'The Blind Side' pays it forward with more do-gooder tales

By Sarah Sluis

One way to measure The Blind Side's success is to keep track of the projects that try to emulate it. Today, two such projects cropped up.

Method #1: Substitute one downbeat character for another. Make sure they actually exist. Instead of an illiterate, homeless teenager, Alcon Entertainment, which produced The Blind Side, decided to follow up with the story of a tail-less dolphin. After losing its appendage in a crab trap, it is taken in by an aquarium and given a prosthetic tail. Lest audiences protest all the misfortunes suffered by the dolphin, this tail-less Flipper actually swims around in a Florida aquarium. The punning title? A Dolphin's Tale. While this treacly story is a nice counterpoint to the morning coffee (the story first appeared on the "Today" show), I'll take The Cove any day.

Method #2: Keep the Christian do-gooder. Keep the football-playing black kid, but multiply him into a team of jailed criminals. "Prison Break" actor Lane Garrison is penning the screenplay One Heart, which is being billed as take-off of The Blind Side. It's the story of a losing football team populated by juvenile offenders attending Texas' Gainesville State School. When they play against private Faith Christian School, the coach enlists community members to cheer for the other team (though they still lose, just not as badly). Whether this project receives financing or not, however, depends on how forgiving people are of Garrison. He just served an eighteen-month prison sentence for driving while under the influence of alcohol and cocaine. One of his passengers died and two were injured when he crashed into a tree. In fact, his move from acting to writing (his first) may be more a play to repair his reputation and artistically atone for his misdeeds. Whatever the reason, it's all a sign of The Blind Side's success at the box office. With the film wielding so much influence, I may just have to see it myself.

Studios rattle the DVD windows

By Sarah Sluis

How long should a movie be out of the picture between its theatrical run and its DVD debut?

When I was growing up, that time period between theatrical release and home video release could be agonizing. Some movies were "must-sees" in theatres, and others I could wait to rent at the video store, but a lot of them fell in between. I frequently missed seeing a movie in a theatre, because there were simply too many other good films out or I didn't have enough time (I also had a thing against seeing a movie once it had been out for months--you might as well just wait to see it at home).

Now, this same theatrical window that vexed me as a child is causing exhibitors and studios to draw their swords once again. While exhibitors want to maintain a long window to preserve the

sacredness of theatrical release, studios want to make money on the

pent-up demand caused by a film going dark--being unavailable in

theatres or on DVD--for a few months. A month ago, Sony's decision to make the film Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs available earlier for those that bought a special Sony television led exhibitors to pull the film from their theatres. Even as studios are trying to release films on DVD earlier, they're also fighting RedBox, which rents new releases for $1. They're in the odd position of trying to break new ground in one area and preserve the status quo in another.

Most of the studios' home-grown proposals for shorter windows involve charging a premium for the privilege of seeing a movie in this "in-between" time--up to $50 for in-home viewing. I don't buy that this will work. I personally would never see a film for such a high price tag, not even if I were one of the targeted demographics, living in a "geographically isolated" area with an expansive brethren and laid out with a bad back. The stereotype in my head of the perfect family for this proposal, The Duggar Family of TLC's "18 Kids and Counting", would never spring for a $50 rental, even though it would cost them $200 to go to a movie theatre. This is the same family that has a recipe for discount laundry detergent on their website. I think theatres are overestimating the value of their product, especially in a market saturated with media choices (why not just surf Hulu for free?). Plus, going to a theatre has a unique value of its own: there are fewer distractions, a bigger image, and the enjoyment of seeing a picture with an audience, to name a few reasons. While seeing a film at home shortly after its theatrical release may present a value for large groups, the only thing justifying the price point is being able to see a movie in sync with its water cooler hype. You still miss out on the fun of going out to the movies.

The fight on both ends is far from over. Just today, the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., which receives donations from film studios, released a study that was proposed by an "unnamed" guild, saying that cheap DVD rentals will cost the region thousands of jobs. While the special interests close to the study make its findings suspect, it shows how seriously film studios are taking this threat, and the lengths that they will go to fight it.

'The Blind Side' goes to #1 its third time around

By Sarah Sluis

Borrowing the ascendancy story in its plot, The Blind Side made an unusual jump to #1 in its third week at the box office, earning $20.4 million. Uplifting and family-friendly, the story of a Christian Southerner who

took in a lost soul and turned him into an NFL superstar is the

heartland special, with a broader audience than New Moon. The teenage romance and The Blind Side have been coming in at 1-2 since the week before Thanksgiving, but the heavy 63% drop suffered by New Moon allowed the family-friendly drama to rise to the top. The movie's positive reception has drawn attention to Sandra Bullock, who has been discussed as an awards contender for Best Actress.

Among new movies, Brothers placed strongest. Debuting at #3 with $9.7 million, the war drama/romance received positive, but not glowing reviews. For a film trying to place itself within the critical bracket, it may have been hurt by failing to receive much "must-see in 2009" interest.

Up in the Air, which has received that "must-see" buzz, opened in just 15 locations and went on to earn $1.1 million, an auspicious start for a movie that will open wide over Christmas. I put it in the category of films that families of adults would enjoy together, or a couple of friends, but it will have a lot of competition to contend with in that category, from populist actioner Sherlock Holmes to adult romance It's Complicated.

Miramax's final release as a standalone company, Everybody's Fine, earned $4 million and the last spot in the top ten. The movie's lackluster performance can be attributed to mixed reviews and the state of its distributor--most of the staff has been laid off and are perhaps not so willing to declare disingenuously protest that "Everything's fine."

Of the new genre movies, Armored fared well, earning $6.6 million with its story of armored truck drivers who dip into their cargo. Transylmania, however, fared far, far worse. It earned $272 per location in its 1,000-screen debut, likely angering exhibitors who gave up screens that could have turned a much bigger profit. Hopefully the ticket-buyers bought popcorn.

Most of the returning films had a difficult time maintaining their audiences in the wake of so many new films, dropping 50-60%. Precious fell out of the top ten, falling 67% to $2.3 million in its third week in the 600-theatre range. Will expansion be the answer to maintaining box office?

This Friday, The Princess and the Frog will expand to wide release. The 2D film has been making a killing at the box office in limited release. This past weekend it added another $744,000 to its coffers from just two locations. It will be joined by Clint Eastwood's latest, Invictus, as well as Peter Jackson's literary adaptation The Lovely Bones. To round things out, the critically lauded A Single Man will roll out in seven theatres nationwide.

Adult family dramas take center stage with 'Brothers,' 'Everybody's Fine'

By Sarah Sluis

Despite all the new offerings this weekend, New Moon and The Blind Side are expected to hold the top spots. But that doesn't mean the rest of the films won't fight for their spots as we head into the competitive holiday season.

Brothers (2,088 theatres), a love triangle with a wartime focus, is poised to capture a younger version of The Blind Side's audience. It's showing strong interest among young females under 25 that idolize stars Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal and Tobey Maguire. The war angle may help draw in their male companions, just as The Blind Side shared its tale of compassion with a male-friendly sports angle.

Everybody's Fine (2,133 theatres) is a quiet film that needs to make some noise. However, with its distributor, Miramax, crumbling back into Disney, and a Robert DeNiro considerably calmer than his gruff Meet the Parents persona, this movie is Most Likely to Get Lost in a Crowd. Still, this movie presents its offerings quite well, despite being "dramatically a bit thin," according to Executive Editor Kevin Lally.

Up in the Air won Best Picture from the National Board of Review yesterday, an auspicious way to start its run in ten theatres. George Clooney plays a jet-setting corporate downsizer (he fires other people's employees for a living) but somehow director Jason Reitman manages to make this plotline fit into our current recession economy. Not since Jerry Maguire waved to his ex while on a moving walkway has the mix of blas glamour and isolation in airport travel been captured so well.

Rounding out the week's releases are the standard action and horror offerings. Armored (1,915 theatres) is about the ultimate inside job: the drivers of armored trucks helping themselves to the stacks of money in cargo. Transylmania (1,005 theatres) is a horror spoof that should appeal to a younger crowd. Unlike the more gruesome Hostel, this movie is about a group of students spending a semester abroad who discover their university is infested with vampires.

On Monday, we'll check back to see if Up in the Air's box office is as winning as its Best Picture award, if Everybody's Fine was able to raise itself above a whisper, and if Brothers can stand up to The Blind Side.

Anderson signs up Hoffman to play 'The Master'

By Sarah Sluis

That other young Anderson director, Paul Thomas Anderson, has revealed details about his next project, as well as his star: Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Hoffman will play The Master (which may end up being the title of the film), a charismatic person who starts a spiritual organization that quickly gathers followers and turns into a religion itself. It's told through a relationship between the Master and his mentor, Freddie, who is increasingly skeptical of the whole project.

While so far it's being billed as entirely fictional, and explicitly stated as not inspired by Scientology or Mormonism, the Vulture Blog noted that the drama is set in 1952, the same year Scientology was founded. That makes the statement "the scrutiny isn't specifically directed toward faith-based movements like Scientology or Mormonism" sound like a preemptive defense against Scientology and its practitioners, many of whom are prominent in the Hollywood community. Case in point? When "South Park" broadcast its famous "Trapped in the Closet" episode parodying Scientology, a Scientologist cast member quit the show. A rebroadcast was canceled, leading to media reports that Tom Cruise, another Scientologist, had allegedly threatened to back out of his publicity obligations for Mission Impossible 3 (both were owned by parent company Viacom) if his demand was not met. He later denied the claims. And that was a television show. If Anderson's work draws the ire of Scientologists, it might have a rough time getting made in Hollywood. However, if the project is distancing itself from Scientology, it would seem wise for the religion to follow suit, rather than open itself up to any religious criticism in the script.

Potential Scientology controversy aside, the pairing of Hoffman and Anderson is the best thing this project has going for it. Hoffman has appeared in virtually all of Anderson's movies, though not in a leading role. He's also an old hand at religious leader parts, playing a priest in Doubt and a reverend in Cold Mountain. Besides ensemble-piece Magnolia, Anderson has a record of giving meaty, stand-out roles to his leading men (Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood, Adam Sandler in Punch-Drunk Love, Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights). Hoffman's an unforgettable actor (and I once spied him at an ATM in the West Village on my way to work!) and this is just the kind of role that could add another Oscar to his bookshelf.

Slow but steady future for 3D films, says PricewaterhouseCoopers

By Sarah Sluis

The move to 3D, in terms of film history, should play out more like color than sound. All films transitioned from silent to sound in a snap--just a few years. To not convert was to become a box-office failure. But color, like 3D, was reserved for specific genres, like historical epics, fantasy, and children's movies, before becoming more widespread. I took a few of PricewaterhouseCoopers' predictions on the future of 3D movies and gave my own take on how it will all play out.

"Most 3D live-action production will be limited to sci-fi, horror and concert genres" Yes, but this is changing. Avatar is sci-fi, but it's also a tentpole, an awards hopeful, a James Cameron movie and an action/environmental/romance movie. As films with multiple genre identities are made in 3D, it will become easier for those "romance/action/comedy" movies to be made. Just today, Variety announced that the sequel to Zombieland, a horror/comedy will be filmed in 3D. The next Jackass sequel, a documentary/action/comedy, will be made in 3D. With its emphasis on live, improv events, Jackass is a cousin of the concert film, a popular choice for 3D, but certainty not part of the genre itself.

"3D-animated slates at Disney and DreamWorks will be closely scrutinized by rivals." Maybe. As far as I'm concerned, animation is already a lock for 3D. Animation is a medium grounded in fantasy, not reality, making 3D a very natural variation. I would worry if these animation studios decided to make a movie in 2D, which would indicate a slipping in 3D's profitability. As it stands, both Pixar and DreamWorks Animation are committed to producing all their upcoming films in 3D.

"Slow growth through 2014...because of lingering budgetary and creative concerns" You can look at this from the production side, but the audience side is just as important. A lot of people are resistant to seeing 3D movies because of their stereotype as a gimmicky concept that takes away from the narrative. That's not the case. As a former skeptic myself, watching movies like Coraline, Up, and even The Jonas Brothers 3D Concert Experience "glasses on" made those movies better. In the case of concert movies, 3D helps amp up the spectacle and gives a heightened sense of reality. No, you don't actually feel like you're there, but the dimensionality gives you a sense of the landscape, and the camera movements always make sure you have the best seat in the house. Up, compared to Coraline or Monsters vs. Aliens, uses very restrained 3D. The filmmakers either didn't author it in 3D from start to finish, but added it in later, or they chose to avoid having the images pop up and behind in a striking (and perhaps detracting) way. Takeaway point: 3D is flexible. It's not always about making you think something is coming right at you, but subtly adding depth of field. If 3D is adopted by dramas, comedies, and romances, I suspect this restrained look will be the norm. Regardless, watching a film with glasses is on its way to becoming a normal part of the moviegoing experience.

No one wants 'New Moon' to end

By Sarah Sluis

The success of New Moon has brought the Twilight franchise to a whole new level. Among franchises, there are the ones that do better the second time around (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) and then there are the ones that do worse. By amassing a two-week total that exceeds the gross of the first film, New Moon is firmly among the franchise winners. Predictably, Summit is trying to stretch out the amount of Twilight movies it can make, and supernatural romances are in hot demand.

Today, for example, Warner Bros. picked up a series of five books in the "supernatural romance" category--the first one was just released today. Richard LaGravanese (writer/director of P.S. I Love You) is set to write and direct the first in the series, entitled Beautiful Creatures. An extension of Harry Potter and Twilight, the novel is told from the perspective of a popular high school boy in the South who secretly wants to get out of his small town. He has dreams of a girl, who suddenly arrives as a transfer student. They go through all the usual motions of falling in love, but she is the heir to a terrible family curse (not revealed in synopses) that gets in the way of their love. It sounds like a winning plot, but the success of Twilight and Harry Potter over, say, The Golden Compass has to do with fanbase. Is this project going to remain in a holding pattern until it ignites among young adult audiences? Or will it be moved swiftly into production before (or even if) the series turns into a phenomenon?

The other news on the supernatural romance front is Summit's proposal to extend the success of the Twilight series by splitting Breaking Dawn, the 756-page finale to the series, into two movies. That would bring the total amount of movies to five. It's an expensive move that will require raises among cast and crew (the Harry Potter series went through the same series of renegotiations), but the payoff could be big. Summit has already made a smart move by releasing the movies in quick succession. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse will come out not next Thanksgiving but this summer (June 30th). While the Twilight series, like the Harry Potter series, is strong enough to bring in new fans as older ones age out of the series, holding onto an audience is always a concern. Teen girls are only teen girls for so long. I've heard of kids who were into Star Wars but lost interest by the time the third film was released. As for myself, after seeing the first five Harry Potter movies on opening day, I missed the sixth one in theatres (though I'm anxiously awaiting its DVD release). It just wasn't as much of a priority anymore. Summit will be counting on the "Twihards" to retain their fanaticism for at least a few more years.