Wag The Film

Read + Write + Report

Wag The Film

follow this blog

2 followers

52 daily readers

rank of 1007

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Spotlight Posts

Ryan Reynolds vs. A Lot of Penguins: Box Office Predictions

What's Wrong with the Oscars and How Can They Fix It?

NC-17: What are we going to about it?

Box Office Round-Up

Emmy Recap: The Ups and Downs (Mostly Downs)

Box Office Report: The Final Results!

Welcome to the new (and hopefully improved) Wag the Film!

Gibson vs. Rome: Box Office Prediction for 1/28/'10

Box Office Round-Up: The Final Results!

Ludacris vs. Mike Judge: The Final Results!

Ludacris vs. Mike Judge: Box Office Prediction for 9/4/'09

Michael Myers vs. Hippies: The Final Results

Michael Myers vs. Hippies: Box Office Predictions for 8/28/'09

The Jew Hunter vs. The Wishing Rock: The Final Results!

[ more ]

Ryan Reynolds vs. A Lot of Penguins: Box Office Predictions

June 15th 2011 15:55

We're not even at the end of June, and we're already at our third superhero action extravaganza. The previous entries, Thor and X-Men: First Class have performed well and beyond the doubts of a few naysayers, but neither have been the big-business flick that we have seen with The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Will that void be filled in by The Green Lantern or will that be reserved for the upcoming Captain America.

Even with only a few days left to its opening, it's still hard to track what can of business will be expected for Lantern. While the third superhero flick this summer, it will be the first non-Marvel property and is instead from its archrival, DC Comics. Unlike Marvel, DC has struggled with their non-Batman output lately (Superman Returns, Jonah Hex), so the success of Lantern will determine whether will be see anymore of the superhero (The Flash, Wonder Woman) grace the silver screen anytime soon.

Granted, the Green Lantern has become one of DC's most popular and best selling comic series, and it'll be interesting to see how that success will translate at the box office. The film also relays on the star-power of Ryan Reynolds, who has always proven to be a likable (if a bit smug) presence in romantic comedies, but it remains to be seen if he can truly make it as an action star (if I remember correctly, his last superhero movies were the dreadful Blade: Trinity and X-Men Origins: Wolverine). The movie is directed by Martin Campbell, best known for Goldeneye and Casino Royale, but whose non-James Bond films are not-so-successful (Vertical Limit, Edge of Darkness).

I also have to wonder whether its 3D presentations will prove to be another setback, as public interest in the format is waning, which has culminated in the underperformance of fellow summer flicks like Pirates 4 and Kung-Fu Panda 2. In the end, I expect a strong opening weekend number, but I'm uncertain whether will lead to good legs at the box office.

Opening Weekend Prediction: $65,000,000-$75,000,000

To honest, had this movie come out when I was around ten, I would be all over this. "Jim Carrey with a bunch of cute penguins? Hell yeah, sign me up!" Nowadays, I look at the trailer and see it as yet another attempt from the actor to maintain his relevance in the movie world. Not that Carrey isn't still popular, and he has still far from being another nineties comic oddity (he ain't no Pauly Shore). At the same time, it's hard to judge Carrey's popularity will go on as his recent films like Yes Man or A Christmas Carol only received a 'meh' reception when the came out. The news that Carrey may be working on sequels to Bruce Almighty and Dumb and Dumber proves that Carrey himself is aware of his battle to stay in the big league.

Mr. Popper's Penguins, an adaptation of the classic children's book, may seem to be a step in the right direction. However, the penguin-crazed that swept the nation a few years seems to have cool down a bit, which may smell trouble for this and other upcoming peguin-friendly flick, Happy Feet 2.

However, it's release is a nice bite of counter-programming to The Green Lantern, and might become of the more successful family films this Summer which is already in an action frenzy.

Opening Weekend Prediction: $25,000,000-$35,000,000

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Michael Lown - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

What's Wrong with the Oscars and How Can They Fix It?

June 15th 2011 11:50

The Oscars have been in trouble from dwindling viewership and increasing lack of interest for the past few years, and they have been taking the steps to change it, to try to appeal to wider audiences, even if some of the ideas are massive flops (James Franco, anyone?). One of their biggest changes is when they announced that the list of Best Picture nominees has been stretched from the previous five to a full ten.

Clearly this decision was not brought on by mutual agreement, but was rather a product of the few feeling the backlash from those who found their favorite films being neglected in this category. The biggest example of this was in 2008 (the year before the change-up) in which the critically acclaimed and massively popular Dark Knight was ignored by the Academy, and instead gave the Best Picture slot to Oscar bait like The Reader.

While the increase at first seemed like a smart move, it soon showed cracks when it was realized that with ten nominees and still only one winner, there would be some filler. With such filler, the weight behind the award had been severely diminished. It didn't help that most were quickly able to see through the facade and found it to be a cheap attempt to boost interest/ratings in their telecast, which were seeing their losest numbers at that time. In the end, the infamously excessive Awards ceremony became even more excessive.

This morning sees yet another change in their lineup. In their statement, which outlined their alterations to their voting process (with some changeups to the best animated feature and best visual effects category) with the big one being a another change in the Best Picture category. This time around the number of nomiees could be anyway between five or ten. This is could probably the most innovative decision they have made, with the Academy now having the ablilty to recognize the movies they feel worthy of the nomination and not trample over them with filler.

I'm surprised at this change not because it was a bad idea, but because it comes so quickly after their move to ten pictures. With only two years between the changes, it seems like a very transparent recognition of their failure and subsequent apology. The ten picture lineup was such a messup that it was only a matter of time before it got replace, but I'm pleasantly surprised it was so soon. At the same time, I wondered whether any one this would have any effect on the award's popularity; would it change anything?

I don't think it's much of a secret that the Oscars have lost much in the way of credibility and respect in the past few years. Some people have grown tired are their self-serving, indulgent antics, seeing as a three-hour session of people patting themselves on the back. Of course, this was never meant to the intention of the awards or the ceremony, but rather it be an evening celebrating and appreciating the art of film. Unfortunately, this intention has fogged up by excessive lengths and unnecessary montages.

It also doesn't help that the nominations themselves don't pack much of a surprise now. Over the years, it's became obvious that the winner isn't decided by quality (even though that helps sometimes), but rather through nonstop campaigning from the studios. This campaigning has resulted in some films winning the award and being quickly forgotten after that (A Beautiful Mind, Crash, The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love). Not these are bad movies, but they hardly deserve to carry a label that belongs to other films like The Godfather or Casablanca.

It's certainly become time for the Oscars to think outside of the box in order to maintain their relevance or popularity. With "Oscar season" still a few months away, it becomes interesting to see if they have the ability to rise up beyond expectations, or disappoint yet again?

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Michael Lown - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

NC-17: What are we going to about it?

October 14th 2010 20:27

The MPAA is flawed. Always has been and probably always will. It's flaws are pretty commonly known by most film buff, stemming from their harsh treatment when it comes to sexuality (slapping sex-comedy Zack & Miri Make a Porno with an NC-17 before appeal) while letting extremely violent films walk away with a pass (the most notorious film recently to do this was Hostel Part II which included a shot of a man's dick being sliced off).

Sometimes there is an uproar from the film community against this flawed (and maybe even corrupt) organization, but it only comes up every three or four years, such as seen with the release of documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated. Now, backlash is starting up again with the new indie release, My Blue Valentine, starring Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, getting a NC-17 rating, which is now being appeal by the distributor, The Weinstein Company (a company who clearly knows that this is a great marketing gimmick for their little film).

It wasn't so much that the film was given the rating, as sometimes films truly deserve it (Ang Lee's Lust, Caution), but the reason why it was giving. According to reports, the rating came from a an emotionally-disturbing sex scene between Gosling and Williams. Not the actually sex itself, but the dark tone secured this rating. We all knew the MPAA was filled with conservative prudes, but this is just ridiculous.

This all leads to my main question: so what? So what if a film gets a NC-17? It doesn't destroy the integrity of the finished work. It's not like the film some sick porno that would be better if starred Ron Jeremy or Harry Reems. Just because it should be seen by more emotionally mature audience doesn't make it any less deserving of their praise or attention. Unfortunately, that's exactly what general audiences think of an NC-17 whenever (or if it ever) a film with that rating.

In short: the rating is just as poisonous to the box office as Katherine Hepburn was to box office in the thirties. The rating, invented by the MPAA in the early nineties to coincide with Philip Kaufman's sexually charged Henry & June. They hoped the new rating, which replaced the always-dreaded and controversial X rating, would finally be accepted by the regular theatergoing audience and not a few art-house patrons. It wasn't.

The rating was just a venomous as the last one. This could be attributed to the MPAA not throughly educating people on the rating, which resulted in establishments like Wal-Mart to refuse carrying an film with the rating. Granted, the distributors themselves weren't of great help to the rating. Most refused to release a film with the rating, and that's why most with an NC-17 are indie or foreign films which didn't have much hope for the box office anyway. Studios usually re-edit their films to avoid it (which would lead to the money-grubbing tactic of releasing 'scandalous' unrated editions a few months after the theatrical release), or simply released it without any rating (Requiem for a Dream).

Big-time studios, however, did try at least once to make NC-17 accessible to the public. This resulted in the '95 flick Showgirls by Paul Verhoeven, whose previous film, Basic Instinct, was a huge hit despite almost receiving an NC-17 rating. They hoped for lightning to strike twice, but the film was a big 'old flop. Most chalked up the film's failure to the rating, but the actually flaw was a bit obvious: the movie was easily one of the worst of the decade, with a laughable storyline, and tasteless sex scenes which help enforce the stereotype that NC-17 were only meant for sex-crazed perverts, with no real artistic merit. The film was considered the Caligula (Penthouse's attempt at mixing a Ben-Hur-like epic with porn) of Generation X.

Several have suggested how to fix this problem. Roger Ebert, a vocal opponent against the NC-17 rating, has said that the rating should simply be gotten rid and replaced with the X rating. That might work, as, despite it's controversial nature, that old rating still produced bigger successes and hits, including A Clockwork Orange and Midnight Cowboy, which on the Oscar for Best Picture the year it was released. While Ebert's logic seems good, I still think there's a chance to salvage the NC-17 rating.

While many consider it beyond salvation, the NC-17 rating could be saved by a single high profile release. Several years have passed Showgirl's (now a cult classic) initial release, it might be a good idea to have a new wide release of a NC-17 films, and probably something that wouldn't illicit a bunch of Razzie awards. Probably, an above average sex-thriller could do the trick. We need something like Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, which has debated as to whether Kubrick would've kept it's original NC-17 rating and release it anyway (the studios cowardly chopped it down to a R-rating after his death).

Hell, maybe an emotionally mature film without a sex scene or nudity every five minutes could help break the controversy, like the upcoming Blue Valentine. Screw the appeal, Mr. Weinstein. Wouldn't it be a better publicity push to keep the rating and now market it as the "controversial film the why is was intended to be seen." Sure, that will be all bullshit, but they don't have to know that. It may be difficult task, but remember, Mr. Weinstein, you are the same person who manipulated people into letting Shakespeare in Love to win over Saving Private Ryan over a decade ago. Fooling people to see this would be a walk in the park.

By the way, the film in question, 'Blue Valentine', will get a release near the end of the year, which will probably not be released anywhere near you anytime soon. Unless if you live New York or Los Angles, of course.

Vote

Comments (1)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Michael Lown - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Box Office Round-Up

September 6th 2010 12:07

Labor Day weekend at the Box Office proved to be just as uneventful as it always has. Considering how most consider it to be a dumping ground for some terrible movies (films to come out last Labor Day were Gamer and All About Steve), the year's slate seems to be above-average but still unspectacular

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By:

Related searches:
rating office release category michael

gipoco.com is neither affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible
for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.

gipoco.com is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.