedly) a pretty good set of pipes, she COMPLETELY lacks Joplin's charisma, or even a hint of her dark, self destructive streak.  A few years ago names like Lili Taylor and Melissa Etheridge were being bandied about for the role.  Those names I could see taking a shot (one has the acting chops, the other the musical talent) but Clarkson? 

Please. 

What's next, are you going suggest Clarkson's  "faux afroed" co star Justin be put up for the Morrison role in a "Doors" remake?”

E ME:  Keep The Hulk comments coming… and are you going into movies with a chip – positive or negative – on your shoulder these days?