Reese Witherspoon and Vince Vaughn star in Four Christmases, a blockbuster Hollywood hit.
This year’s holiday blockbuster hit is Four Christmases, starring Reese Witherspoon and Vince Vaughn. As you can imagine, it has all the wonderfully humiliating scenes you’ve come to expect from the annual holiday comedy film: embarrassing bodily functions, physical injuries (head or crotch, take your pick), an unbelievable parade of “quirky” family members, and somehow in the end, the same heartwarming message of love and that because family is family, all misdeeds are forgiven. I have no rational explanation for it, but for some reason, that same tried and true holiday comedy formula continues to work, and the proof is in this year’s Four Christmases. The film raised $31.7 million this last weekend and was Hollywood’s second-biggest Thanksgiving opening ever, according to studio estimates, which is sadly a better box office pull than these wonderful holiday films were able to manage. It helped that Four Christmases had the holiday-themed movie market virtually to itself, but seriously, what is it about these movies that keeps people coming back for more?
Sean Penn stars in Gus Van Sant's new movie, "Milk."
I’m sure you’ve all heard the Oscar buzz already circulating about Sean Penn’s new flick, “Milk,” directed by Gus Van Sant. It has become a surprisingly timely and important film about the incredible life of an inspiring gay politician, a man who was vocal about gay rights in a time when homosexuals were treated like criminals and arrested just for being in the same place. It’s unlikely that this film will be able to hide its political agenda with subtlety, but regardless of personal beliefs, this film will likely ignite an even greater interest in the conversation about gay rights and gay marriage. Below are some more details about the film, including a shoutout for The Mayor of Castro Street, a biography by an amazing journalist, which you should all go out and buy!
This upcoming Wednesday, Focus Features is releasing “Milk,” a $20-million drama starring Sean Penn as Harvey Milk, the San Francisco city supervisor and gay activist who was gunned down in 1978 by a disgruntled former supervisor.
Milk’s successful effort against a California proposition 30 years ago that would have barred gay teachers in public schools closely parallels today’s battle against the recently passed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state.
“The timing is not bad for this movie,” said Peter Sealey, a former studio marketing executive who now teaches at Claremont Graduate University’s school of management. He noted that the movie could benefit, especially in urban markets, from its topicality.
Penn is already being touted as a potential Oscar nominee, and the film is being embraced by critics.
But whether “Milk” can achieve anywhere near the success of “Brokeback Mountain,” which cost $14 million to produce and generated $178 million in worldwide ticket sales, is something even Focus executives caution against.
The distributor is positioning “Milk” as a celebration of a crusader whose political activism inspired others to live their lives openly. The movie’s poster carries the tagline “Never Blend In.” The trailer hits upon themes of courage and struggle in the face of bigotry against homosexuals, with Milk’s own words, “You’ve got to give ‘em hope.” For the Internet, Focus created a “Milk Mosaic,” a feature in which people can share their coming-out stories through words, videos, photos or drawings.
For decades, there were attempts to bring Harvey Milk’s story to the big screen. At one time “Milk” director Gus Van Sant and others considered making a movie adapted from Randy Shilts’ biography, “The Mayor of Castro Street,” but the project never got off the ground.
Although “Milk’s” cost is far below that of a typical studio film, its backers say it will need to appeal beyond the art house crowd to earn a profit. They were encouraged by the positive reaction from a mainstream audience when the movie was screened this summer near Las Vegas.
For those of you who’ve been waiting for Twilight fever to die down after the debut of the film this weekend, don’t hold your breath. Barely 24 hours after the first film has been released, the sequel has been greenlit because of one bottom line reason: money. And “Twilight” has been raking in a lot of it. Twilight earned an astonishing $35.7M on Friday (that number includes the $7 million from the midnight shows the night before). As expected the film took a hefty drop on Saturday earning approximately $22 million. If these estimates hold look for the film to take in about $72 million for the weekend. That’s the kind of box office territory usually reserved for “Harry Potter” flicks in this season. No wonder we’ll be seeing more of Edward and Bella soon
I guess it depends on what you mean. According to reports, the new James Bond film had a record box office opening in North America this weekend. Details below.
If you’ve seen this flick, I’d love to hear what you think! Does the movie itself hold up to the record-breaking stats? Is it all hype, and how does it compare to the full collection of James Bond films?
I had an incredibly unusual experience trying to see this film in the theater. Imagine the sorts of people you’d expect to find at a Kevin Smith movie. That’s pretty much all I have to say on that point. Now, imagine the movie starts and all of the previews are animated Disney features. After the second preview, I start to suspect something is wrong–it just seems odd to advertise a movie about a little animated dog to an adult audience. Then it happens. The movie starts, and all at once the audience, united in horror, begins to shout and stand up, shielding their ears in outrage. Of all the possile mistakes to make in a theater, our projectionist was showing us the opening scenes of “High School Musical 3.” My first instinct was to run out of the theater shouting “The children! What about the children!” since naturally I assume that if we’re watching this movie, the child-filled theater next door must be about to watch, of all things, THIS MOVIE. Everyone storms out of the theater, and some of them, including one of my friends, start shouting at the unsuspecting ticket collector, “They’re playing the wrong movie!”
Katherine Heigl stars in this romantic comedy about a selfless young woman who is trapped in the role of perennial bridesmaid. She meets Malcolm (James Marsden), a cynical young man who, unbeknownst to her, writes for a newspaper’s wedding column. Malcolm is intrigued by the sheer number of times Jane has played bridesmaid, and he secretly decides to write a story about her. To further complicate Jane’s life, her younger sister Tess (Malin Akerman) has just come to town and ensnared Jane’s longtime crush, George (Edward Burns). When George and Tess become engaged, Jane faces the humiliating prospect of playing bridesmaid in the wedding of her sister and the man she loves.
Ok, admittedly I did not have high hopes for this film. This is one of those movies I decide to watch when I’m in the mood to sit back, unwind, and let my mind go completely blank so it can be filled with chick flick feel-goodery. Sadly, my mind stayed blank this time. This is a movie all about weddings. Not marriages, not relationships, just weddings. It’s odd that none of the main characters are married. When Kevin chides Jane that she doesn’t care about marriage, just weddings, he could be speaking for the film itself. We are led to assume that every wedding, no matter how oddly attired, ends happily ever after, and Heigl’s stock character only has to patiently wait for her turn. Heigl is charming and engaging, and comes across as a real person stuck in a flat movie.
Warning: I am including the trailer below. If you have any intention of watching the film in the future, DO NOT watch this trailer. Why? Because watching a 30 second trailer tells you absolutely everything you’ll get out of the film, including how it’ll end.
I’m completely torn about this movie. Admittedly, I am a huge Jane Austen fan. I have read all of her works, many of them more than once, and for the sake of full disclosure, Pride and Prejudice is a strong contender on my list of favorite books of all time. The film on its own is fantastic: romantic, tragic, beautiful, with a passionate and believable male lead (something that’s been hard to find in the stiffly proper men of past Austen film adaptations). However, placing the film in the context of the time and Jane Austen’s life is a bit of a disaster. Try as I might, it just doesn’t work. Ignore it, and you’ll have a reasonably enjoyable film.
As I’m sure many fans were, I was overjoyed at the thought of another Austen-based film to devour. Staring at Keira Knightley’s face for half of the recent Pride and Prejudice flick was not a huge satisfaction for me (especially considering the number of important plot pieces that were cut to make room for… more shots of Keira staring into a mirror). And was anyone else upset about how silly Elizabeth seemed to be in that film? For those unfamiliar with the book, it would be extremely difficult to understand the stark contrast between the lively but completely appropriate manners of Elizabeth and the uncontrolled silliness of the younger Bennet sisters and their mother.
On to Becoming Jane. I empathize with the extreme difficulty in portraying one of literature’s most beloved and well-known female figures. Anne Hathaway did her best with the task, but standing next to the vibrant, captivating energy of James McAvoy, she comes across as blank and cold. James McAvoy is every woman’s dream for the love interest, and he kept my interest throughout the entire film. Finally I completely understand the fascination with McAvoy and why every woman is in love with him. Outside of Jane Austen and her novels, this is an extremely romantic story, made all the more romantic from its being doomed from the beginning. I found it absolutely captivating from beginning to end, surprisingly sexy at times for a period film, and completely moving. Many of the best moments were small, and I think the director was particularly adept at emphasizing those moments and reminding us that this was a time when the touch of a hand on a dance floor could be electric. One of the more heart-poundingly romantic clips below (you’re welcome ladies!!):
Once I was over the flutter from getting caught up in this film, I began to have my doubts. Just because it is arguably the most popular of Austen’s works, does not mean that Pride and Prejudice is the most autobiographical. Did anyone else notice this? Also, I have to say that my main bone of contention is that I find it extremely difficult to imagine that even McAvoy’s abundant charms would be capable to convince a respectable woman like Austen to elope. It just wouldn’t happen. Anyone who has read Pride and Prejudice knows from Lydia’s scandalous affair that an elopement is the absolute ruin of a woman’s character and reputation. End of discussion.
Becoming Jane definitely has its flaws. But it is sweet and well-meaning, and completely satisfied my girlish need for period films full of romance and passion and manners. And that was enough for me.
In most classic Disney fairy tales, the princess falls in love with her prince, and they live happily ever after. In this playful film, it’s only the beginning. Giselle (voiced and later played by Amy Adams) and her handsome prince (James Marsden) are separated by the prince’s wicked stepmother (Susan Sarandon) who can’t stand to lose her throne, and through her evil trickery, the princess ends up in the real world. Actually, the middle of Times Square in New York City, to be exact. Her optimism and perkiness provide a humorous contrast with the New Yorkers she encounters, but she gets help from a cynical divorce lawyer (Patrick Dempsey) as she waits for her prince to rescue her.
The film is clearly meant to be tolerable to adults, but it clearly targets children. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by the Shrek series, which effortlessly blends adult and child-friendly humor. Enchanted is a fun, sweet film, but in the end, a Disney film poking light fun at Disney movies is going to pull a few punches. This film had a lot of potential for satirical humor that I as a cynical New Yorker, had been hoping for. The dance sequence in Central Park is, well, enchanting, but outside of a few humorous gags, the story follows the fairy tale plotline too closely. Though the film is full of allusions to the Disney canon, it’s a little too sweet and earnest to take full advantage of all of the humor the situation has to offer. This is a children’s movie at which adults are also welcome, certainly not the reverse. It’s bubblegum sweet, but not always painfully so.
Jim Sturgess and Evan Rachel Wood star in the romantic musical, Across the Universe
The Beatles’ songs provided the chorus for a generation, but it becomes a literal soundtrack in this romantic musical. Newcomer Jim Sturgess stars as Jude, a young man working on the docks in Liverpool. In search of his father and a sense of identity and purpose, he travels to Princeton where he meets Max (Joe Anderson). He soon falls in love with Max’s younger sister Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood), but their relationship is put to the test in the chaos of war, and Max is forced to go to Vietnam. Throughout the film, characters break into classic songs from the Beatles catalogue. Sturgess has a captivating voice and presence tempered by the softness of Wood who emerges from the innocent bystander to a strong advocate for change. See the trailer:
The film is definitely worth seeing, if for nothing other than the beautiful, psychedelic musical numbers and innovative rearrangements of some of the most beloved (and overly covered) songs of the 1960s and 1970s. This is an absolute feast for the eyes and ears, and so overpowering the world looks dull when you leave the theater. The musical numbers are creatively arranged, and the visual interpretation, coupled with some powerhouse voices, can occasionally give the surprising impression of hearing a Beatles song for the first time.However, even the distractingly complex visuals and rich musical effects cannot always mask the fairly thin plot.As expected, the film’s story is a bit of a stretch, but in many ways the narrative is only a means of introducing as many references to the 1960s and The Beatles songs as possible. At times, the plot appears to be only slightly more complex than a TV clips show, with all of our favorite songs and characters playing cameos.The love story was predictably clichéd and flat, and I found myself surprised that I didn’t feel as emotionally invested when the lovers reunite at the end.Across the Universe is absolutely an experience.All film lovers, musical lovers, and Beatles fans should see it, but those looking for a gripping, strong plot should look elsewhere.
There’s little buzz out there about the recently-released Mark Wahlberg flick, Max Payne, the film adaptation of Rockstar Games’ antihero. Mark Wahlberg (THE DEPARTED) plays the titular cop who is still trying to get over the death of his family while investigating several murders, while Mila Kunis (FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL) costars as an assassin desperate for her own revenge. See the trailer below!
After the intriguing trailers I had higher hopes for this film’s ability to rise above the unfortunate history of game-to-film adaptations. With the way new video games have developed complex storylines and narrative features not unlike an extended feature film, I have grown optimistic about the future of these adaptations. Sadly, in this case, my optimism was premature. I will say this: the visual effects are stellar. In terms of shot by shot mise-en-scene Moore is a visionary, but the amazing visuals made me mourn all the more the blatant plot holes, the stock characters, and the unimaginative, overused revenge story.
Needless to say, early responses have been less than “major.” Interestingly enough, this has had little impact on the film’s first week in the box office, but I myself will be paying closer attention to the third and fourth week numbers once word of mouth spreads. In fact, it might be in everyone’s best interest that the blogosphere has been completely distracted by Mark Wahlberg’s reaction to Andy Samberg’s Saturday Night Live sketch. Here, watch this performance–while I in generally am a Mark Wahlberg fan, this clip has definitely given me a lot more than his performance in this film.
