This summer season has so far been absolutely stuffed with seemingly more big blockbusters than ever before. For the film fan, that's surely a good thing - more stuff to see, right? I'm not certain, though, that it's entirely good for business.
Recently in the US there was a 3-week stretch that saw Die Hard 4, Ratatouille, Transformers and Harry Potter 5 released, one after another. The first two were released two days apart. This cramming of the release schedules means that increasingly the films have to make a big dent in their first few days to have much hope of hanging around in cinemas for long.
Competition is surely a good thing, of course, but I just feel that by releasing such high profile films so close together, the studios are unneccessarily eating into their takings. This summer was tipped to be the biggest of all time (and may still be), mainly due to the three giants released in May, namely Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Unsurprisingly, though, none of these have reached the heights of previous series instalments or come anywhere near $400 million domestic.
My question is, would they have made more money if they had been released further apart? The answer, to me, would appear to be "quite probably". The problem for the studios is that there are only so many weeks in the summer, and they each have to jostle for the best position.
Let me propose a radical notion. How about blockbusters are released all year round? Why do they all have to be splurged out in summer, within weeks of each other? (Or, in the last few years, November/December.) One major advantage of summer is that for much of the time schools are on holiday, meaning more weekday business, but that doesn't explain why May is seen as such a big month for business. Schools are still in session and in the UK at least (I don't know about America), May and June contain the exam period for schools and universities.
Some months of the year are seen as "dump months", in which studios release films they expect will make little money. Such months include September and February, often pretty rubbish months for film releases. Studios don't release their big films in these months because they're seen as months when people don't go to the cinema as much, but perhaps that's just because so few appealing films are released?
Back in 1975, summer was seen as a bad period in which to release films. People prefer to stay outdoors in the nice weather, the logic said. Then Jaws was released. Two years later, Star Wars. This year, 300's $70 million launch proved that March can generate blockbuster grosses. I'd like to see each major film given more room to breathe, with perhaps one or two blockbusters released each month. I don't see why a film that people genuinely want to see would fail if it was released in February. To paraphrase an old adage, "If you film it, they will come".
It would help matters if blockbusters were more consistently good, though.
[The other side of the coin here is that the lack of blockbusters in the "down" months means that they don't suffocate smaller, low-budget fare. I think both could survive, given sufficient quality.]
[2/5] Cinema Review: The Amazing Spider-Man
The Spidey saga gets a reboot only a decade after it started. Rich finds out whether Marc Webb's new take manages to justify its existence...
[3/5] Cinema Review: Prometheus
Ridley Scott reaches for the stars as he returns to the Alien universe. Does he bite off more than he can chew?
Front(over)loading
For about 20 years now, major Hollywood blockbusters have been following an increasing trend of having big first weekend grosses and then trailing off sharply from the second weekend onwards. The trend was started properly by Tim Burton's Batman, which opened to a then-record-breaking $40m. It went on to gross over $250m, but it only continued making significant grosses for about six weeks. Compare that to the old pattern of a movie like ET (admittedly an abnormally high-grossing example) which hung around the number 1 spot for months.
The frontloading of the audience seems to be reaching an extreme. At this rate, it can only be so long until movies make virtually all their money in the first week. I don't think it's a good trend to be setting; although first-weekend grosses are getting bigger all the time, overall grosses aren't.
Take the three "threequels" that have so far been released this year in the US: Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third and Pirates: AWE. They've all opened big (a record-breaking $151m for Spidey, an animated film record $121m for Shrek, and a Memorial Day weekend record $114m for Pirates, with $140m over the 4-day span). However, none of them are going to get close to matching the previous highs of their respective franchises.
It's also noteworthy that in the case of Spidey and Pirates, their first day gross has been roughly equivalent to the whole second weekend gross. That's one big fall, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that trend continue with more of the summer's big hitters to come. Ultimately these will result in the opening weekend representing probably 40% or more of the total gross.
There's not much that can be done about it, admittedly. With the current consumer climate and the now-set-in-stone tradition of opening absolutely everywhere at the same time, everyone goes to see the big films in their first weekend, and DVDs come out barely 3 months later now. I'm not trying to suggest that people should deliberately not see a film on its first weekend, though; obviously I pretty much always do that.
There is one way the trend can be somewhat rectified: make the movies good! Almost every franchise film with a big advertising spend can make masses of money in the first weekend whatever standard they are. But only good films (generally) have the legs to carry them to a great total gross in the long run. I don't think it's a coincidence that 2007's threequels have so far had big falls each weekend, because none of them have been very good (I've not seen Shrek the Third yet, but that's the general consensus).
There's a simple flow chart to this.
The frontloading of the audience seems to be reaching an extreme. At this rate, it can only be so long until movies make virtually all their money in the first week. I don't think it's a good trend to be setting; although first-weekend grosses are getting bigger all the time, overall grosses aren't.
Take the three "threequels" that have so far been released this year in the US: Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third and Pirates: AWE. They've all opened big (a record-breaking $151m for Spidey, an animated film record $121m for Shrek, and a Memorial Day weekend record $114m for Pirates, with $140m over the 4-day span). However, none of them are going to get close to matching the previous highs of their respective franchises.
It's also noteworthy that in the case of Spidey and Pirates, their first day gross has been roughly equivalent to the whole second weekend gross. That's one big fall, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that trend continue with more of the summer's big hitters to come. Ultimately these will result in the opening weekend representing probably 40% or more of the total gross.
There's not much that can be done about it, admittedly. With the current consumer climate and the now-set-in-stone tradition of opening absolutely everywhere at the same time, everyone goes to see the big films in their first weekend, and DVDs come out barely 3 months later now. I'm not trying to suggest that people should deliberately not see a film on its first weekend, though; obviously I pretty much always do that.
There is one way the trend can be somewhat rectified: make the movies good! Almost every franchise film with a big advertising spend can make masses of money in the first weekend whatever standard they are. But only good films (generally) have the legs to carry them to a great total gross in the long run. I don't think it's a coincidence that 2007's threequels have so far had big falls each weekend, because none of them have been very good (I've not seen Shrek the Third yet, but that's the general consensus).
There's a simple flow chart to this.
A film that is actually good
¦
\/
good word of mouth + repeat viewings
¦
\/
BIG MONEY.
¦
\/
good word of mouth + repeat viewings
¦
\/
BIG MONEY.
The Obligatory Pirates Rant
So I didn't like Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. I really wanted to.
When I first heard about the first Pirates film, I was ecstatic. I love pirates. As a kid I used to write pirate stories (I even wrote a four-part series called Battle On Treasure Island. They were each a page long. I was about 6 years old.) and I played the first two Monkey Island games to the point of being able to recite them. Therefore I was dying to see it even before the buzz about it actually possibly being good began to spread.
The reason I'm saying this is because it provides some sort of evidence that a film about pirates would have to be pretty awful for me to not like it. I'm predisposed to liking them. I felt like At World's End actively worked to make me hate it. It failed at that quest, because I don't hate it; I just think it took the franchise completely in the wrong direction. A big fall this weekend at the box office (only $43m second weekend - ouch) suggests that I'm not the only one.
(Spoilers ahead, probably.)
It seemed to me that with At World's End, and to a lesser extent Dead Man's Chest, the writers (Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio) were more concerned with being unpredicable than actually crafting a compelling story. The Pirates sequels can't be accused of adhering to formula like so many blockbusters, but formula exists for a reason: it works.
I'm not saying that the films should have been formulaic. I'm just saying that sometimes the sequels (again, mostly referring to AWE; I like DMC) made it feel like they were just throwing ideas at a wall and seeing what stuck. A lot didn't.
For example, nobody thought Jack Sparrow would 'die' at the end of the second movie, so they put that in despite the fact they didn't have a logical and appealing way to bring him back (the Davey Jones' Locker sequence just completely defies all credibility). Audiences didn't expect surrealism, so they shoved in a load of weird hallucinations. Nobody would have thought they'd see a kid being hanged in a Disney movie. Another tick. Etcetera, etcetera.
They forgot to make sure that the story they were telling was actually interesting and enjoyable. AWE is convoluted beyond belief and a lot of the stuff is just pointless; you could chop out half of the betrayals and negotiations and the rest of the film wouldn't have been harmed, given a bit of minor alteration. I found it interesting that in an interview on Box Office Mojo here, Elliot and Rossio say at one point in the script they had one character on two ships. That says a lot - if they can't keep track of the characters, how can we?
Another thing that really grinded my gears (to paraphrase Peter Griffin from Family Guy) was that some of the storylines that had been built up in DMC went nowhere. Davey Jones' story had no real conclusion, and Tia Dalma's transformation into a sea goddess and subsequent disappearance was completely irrelevant. The resurrection Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa was never explained sufficiently either, although his presence in the film was generally a high point. On top of all this, Chow Yun Fat joined in the fun in AWE, and his usefulness to the story added up to precisely nil.
I remember when I first saw DMC. I hadn't read any spoilers about the ending, so Barbossa's return came as a big surprise to me. When I first saw the boots coming down the stairs, I was expecting it to be Chow Yun Fat, because I'd heard he was in part 3. If that had been the case it could have been great, if Chow had been let loose to have a bit of fun.
But of course, Barbossa had to be brought back because he was one of the Pirate Lords needed to release Calypso from her human form (Tia Dalma - keeping up?). A friend pointed out to me how illogical that was the other day - Jack Sparrow was captain of the Black Pearl before Barbossa, right? Therefore why would they both be pirate lords?
Aaargh, I could go on all day! What a missed opportunity.
On a side note, I'd still like to see a Pirates 4 (although that's looking less likely with AWE's underwhelming US grosses), as the storyline set up at the end of AWE - Jack and Barbossa's competing quest for the Fountain of Youth - sounds like an opportunity for a lot of fun, and a return to the sheer breezy entertainment of the first film. I can see it now: Pirates vs. Indians in Florida... The potential for Orlando in-jokes alone makes it a no-brainer.
When I first heard about the first Pirates film, I was ecstatic. I love pirates. As a kid I used to write pirate stories (I even wrote a four-part series called Battle On Treasure Island. They were each a page long. I was about 6 years old.) and I played the first two Monkey Island games to the point of being able to recite them. Therefore I was dying to see it even before the buzz about it actually possibly being good began to spread.
The reason I'm saying this is because it provides some sort of evidence that a film about pirates would have to be pretty awful for me to not like it. I'm predisposed to liking them. I felt like At World's End actively worked to make me hate it. It failed at that quest, because I don't hate it; I just think it took the franchise completely in the wrong direction. A big fall this weekend at the box office (only $43m second weekend - ouch) suggests that I'm not the only one.
(Spoilers ahead, probably.)
It seemed to me that with At World's End, and to a lesser extent Dead Man's Chest, the writers (Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio) were more concerned with being unpredicable than actually crafting a compelling story. The Pirates sequels can't be accused of adhering to formula like so many blockbusters, but formula exists for a reason: it works.
I'm not saying that the films should have been formulaic. I'm just saying that sometimes the sequels (again, mostly referring to AWE; I like DMC) made it feel like they were just throwing ideas at a wall and seeing what stuck. A lot didn't.
For example, nobody thought Jack Sparrow would 'die' at the end of the second movie, so they put that in despite the fact they didn't have a logical and appealing way to bring him back (the Davey Jones' Locker sequence just completely defies all credibility). Audiences didn't expect surrealism, so they shoved in a load of weird hallucinations. Nobody would have thought they'd see a kid being hanged in a Disney movie. Another tick. Etcetera, etcetera.
They forgot to make sure that the story they were telling was actually interesting and enjoyable. AWE is convoluted beyond belief and a lot of the stuff is just pointless; you could chop out half of the betrayals and negotiations and the rest of the film wouldn't have been harmed, given a bit of minor alteration. I found it interesting that in an interview on Box Office Mojo here, Elliot and Rossio say at one point in the script they had one character on two ships. That says a lot - if they can't keep track of the characters, how can we?
Another thing that really grinded my gears (to paraphrase Peter Griffin from Family Guy) was that some of the storylines that had been built up in DMC went nowhere. Davey Jones' story had no real conclusion, and Tia Dalma's transformation into a sea goddess and subsequent disappearance was completely irrelevant. The resurrection Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa was never explained sufficiently either, although his presence in the film was generally a high point. On top of all this, Chow Yun Fat joined in the fun in AWE, and his usefulness to the story added up to precisely nil.
I remember when I first saw DMC. I hadn't read any spoilers about the ending, so Barbossa's return came as a big surprise to me. When I first saw the boots coming down the stairs, I was expecting it to be Chow Yun Fat, because I'd heard he was in part 3. If that had been the case it could have been great, if Chow had been let loose to have a bit of fun.
But of course, Barbossa had to be brought back because he was one of the Pirate Lords needed to release Calypso from her human form (Tia Dalma - keeping up?). A friend pointed out to me how illogical that was the other day - Jack Sparrow was captain of the Black Pearl before Barbossa, right? Therefore why would they both be pirate lords?
Aaargh, I could go on all day! What a missed opportunity.
On a side note, I'd still like to see a Pirates 4 (although that's looking less likely with AWE's underwhelming US grosses), as the storyline set up at the end of AWE - Jack and Barbossa's competing quest for the Fountain of Youth - sounds like an opportunity for a lot of fun, and a return to the sheer breezy entertainment of the first film. I can see it now: Pirates vs. Indians in Florida... The potential for Orlando in-jokes alone makes it a no-brainer.
Couldn't Say It Better Myself
Sometimes I see a review or a comment about a film that I've seen and I think, "that's precisely what I thought". Most of the time the viewpoint is expressed more eloquently than I could put it myself.
So, I give you the latest example, regarding Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.
"Thought Pirates 2 was bloated, overplotted and made no sense? You ain't seen nothing yet."
Tim Robey, Daily Telegraph, May 26 2007.
For comparison, read my review here.
Expect me to rant quite a bit about Pirates 3 in the coming days.
So, I give you the latest example, regarding Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.
"Thought Pirates 2 was bloated, overplotted and made no sense? You ain't seen nothing yet."
Tim Robey, Daily Telegraph, May 26 2007.
For comparison, read my review here.
Expect me to rant quite a bit about Pirates 3 in the coming days.
Second Time's A Charm
I recently saw 28 Weeks Later, and it pretty much blew me away (review here). For me, it's a big improvement over the original. That got me thinking: how many sequels are there that actually are clearly better than the first instalments in the series? The list is bound to be a short one, but here are some that come to mind.
- The Empire Strikes Back. One of the most obvious ones, perhaps. Empire is easily the best Star Wars film to me, and it's the only one that I regularly feel like returning too. It seems more than just a coincidence that this one had the least imput from a certain Mr. Lucas.
- Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The first Terminator is a classic, but T2 is a prime example of how you can use a bigger budget to craft bigger thrills. It may be a bit sentimental sometimes, but it's one of the best action films of all time if you ask me. And no, Terminator 3 should not have happened. (Don't get me started on Terminator 4 or the Sarah Connor Chronicles...)
- X-Men 2. I find that Bryan Singer's comic sequel lessens on repeat viewings, but it's still hard to deny it's a more entertaining beast than the relatively restrained series opener. Singer juggles the various characters with aplomb.
- The Bourne Supremacy. There's not much to choose between the Bournes, really, but a more satisfying ending means that Supremacy pips it for me.
- Spider-Man 2. I waver on this one. At first I thought Spidey 2 was miles better than the first, but I've since rewatched the original a few times and it's grown on me. Still, Spidey 2 has some superb action scenes and better effects.
- From Russia With Love. I'm not sure you can really count any of the 20 subsequent Bond films after Dr. No as proper sequels, but FRWL is the best one if you ask me. In fact, a lot of them are better than Dr. No to be honest.
- Batman Begins. Again, this isn't truly a sequel, because it's a restart. But the fact remains that it's the fifth Batman feature film (the Adam West movie doesn't count) and is the best superhero flick ever.
- Back to the Future Part II. BTTF is possibly one of the best-structured screenplays ever. Part II is more convoluted and has the trouble of restarting the story but it does it with apparent ease. It's also ingenious.
- Alien 3. After seeing the workprint cut of Alien 3 in the Alien Quadrilogy box set it instantly shot up in my estimation. I love the set design and atmosphere of the piece. It's not what people expected after Aliens, which is probably why it went down poorly.
- Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. When I first watched DMC, I wasn't hugely impressed. Since then, I've slowly come round to its charms. I watch it regularly and still can't get enough of that waterwheel set-piece. I may even prefer it to the first one now.
- Superman II. Superman II does have an unfair advantage in the re-watch stakes as there are now two versions of it, but even if there was only the theatrical I think I'd watch it more than Superman: The Movie. General Zod is an awesome villain, and the "General, would you care to step outside?" moment is a classic - one agonisingly ruined in the Donner Cut.
Pirates 3 Tomorrow!
Tomorrow, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is released. I've been really looking forward to it since last Christmas, when I got the Dead Man's Chest DVD and decided that I did actually like it a lot. But a couple of things have me slightly concerned.
I've mostly avoided reviews of the film, unlike with Spider-Man 3, because I had the ending of that film annoyingly spoiled for me. I have seen a few star ratings and read the odd sentence or two, though. They generally have given it an average grade (3 out of 5) and said that it's too long and muddled; basically what they all said about number 2.
Theoretically, that shouldn't really bother me. As I've said, DMC grew on me considerably with repeated viewings, after being disappointed with it initially. I still have some issues with it, but I think it's generally pretty entertaining, especially the awesome waterwheel swordfight. Fundamentally I now think that it's a solid continuation of the franchise.
What I've heard about AWE, though, is that it's dark, and the humour is not present as much as in the previous ones. If you ask me, humour is key to this franchise's success, and it was DMC's darker edge that put me off. As I said in my first review, I thought they made the same mistake as in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom by going darker when they didn't need to. Fortunately the Indy series was redeemed by The Last Crusade, a return to the feel and excitement of Raiders.
In the case of Pirates, however, it seems that the third one is going to be the darkest yet. Not only that, there looks like there'll be less in the way of tropical island landscapes - an obvious staple of the series - and a more gloomy aesthetic overall (judging by the trailer). Plus it is the longest instalment too at about 160 minutes. I'd love for my concerns to be wrong.
On a related note, where is all the advertising? I remember clearly the advertising blitz for Spider-Man 3 and even wrote about it in an earlier post, but Pirates 3 seems to be going to the other extreme. There's only one trailer (which I must have seen dozens of times by now) and a few posters knocking about, I haven't noticed much. It's all very odd.
Going by that fact, and the film's running time, I'm pretty sure it can't beat Spider-Man 3's opening weekend (although huge opening weekends are getting more and more common these days, with Shrek the Third's surprisingly big 120m+ last weekend). It should last longer than its superhero rival though, since it doesn't have any particularly huge imminent competition and previous instalments have shown decent legs.
Whatever, as always, I'll be there on opening day.
I've mostly avoided reviews of the film, unlike with Spider-Man 3, because I had the ending of that film annoyingly spoiled for me. I have seen a few star ratings and read the odd sentence or two, though. They generally have given it an average grade (3 out of 5) and said that it's too long and muddled; basically what they all said about number 2.
Theoretically, that shouldn't really bother me. As I've said, DMC grew on me considerably with repeated viewings, after being disappointed with it initially. I still have some issues with it, but I think it's generally pretty entertaining, especially the awesome waterwheel swordfight. Fundamentally I now think that it's a solid continuation of the franchise.
What I've heard about AWE, though, is that it's dark, and the humour is not present as much as in the previous ones. If you ask me, humour is key to this franchise's success, and it was DMC's darker edge that put me off. As I said in my first review, I thought they made the same mistake as in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom by going darker when they didn't need to. Fortunately the Indy series was redeemed by The Last Crusade, a return to the feel and excitement of Raiders.
In the case of Pirates, however, it seems that the third one is going to be the darkest yet. Not only that, there looks like there'll be less in the way of tropical island landscapes - an obvious staple of the series - and a more gloomy aesthetic overall (judging by the trailer). Plus it is the longest instalment too at about 160 minutes. I'd love for my concerns to be wrong.
On a related note, where is all the advertising? I remember clearly the advertising blitz for Spider-Man 3 and even wrote about it in an earlier post, but Pirates 3 seems to be going to the other extreme. There's only one trailer (which I must have seen dozens of times by now) and a few posters knocking about, I haven't noticed much. It's all very odd.
Going by that fact, and the film's running time, I'm pretty sure it can't beat Spider-Man 3's opening weekend (although huge opening weekends are getting more and more common these days, with Shrek the Third's surprisingly big 120m+ last weekend). It should last longer than its superhero rival though, since it doesn't have any particularly huge imminent competition and previous instalments have shown decent legs.
Whatever, as always, I'll be there on opening day.
Spider-Man 3 Retrospective
Yes, I know it's a little early for a retrospective, considering the film in question came out 5 days ago. But I just saw Spider-Man 3 for the second time today and it solidified my thoughts a bit more.
Most importantly, the second go-around didn't really change my overall view of the film: that it has got its moments, but is considerably inferior to the other two. However, the bashing that it is receiving in some quarters is completely out of all proportion - it's nowhere near Superman III on the travesty scale, for example.
Warning, for the approximately three people on the planet who haven't seen it yet: SPOILERS.
One thing I kept thinking during my second watch was that I really want to do a re-edit of the film. It couldn't iron out all the flaws, certainly, but I do think the flow could be improved. I don't like how once the black goo has infected the Spidey suit Peter can still take it off easily, and turn back into nice Peter. I think the black suit should've latched itself onto him and stayed on him until he rips it off in the bell tower. With a bit of re-ordering of scenes, that could probably be worked out.
What editing couldn't really solve is the slow start. While the film takes a while to get moving, that's mainly because Spider-Man 2 really came to a nicely resolved conclusion, except with the Harry storyline. It means that at the start of this instalment some time has to be taken to restart the forward momentum of the plot. I would have just liked a fairly basic Spider-Man rescue to open the film, not really related to the rest of the plot but just to get the audience in the mood.
One part of the set-up I might jettison is the first scene where we meet Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), soon to become the Sandman. The scene sets up his relationship with his daughter and estranged wife, but it slows down the beginning too much if you ask me, creating the need for some cumbersome cross-cutting. It does make the character of Marko more sympathetic but I could live without it.
On the subject of Sandman, I didn't really like him as a villain. Church gave an excellent performance, as I'd expected after Sideways. I just didn't feel he really belonged in the Spider-Man movie universe. Somehow, a guy who has four mechanical arms attached to his body (i.e. Doctor Octopus) seems more plausible and less outlandish than a guy who can literally turn into sand. I also didn't think the effects were that great at all. The Sandman 'birth' scene was good but I think a lot of that is down to the music and the performance rather than the believability of the CGI, which was never really top-drawer in my opinion. On top of that, I really didn't like Sandman's ability to turn into a sand cloud and fly around at will, a power which seems to have been made up by the filmmakers.
Moving on to one of the major bones of contention, the dance sequence. Personally I do find it pretty funny but I also think it's a bit too cheesy and goofy to completely work. But it is the only point in the film where Tobey Maguire is really able to have some fun in the role, and he revels in it. Going by the evidence of Spider-Man 3 it really looks like Raimi is dying to make a musical, and I'd prefer that he scratched that itch before making the next Spidey, if he does indeed return.
Now, Venom. For one thing, as I said in my review, in his full form I think he looks amazing. The design of the creature was absolutely nailed. He's not in it enough unfortunately, and even when he is, there are certain aspects that I found really jarring. One, of course, is the really perfunctory "let's team up" scene between him and Sandman. More importantly to me, I don't think he should have talked, or if he did it should have been a really growly, animalistic voice. I also didn't like that Venom's 'mask' kept receding and showing Brock's face underneath, as it really lessened the menace, and Topher Grace is completely ill-suited to that aspect of the character.
Despite the clunkiness of many elements of the film, I still find it highly enjoyable. No sections have bored me either of the times I've seen it. I love the frequent little touches of humour - not the broad goofy stuff like the "Evil Peter" hairdo, mind, but things like the door jamming routine and the cookie girl - which reminded me of the earlier films and showed that Raimi hasn't completely lost touch with them.
The climactic action scene kind of sums Spider-Man 3 up. I like it, but there are certain aspects that really get on my nerves. One such example is the British TV news reporter. Another is the aforementioned moments when Venom speaks. Also Sandman seems to be in the fight just because he's one of the villains and therefore has to be; when he later shows up, rather out of the blue (after having been apparently defeated), he says he was forced into everything, but that doesn't stack up. He may have been trying to get money because his daughter's ill but that doesn't mean he has to help Venom put an innocent civilian (Mary-Jane, again) in peril. Also, his dumb, groaning giant sand creature form reminded me of Mongo, the giant gingerbread man fro Shrek 2, which made him seem kind of laughable. Nevertheless, despite the problems with the sequence, it is still engrossing and fun, and I absolutely love that shot in which Spidey and Venom fall towards the ground, fighting each other all the way down.
Interestingly, the cinema didn't seem very busy today. For the Wednesday after the release of a blockbuster that has broken so many records, that's kind of surprising. It's going to see quite a drop in its second weekend, by the looks of it.
Most importantly, the second go-around didn't really change my overall view of the film: that it has got its moments, but is considerably inferior to the other two. However, the bashing that it is receiving in some quarters is completely out of all proportion - it's nowhere near Superman III on the travesty scale, for example.
Warning, for the approximately three people on the planet who haven't seen it yet: SPOILERS.
One thing I kept thinking during my second watch was that I really want to do a re-edit of the film. It couldn't iron out all the flaws, certainly, but I do think the flow could be improved. I don't like how once the black goo has infected the Spidey suit Peter can still take it off easily, and turn back into nice Peter. I think the black suit should've latched itself onto him and stayed on him until he rips it off in the bell tower. With a bit of re-ordering of scenes, that could probably be worked out.
What editing couldn't really solve is the slow start. While the film takes a while to get moving, that's mainly because Spider-Man 2 really came to a nicely resolved conclusion, except with the Harry storyline. It means that at the start of this instalment some time has to be taken to restart the forward momentum of the plot. I would have just liked a fairly basic Spider-Man rescue to open the film, not really related to the rest of the plot but just to get the audience in the mood.
One part of the set-up I might jettison is the first scene where we meet Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), soon to become the Sandman. The scene sets up his relationship with his daughter and estranged wife, but it slows down the beginning too much if you ask me, creating the need for some cumbersome cross-cutting. It does make the character of Marko more sympathetic but I could live without it.
On the subject of Sandman, I didn't really like him as a villain. Church gave an excellent performance, as I'd expected after Sideways. I just didn't feel he really belonged in the Spider-Man movie universe. Somehow, a guy who has four mechanical arms attached to his body (i.e. Doctor Octopus) seems more plausible and less outlandish than a guy who can literally turn into sand. I also didn't think the effects were that great at all. The Sandman 'birth' scene was good but I think a lot of that is down to the music and the performance rather than the believability of the CGI, which was never really top-drawer in my opinion. On top of that, I really didn't like Sandman's ability to turn into a sand cloud and fly around at will, a power which seems to have been made up by the filmmakers.
Moving on to one of the major bones of contention, the dance sequence. Personally I do find it pretty funny but I also think it's a bit too cheesy and goofy to completely work. But it is the only point in the film where Tobey Maguire is really able to have some fun in the role, and he revels in it. Going by the evidence of Spider-Man 3 it really looks like Raimi is dying to make a musical, and I'd prefer that he scratched that itch before making the next Spidey, if he does indeed return.
Now, Venom. For one thing, as I said in my review, in his full form I think he looks amazing. The design of the creature was absolutely nailed. He's not in it enough unfortunately, and even when he is, there are certain aspects that I found really jarring. One, of course, is the really perfunctory "let's team up" scene between him and Sandman. More importantly to me, I don't think he should have talked, or if he did it should have been a really growly, animalistic voice. I also didn't like that Venom's 'mask' kept receding and showing Brock's face underneath, as it really lessened the menace, and Topher Grace is completely ill-suited to that aspect of the character.
Despite the clunkiness of many elements of the film, I still find it highly enjoyable. No sections have bored me either of the times I've seen it. I love the frequent little touches of humour - not the broad goofy stuff like the "Evil Peter" hairdo, mind, but things like the door jamming routine and the cookie girl - which reminded me of the earlier films and showed that Raimi hasn't completely lost touch with them.
The climactic action scene kind of sums Spider-Man 3 up. I like it, but there are certain aspects that really get on my nerves. One such example is the British TV news reporter. Another is the aforementioned moments when Venom speaks. Also Sandman seems to be in the fight just because he's one of the villains and therefore has to be; when he later shows up, rather out of the blue (after having been apparently defeated), he says he was forced into everything, but that doesn't stack up. He may have been trying to get money because his daughter's ill but that doesn't mean he has to help Venom put an innocent civilian (Mary-Jane, again) in peril. Also, his dumb, groaning giant sand creature form reminded me of Mongo, the giant gingerbread man fro Shrek 2, which made him seem kind of laughable. Nevertheless, despite the problems with the sequence, it is still engrossing and fun, and I absolutely love that shot in which Spidey and Venom fall towards the ground, fighting each other all the way down.
Interestingly, the cinema didn't seem very busy today. For the Wednesday after the release of a blockbuster that has broken so many records, that's kind of surprising. It's going to see quite a drop in its second weekend, by the looks of it.
Will Spider-Man Have Legs?
Well, looks like my very first box office prediction of the summer has turned out to be a bit wide of the mark. Great way to start.
According to early estimates, Spider-Man 3 has blasted past the opening weekend record set by Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest last year ($135m), reaping an astounding $148m in North America alone. Include worldwide receipts and it's already made $375m. Wow.
I predicted $125m - I thought it would be a big hit (that would've put it second in all-time weekends) but I personally wasn't hugely hyped for it, so I thought my feelings might be shared by others. I still went to see it on opening day though, and apparently everyone else and their grandmother did too.
Unless it drops like a stone, Spidey 3 looks guaranteed to be the highest grossing film of the series, with the first instalment's $403.7m total to beat. But it may not be a shoe-in, because the general word of mouth hasn't been stellar. Or, at least, the reviews haven't. It's a similar pattern to that of POTC: DMC, because that wasn't particularly well-reviewed but the punters still went in their droves.
If Spidey follows the trend of Pirates, the superhero flick should finish with around $465m (domestic), which surely isn't going to happen. Comic book films tend to be more front-loaded than others, with the most extreme example being last year's X-Men: The Last Stand, which had a surprisingly huge opening weekend of $102m but only made $234m in total. The average big blockbuster these days seems to make about a third of its money in the first weekend, but with Spidey I expect a little more. Add to that the fact that in Spidey's third week Shrek 3 opens in the US, followed by Pirates 3 the following week, and Spider-Man 3 may indeed struggle to top the first film's grosses.
All of which is rather irrelevant, really. More importantly, how good is it? I have to admit, I didn't think it was brilliant. My review spells out my thoughts. Interestingly, despite my underwhelmed-ness, I really want to see it again already. Same thing happened with Dead Man's Chest, and I now like that film a lot.
I have plenty more to say about Spider-Man 3, but I'll keep the numbers to a minimum next time. Honest.
UPDATE: Double wow. Sony underestimated it. The actual total is $151m! It would really have to drop like a stone to not top the first one now.
According to early estimates, Spider-Man 3 has blasted past the opening weekend record set by Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest last year ($135m), reaping an astounding $148m in North America alone. Include worldwide receipts and it's already made $375m. Wow.
I predicted $125m - I thought it would be a big hit (that would've put it second in all-time weekends) but I personally wasn't hugely hyped for it, so I thought my feelings might be shared by others. I still went to see it on opening day though, and apparently everyone else and their grandmother did too.
Unless it drops like a stone, Spidey 3 looks guaranteed to be the highest grossing film of the series, with the first instalment's $403.7m total to beat. But it may not be a shoe-in, because the general word of mouth hasn't been stellar. Or, at least, the reviews haven't. It's a similar pattern to that of POTC: DMC, because that wasn't particularly well-reviewed but the punters still went in their droves.
If Spidey follows the trend of Pirates, the superhero flick should finish with around $465m (domestic), which surely isn't going to happen. Comic book films tend to be more front-loaded than others, with the most extreme example being last year's X-Men: The Last Stand, which had a surprisingly huge opening weekend of $102m but only made $234m in total. The average big blockbuster these days seems to make about a third of its money in the first weekend, but with Spidey I expect a little more. Add to that the fact that in Spidey's third week Shrek 3 opens in the US, followed by Pirates 3 the following week, and Spider-Man 3 may indeed struggle to top the first film's grosses.
All of which is rather irrelevant, really. More importantly, how good is it? I have to admit, I didn't think it was brilliant. My review spells out my thoughts. Interestingly, despite my underwhelmed-ness, I really want to see it again already. Same thing happened with Dead Man's Chest, and I now like that film a lot.
I have plenty more to say about Spider-Man 3, but I'll keep the numbers to a minimum next time. Honest.
UPDATE: Double wow. Sony underestimated it. The actual total is $151m! It would really have to drop like a stone to not top the first one now.
Summer Predictions
As if you didn't know by now, Spider-Man 3 opens tomorrow in the US and UK and looks certain to kick off the 2007 blockbuster season with a bang. I'm getting tired of writing this now, but this summer has the potential to be the best on record by some distance, so I'm going to take this last opportunity before the juggernaut starts rolling to give my final predictions for the major films' grosses.
Film title - US Opening Weekend/US Total/Worldwide Total
Spider-Man 3 - $125m/$350m/$800m
Shrek the Third - $90m/$380m/$800m
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - $120m/$390m/$1 billion
Ocean's Thirteen - $40m/$130m/$380m
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - $70m/$160m/$340m
Evan Almighty - $55m/$170m/$340m
Ratatouille - $65m/$230m/$500m
Die Hard 4.0/Live Free or Die Hard - $35m/$100m/$300m
Transformers - $60m/$160m/$330m
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - $100m/$260m/$850m
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry - $42m/$120m/$220m
The Simpsons Movie - $60m/$190m/$450m
The Bourne Ultimatum - $55m/$180m/$370m
Rush Hour 3 - $50m/$160m/$260m
And that's your lot, as far as I can see. Knocked Up has good buzz but it lacks star power, and there may be a few others to hit big, but those are the main ones I think. And bear in mind these are just amateur guesses!
Most of these are included and discussed in some detail in my 2007 Summer Blockbuster Preview at Filmverdict. Speaking of which, there's a new review of Next over there.
Film title - US Opening Weekend/US Total/Worldwide Total
Spider-Man 3 - $125m/$350m/$800m
Shrek the Third - $90m/$380m/$800m
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - $120m/$390m/$1 billion
Ocean's Thirteen - $40m/$130m/$380m
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - $70m/$160m/$340m
Evan Almighty - $55m/$170m/$340m
Ratatouille - $65m/$230m/$500m
Die Hard 4.0/Live Free or Die Hard - $35m/$100m/$300m
Transformers - $60m/$160m/$330m
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - $100m/$260m/$850m
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry - $42m/$120m/$220m
The Simpsons Movie - $60m/$190m/$450m
The Bourne Ultimatum - $55m/$180m/$370m
Rush Hour 3 - $50m/$160m/$260m
And that's your lot, as far as I can see. Knocked Up has good buzz but it lacks star power, and there may be a few others to hit big, but those are the main ones I think. And bear in mind these are just amateur guesses!
Most of these are included and discussed in some detail in my 2007 Summer Blockbuster Preview at Filmverdict. Speaking of which, there's a new review of Next over there.
The Year of The Beef
Shia LaBeouf's been having a good run of luck lately. And his surname is almost the same as the French word for 'the beef' ('le boeuf'). Therefore from henceforth he shall be known as Shia The Beef.
For those unaware, The Beef's latest film, and his first as the proper lead, Disturbia, has just topped the US box office for the third week in a row, which is a rare feat these days. (You can ignore the fact that it was an absolutely terrible weekend where the top film made less than $10 million.)
The film that may confirm 2007 as the Year of The Beef is Transformers. Michael Bay's banking on the young actor to carry the CGI behemoth on his untested shoulders, but the success of the relatively low-profile Disturbia bodes well. I'm still not convinced that Transformers will be that massive (seems like a niche audience to me) but I'll be happy to be proved wrong if the film is good.
Other recent Beef-related news, he's been cast in Indiana Jones 4 - rumoured to be titled Indiana Jones and The City of the Gods, which sounds suitably Indiana Jonesian - by Steven Spielberg, incidentally executive producer of Transformers. All the speculation is that he's playing Indy's son, which sounds logical, if not particularly appealing. Another confirmed cast member is Cate Blanchett, but I'll save my ranting about Indy 4 for another post.
I first saw Mr. The Beef as a young actor in the underrated and underseen Holes, alongside Sigourney Weaver and Jon Voight. Since then he's appeared as a fairly superfluous but tolerable sidekick character in I, Robot, as well as popping up in Constantine (which I haven't seen) and Bobby (which I have, and he was quite entertaining in it).
So he may well be on the path to superstardom. And with a name like that, who'd bet against it?
For those unaware, The Beef's latest film, and his first as the proper lead, Disturbia, has just topped the US box office for the third week in a row, which is a rare feat these days. (You can ignore the fact that it was an absolutely terrible weekend where the top film made less than $10 million.)
The film that may confirm 2007 as the Year of The Beef is Transformers. Michael Bay's banking on the young actor to carry the CGI behemoth on his untested shoulders, but the success of the relatively low-profile Disturbia bodes well. I'm still not convinced that Transformers will be that massive (seems like a niche audience to me) but I'll be happy to be proved wrong if the film is good.
Other recent Beef-related news, he's been cast in Indiana Jones 4 - rumoured to be titled Indiana Jones and The City of the Gods, which sounds suitably Indiana Jonesian - by Steven Spielberg, incidentally executive producer of Transformers. All the speculation is that he's playing Indy's son, which sounds logical, if not particularly appealing. Another confirmed cast member is Cate Blanchett, but I'll save my ranting about Indy 4 for another post.
I first saw Mr. The Beef as a young actor in the underrated and underseen Holes, alongside Sigourney Weaver and Jon Voight. Since then he's appeared as a fairly superfluous but tolerable sidekick character in I, Robot, as well as popping up in Constantine (which I haven't seen) and Bobby (which I have, and he was quite entertaining in it).
So he may well be on the path to superstardom. And with a name like that, who'd bet against it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
