Box Office: Elle Fanning Ascends and 8 More Notes on "Super 8"

It was a debutante ball or a "Sweet 13", if you will, for Elle Fanning at the Box Office this weekend. J.J. Abrams Super 8, an attempt to recapture Spielbergian 80s sci-fi glory, opened larger than expected, and Elle's star continues to rise. Are you newly won over?

"SuperElle" © Nathaniel R
A HUGE week in the Fanning household this has been, eh? Dakota graduated from high school, became the new face of "Oh Lola" and younger sister Elle starred in a #1 hit, following in big sister's footsteps still (Dakota's already done the #1 weekends with Twilight: New Moon and War of the Worlds... which Super 8 bears more than a little resemblance too with its sinister alien antics, great build up and then strangely lame final act. "Uh, we have to wrap this up now so... THIS"

I meant to write a proper review - sorries! -- but instead you get list/notes. MINOR SPOILERS

• first 45 minutes pretty wonderful, fun period work, enjoyable inside-moviemaking jokes for nerds.
• Elle Fanning's "acting" scene in the movie within the movie (an amateur zombie film) before the cargo crash is awesome. The extra, out of focus in the background, totally forgetting his business to stare at her ? Hilarious/perfect.
• That EPIC cargo crash is the first sign of trouble. The explosions and destructions go on and on and on and on (overkill!) and not one of the kids gets a scratch despite running through fireballs and 10 ton debris falling all around them. It looks like a war zone thereafter but their car is also indestructable.
• All the "what's going on?" withholding is wonderful...until it's not. At some point the audience is supposed to catch up to the story.
• I used to think J.J. Abrams "lens flare" issues were cute and I didn't understand why they bugged people but MY GOD. Stop with the electric blue horizontal lines ruining so many otherwise pleasant images.
• The scene where the sheriff tells his deputy to go home and hug his son. Kyle Chandler (Friday Night Lights) can convey so much with so little. He's one of those actors who understands the less is more truism. The deputy knows that this is good advice, but he also knows he's not going to do it.
• Elle Fanning is positioned to receive the most praise (this happens to obsessed over "love object/muse" roles) and she's quite good in it but the real find here is 15 year old Joel Courtney in the lead role: Such an expressive face, so natural on camera, entirely absent any child-actor showboating tricks and gimmicks.
• An extended race sequence with massive explosions and tanks and destructive nonsense near the end is entirely useless to the narrative and a sign that the movie is in trouble.
• The overt sentiment works well when it's calm and focused in the first half but starts to feel like an uncomfortable skin graft toward the finale.
• As in War of the Worlds, it just falls apart at the end, as the heroes essentially do too little that's heroic other than survive and the storyline just kind of resolves itself lazily. The end.
• But bonus points for including the amateur zombie movie over the end credits!

Oops. That was way more than 8 notes.
Grade? I'm still mulling that over. It's very uneven.

U.S. Box-Office (Estimates)

01 SUPER 8 new $37
02 X-MEN FIRST CLASS $25 [review] (cumulative $98.8)
03 THE HANGOVER PT. 2  $18.5 (cumulative $216.5)
04 KUNG FU PANDA 2 $16.6 (cumulative $126.9)
05 PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES $10.8 (cumulative $208.7) [review]
06 BRIDESMAIDS $10.1 (cumulative $123.9) ♥
07 JUDY MOODY AND THE NOT BUMMER SUMMER new $6.2 
08 MIDNIGHT IN PARIS $6.1 (cumulative $14.2) ♥
09 THOR $2.3 (cumulative $173) [review]
10 FAST FIVE $1.7 (cumulative $205)

What did you see over the weekend?
And if you caught it, how did you feel about Super 8?

Reader Request: "The Other Woman"

We held a poll for new DVD write-ups and you chose this one. It's your fault! ;)

You're familiar with the ol' term "edited with a chainsaw", yes? Thist post will surely be written by one. Edited with a chainsaw is an odd phrase since it scapegoats the editor when messy jumbled narrative choices and general incoherence are just as often the fault of screenwriters and directors. Not that editing can't make things worse. Quick, explain what happened in that final battle on the rainbow bridge in Thor because I still don't know. If I ever meet Paul Rubell I will definitely ask him. I don't mean to single Mr Rubell out among editors but my mind lept to Thor because The Other Woman -- our topic du jour -- also stars Her Lady of Ubiquity Natalie Portman. But, really, Thor isn't particularly egregious as incoherent actioners go. Continuity and visual coherence are no longer the end goals they once were. (Thanks for nothing, Paul Greengrass!)

Bad Lawyer! Natalie's sexting when she ought to be working.

When people use that chainsaw phrase today -- if they do at all - it merely means "this makes no sense!" or perhaps  "I hate this". It's flexible which is why it's still useful as verbal shorthand even though there's been no actual "cutting" of film in some time.

What are we even talking about? Oh, yes, The Other Woman: It makes no sense. I hated it.

I wish flexibility were a trait we could assign to writer/director Don Roos' latest but for as much as the new movie twists and bends, frequently and often in its attempt to be several different movies or perhaps a television series, it's always snapping and breaking rather than stretching and settling into new poses. My first urge is to call it incoherent (hence the editing cliché) but that's not quite right. The narrative is neither ambitious nor inept enough for true incoherence. But one thing is for certain, The Other Woman does not know itself. It's vague whenever it needs to be precise and bloated whenever it needs to trim.

Is it a romantic drama? Quite often but only for a few minutes at a time.

Is it a flashback picture about a hasty romantic decision? Well, it's structured a bit like that at first but then you realize the flashback is over and it was more like oddly placed first act decorative exposition and you're back in the present.

Is it a comedy? Not really, although there are a few jokes.

Is it a story about a woman who is way too immature to parent, suddenly thrust into the Stepmom role? It seems like that but then why all the romance? It keeps hinting that there's more to her than immaturity though that "more" never shows itself.

This blended family isn't blending well at all. Both moms, biological & step, like to verbally lash out at everyone around them.

Is it a thorny drama about blended families? Yes, half the time.

Is it a piercing drama about grief and the fragility of new life and love? At times but not for very long at a time.

Do all of these separate movies star two hugely unlikable women, who are members of the First Wives Club and the Young Homewreckers of America club? Ding! Ding! Ding!

Lisa Kudrow and Don Roos have been frequent collaborators for years now, and though he usually casts her as very bitter or frustrated women, they've been able to find such interesting layers of hurt and comedy in the roles. Sometimes she's an outright revelation (particularly in The Opposite of Sex and in her online series Web Therapy). Natalie Portman, who was in the process of winning the Oscar when this film finally arrived, is an uneven actress and she hits some notes here very well (she doesn't shy away from Amelia's immaturity or difficulty at thinking beyond the moment) but it's a repetitive and undercooked performance.

You can forgive a lot when you watch bad movies if the protagonist or antagonist or supporting characters are either straight up likeable or charismatically flawed. But virtually no one in The Other Woman lays claim to your heart. Two of the most generally "likeable" characters, played by Lauren Ambrose and Anthony Rapp, pop in from time to time to provide a laugh line or a sympathetic ear but they're in so little of the movie that it's difficult to get any sort of bead on who they are outside of their trio friendship with Natalie Portman and The Other Woman doesn't care enough about these friendships to suggest anything about their strength.

Rapp, Portman and Ambrose are friends. But how much and for how long?

The three main characters are walking wounded nightmares: Amelia (Natalie Portman) is bitchy, self-deluding, immature and hypocritical (she married a cheater and despises cheaters and doesn't view her actions as inappropriate even though she actively pursues the married man); Carolyne (Lisa Kudrow) is the shrewish ex-wife who is so brittle and unforgiving that you can't help but be glad that her husband escaped her; Jack (Scott Cohen) doesn't make a whole lot of sense and remains a cypher since the film keeps drifting away from him towards the women and his son. You know there's more to him but he only reveals his hurt in the final moments and then, promptly and all too easily, seems to segue immediately back into Father Knows Best mode.

The same day I watched the film I attended a party and I was trying to explain my problem with the film to a friend. Since I was a little buzzed from drinks my critique veered uncomfortably away from the verbal into something approaching charades format; I played Natalie Portman and acted out One Scene As Every Scene, if you know what I mean. It went exactly like this (verbatim!) ...though I wasn't wearing a wig.

This happens over and over again in the movie whether we're in coming-of-age land, the flashback movie, in romantic drama territory, the family strife issues film or baby grief catharsis. All five of the movies we're watching have the same scene: Natalie lashes out, apologizes, feels bad about herself, and continues to blame other people; Repeat for the entire movie until she grows up a teensy bit at the end in an unconvincing and unclimactic way.

Don Roos has made two very good features in the past (The Opposite of Sex and Happy Endings) which both demonstrated a unique voice with a deft command of interlocking character arcs, plotty developments that inform the arcs in question, and the ability to conjure a whole passel of hugely flawed somewhat off-putting characters that manage to be endearing or fascinating because of the good humor, complexity and depth of the characterizations. The Other Woman shares many of these same structural elements but none of the success with them. It's tough to say what went wrong but it went very wrong. Best to call this one That Other Movie, ignore it, and rewatch one of those earlier fine pictures instead. D

Box Office: Mutant Powers Revealed!

It's "Mutant Week" -- I'm into weekly themes this summer (any requests?) so deal with it! --  so this post will be illustrated by the previously unrevealed superpowers of famous people.

Like...

The Box Office (Actuals)
Class was in session for select homosuperiors and their homosapien fans this weekend in Westchester New York as Charles Xavier finally opened his School For Gifted Youngsters. But what people were talking about as they left the theater was Michael Fassbender as Magneto. And/or his chemistry with James McAvoy which is quite something. We'll call them "Double Thespian" Their mutant power --wonder twins activate --  is to make you believe that the movie you're watching is twice as good as it actually is!

We're feeling a bit stingy about having to share Fassy with the world now but happy for his success. It will all be worth it if this means he can make as many Fish Tanks and Hungers and Jane Eyres as he wants to, and maybe a few more people will show up to them, now.

01 X-MEN FIRST CLASS new $55.1 [review]
02 THE HANGOVER PT. 2  $31.3 (cumulative $185.8)
03 KUNG FU PANDA 2 $23.8 (cumulative $100)
04 PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES $17.9 (cumulative $190.2) [review]
05 BRIDESMAIDS $12 (cumulative $107.1)
06 THOR $4.2 (cumulative $169.1) [review]
07 FAST FIVE  $3.1 (cumulative $201.9)
08 MIDNIGHT IN PARIS $2.7 (cumulative $6.7)

other new(ish) stuff
13 TREE OF LIFE $618,000 (on 20 screens cumulative $1.2 million)
27 BEGINNERS $135,000 (on 5 screens) [review]
-- SUBMARINE $41,800 (on 4 screens)
-- BEAUTIFUL BOY $16,100 (on 4 screens)

The Talking Points: Woody Allen and Terrence Malick continue to have high per screen averages courtesy of their devoted fanbases and the critically-driven curiousity factor; Bridesmaids, which just crossed the magic $100 million mark, continues to hold steady, while the movies around it plummet 50% or more in attendance each week; Fast Five will lose its #1 movie of '11 bragging rights this week when Pirates surpasses it; Thor recently surpassed the original X-Men (2000) in grosses but it's no longer mighty (losing theaters now) which might leave it stranded ignobly on the Marvel superhero charts as "less" popular than a movie almost everyone hates (X-Men Origins: Wolverine).

What did YOU see over the weekend? Which mutant powers do you think the movie stars currently in theaters have?



Box Office: The Tree of Hungover Pandas in Paris

I know I said I was taking today off but I ended up drawing instead. I am not a summer person. (I am the opposite of bears, my form of hibernation involving air conditioning in summertime and avoiding bright light.) But moving on to more pressing movie matters...

Memorial Day Weekend at the Box Office proves that it's a repetitive world with tons of franchise action (Bridesmaids 2 already has a greenlight, right? If not, it can't be far off.) It all blends together for me.

Pandas are total lightweights.

The Box Office (4 Day Weekend Actuals!)

01 THE HANGOVER PART II new $103.4
02 KUNG FU PANDA 2 new  $60.8
03 PIRATES 4 $50 (cumulative 163.6)
04 BRIDESMAIDS 1 $20.7 (cumulative $89.3)
05 AVENGERS PREQUEL #2  $12 (cumulative $162.4)
06 THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS, 5TH EDITION $7.8 (cumulative $197.3)
        and leaving the world o' franchises behind...
07 MIDNIGHT IN PARIS $2.5 (cumulative $3.4)
08 RIO $2.4 (cumulative $135.4)
09 JUMPING THE BROOM $2.3 (cumulative $34.6)
10 SOMETHING BORROWED $2.2 (cumulative $35.1)

The success stories of the week -- honestly everyone and their dog monkey knew that the Hangover and Panda sequels would sell tickets -- were in limited release: Midnight in Paris and The Tree of Life had, by a significant margin, fuller houses than any other films.

If Woody's annual offering continues to generate this kind of interest he may be looking at a Match Point / Vicky Cristina Barcelona level success. Both of those films had real legs at the box office topping out at about $23 million domestically and nearing $100 million globally and both went on to a bit of Oscar play. For those who are curious about how he has such free reign despite never having "hits" in the traditional sense, it comes down to low budgets and a global fanbase which has been far more loyal to him than American audiences. Nearly all of his movies are much more successful overseas which is definitely not the norm... for American comedies especially.

Though it's sort of off topic, I still maintain that had Dreamworks done a better job with Match Point's release -- it was a sleeper waiting to happen but they held back and held back losing all of its Critics/Cannes/"Comeback!" steam before that lame weekend-after-Christmas Oscar glut strategy -- it would have been even bigger. Midnight hasn't even gone wide yet so things are looking very good IF they keep expanding. As for The Tree of Life... the latest augmentation of the Malick Mystique could have conceivably landed in the top ten had it been less timid about revealing itself; the theaters were packed but they numbered only four.

Oscar Predictions Updates Coming Wednesday. (Working on them now.) My reflections on The Tree of Life coming later. I'm mystified that so many web critics can write huge pieces on complicated movies without time to reflect or edit their words mere moments after they see them... but that's the way film criticism is going. It's an instantaneous world. Alas. (I know I need to speed up, shut up!)

What did you see this holiday weekend?
If it wasn't a holiday for you, did you still have time for a movie or three?

Sage Advice From the Movies

Always reward correct answers with chocolate!
The next time anybody tells you what you want to hear, give them a candy bar. (Unless that somebody is a dog or an unfortunate human with allergies) Positive reinforcement, baby!

"The Great Lesson: Chocolate, the Ultimate Reward" -Nathaniel Rogers

This worked for Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds. Let that be a lesson to us all!

Any teachers reading? Have you tried this or do you do boring things like give them good grades when they answer well?

I did this drawing for Illustration Friday since the week's theme is "lesson" and the very first thing that came to mind was the ridiculous Dangerous Minds (1995) which I love, don't you? I love chocolate more than just about anything and if "White Bread" Michelle Pfeiffer was tossing it to me for being a good boy I'd probably love it even more.

Next up in the ridiculous teacher genre:
BAD TEACHER with Cameron Diaz. We didn't do a yes no maybe so on that trailer but are you excited for it?