'50/50' has a chance at making the top spot

By Sarah Sluis

Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as a cancer patient in the dramedy 50/50 (2,458 theatres). The ads I've seen have gone for the stoner comedy angle, which has also been helped by the presence of dude actor Seth Rogen, who plays the man's friend. The casting and marketing should make the cancer-themed
movie an easier sell, and there's a chance a mid-teen millions opening will drive this picture to the top spot. 50/50 will have tough competition from The Lion King, which has reigned at the box office for the past two weeks, as well as Moneyball and feel-good family pic Dolphin Tale. These three titles should hold above $10 million.

Thanks to the "essential mystery of casting," the romantic comedy What's Your Number? (3,002 theatres) gets a thumbs-up from David Noh. Anna Faris, who's similarly enlivened stereotypical roles in movies like The House Bunny (a surprise hit), stars as a woman who decides she's slept with too many guys and tracks down her previous sexual partners in search of Mr. Right. Faris' "delectably quirky grace" should bring this movie above $10 million, but still lower than The House Bunny's $14.6 million summer debut.

Stars Daniel Craig and Rachel Weisz met on the set of Dream House (2,660 theatres), later getting married. Considering that Dream House didn't screen for critics, it appears that Weisz and Craig were too busy giving each other googly eyes to widen their eyes in faux-fear and possibly save what looks to be a bad horror movie.

The faith-based production company behind Fireproof returns with Courageous (1,161 theatres), the tale of four police officers struggling with their religion. With over $2 million in advance ticket sales, this movie could surprise by driving infrequent moviegoers to the theatres.

On the specialty circuit, the fabulous character actor Michael Shannon stars in Take Shelter (3 theatres) as a man haunted by visions of an epic storm that may or may not be signs that he's delusional. The ever-present Jessica Chastain (The Help, The Debt, The Tree of Life) co-stars as his wife in the "eerie drama" critic Kevin Lally found "gripping." I reviewed Margaret (2 theatres), a drama I found imperfect in whole but composed of beautifully rendered scenes. The long-delayed movie is worth seeing for these moments of artistry, or as a cautionary tale of a film stuck for years due to lawsuits, indecision, and politics.

On Monday, we'll see where the half-dozen films in close competition land in the top ten.

Trailer for 'Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close' goes for mainstream audiences

By Sarah Sluis

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close has "prestige Oscar picture" written all over it. Most of the creative team has multiple Oscar nominations under their belt, with a couple wins. That includes director Stephen Daldry (The Reader, three nominations), producer Scott Rudin (four nominations with one win), and screenwriter Eric Roth (four nominations with one win for Forrest Gump). The source material, a novel by literary wunderkind Jonathan Safran Foer, has received numerous accolades. Anyone who's into indie, arty films has probably also heard of the book.

Yet the trailer for the movie, which is set for release on Christmas, goes for mainstream audiences, not art-seeking ones. Given the touching subject matter, it's not too much of a surprise. This is a story about a boy mourning his father, who he lost on 9/11. He finds a key in his father's closet and goes on a search for the lock. The book was known for its innovative writing style, use of graphics, photographs, and textual play, but all that subtlety doesn't appear in the trailer. Instead, it goes for tears set to a U2 soundtrack. I wouldn't be surprised if people are heard sniffling after the trailer.

There could be an explanation for the mainstream feel of the trailer. The movie is targeting a wide release come January and certainly Paramount wants as many people as possible to see it. Perhaps they decided to go for the heartfelt bits that would most appeal to audiences unfamiliar with the text, and trust that fans of Foer's book would turn out anyway. Or the movie has been diluted from the book. As someone who isn't the biggest fan of Foer's writing style, I'd rather see the movie. If Daldry ends up with the same comedy-drama tone of his 2000 film Billy Elliot, I will be thrilled--and I won't call it schmaltzy.

Will Katherine Heigl spawn a franchise with 'One for the Money'?

By Sarah Sluis

Back when I watched "Grey's Anatomy," Katherine Heigl was one of the series' most compelling performers. Her star personality oozed warmth and accessibility. But then everything in the press started turning against her. She trashed the film Knocked Up for being sexist, a move many found both unprofessional and ungrateful. She dropped out of Valentine's Day due to a salary dispute, and similar sparring led to her demise on "Grey's Anatomy." There were rumors going around that she needed a different leading man to star with her in each film because no one would work with her again. Then her latest film, One for the Money, had numerous release date changes. Pushed from the summer lineup, it's now going for a January 27, 2012, release date. Yes, the January doldrums. Last year, a couple films released to modest success, like No Strings Attached ($70 million) and The Green Hornet ($98 million), but it's certainly not the place one would imagine positioning a budding franchise.

The trailer for Heigl's One for the Money released this week, giving viewers a first glimpse of Heigl as the best-selling Stephanie Plum character. Heigl sports an on-and-off Jersey accent and the plot is unexpectedly blue-collar. Plum is a lingerie saleswoman who is laid off and finds work as a bail bondswoman. One of her first missions is tracking down an ex for whom she still has feelings. It's surprisingly trashy, from her abrasive, done-up co-worker to seeing Sherri Shepherd ("The View") play a hungry, hungry hooker.

Despite the delays and Heigl's tainted image, could this movie be the first in a franchise? Female-driven films have done surprisingly well at the box office lately. One for the Money is based on a series of books by Janet Evanovich that has sold millions of copies. While plenty of male-driven pulp series have been turned into action and crime franchises, the same hasn't happened for female-targeted series. One for the Money could surprise, as long as it's not a stinker. That's one scent that spoils the word-of-mouth that female-driven films rely on. The trailer, sadly, does not exclude that possibility.

Will Netflix be the new HBO?

By Sarah Sluis

Years after the technology for video streaming was first introduced, the technology's potential is finally being monetized in a big way. When Netflix first started video streaming (around 2005, if I remember correctly), I watched choppy videos on a computer that constantly seemed to be buffering. Now, my television has a "Netflix" button. I browse for and watch flawless, unpixelated videos without any problems 98% of the time. In recent months, Netflix has made three bold business decisions that promise to shake up the entertainment industry. One, they acquired the rights to the original series "House of Cards," putting Netflix in the company of premium cable channels like Showtime and HBO that combine movies with original content. Two, they raised prices and split their company in two, Netflix and Qwikster. DVD-by-mail and streaming will now be totally separate. Finally, they outbid HBO for exclusive rights to stream DreamWorks Animation's content. Netflix is looking a lot less like mail-order Blockbuster and more like HBO.

Neflix has always been a forward-thinking company. They named their company "Net"-flix when they were a DVD-by-mail service, and their company culture is something of a legend (check out this human resources-created Power Point, which includes an outline of their "unlimited vacation time" policy). It's interesting to see them make so many high-profile strategic changes in such a short period of time.

So far, it appears Netflix is primarily repositioning itself in the home entertainment market, meaning there won't be any threat for theatre owners. Blockbuster may be bankrupt, but Netflix can now count premium cable channels as well as Amazon Prime (which just signed a streaming deal with Fox's TV shows) as competition. There's also a chance that the cost of making these deals will raise the price of Netflix's services. The company reportedly paid DreamWorks $30 million a title, a steep sum when their customers currently pay just $7.99 a month for streaming. With over 20 million subscribers, Netflix does have hundreds of millions at play to acquire content, but it will be a struggle for the company to satisfy 100% of a customer's needs when they've separated DVD-by-mail into a separate business, Qwikster. The companies will now operate with separate queues and billing. Netflix may have willingly gotten rid of its most potent advantage in the business. It's no longer a one-stop shop for any title on a consumer's to-see list.

'Lion King' reigns supreme over 'Moneyball' and 'Dolphin Tale'

By Sarah Sluis

For the second week in a row, the re-release of The Lion King (which included 3D screens) grabbed the most box office, finishing with $22.1 million, a dip of 26%. The success of Disney's classic animated tale will surely inspire other studios to scramble to find movies in their libraries to re-release and add more to their bottom lines. However, The Lion King is part of a rarefied group. With the extra $60 million the movie has earned, it's now the twelfth-highest grossing movie of all time, domestically. In fact, The Lion King may make its way into the top ten if it stays in release for a couple more weeks.

According to weekend estimates, Moneyball currently has a narrow claim on second place over Dolphin Tale, earning $20.6 million to the third place finisher's $20.2 million. While the positive reviews at the Toronto Film Festival all but guaranteed that Moneyball would debut strongly, Dolphin Tale's success is a bit more of a surprise. The movie earned an A+ CinemaScore from viewers, the same high mark given by Soul Surfer's audience. Inspirational, PG-rated movies are something of a rarity in the market, and the addition of an injured dolphin to the formula (hearkening back to Free Willy) probably boosted returns even higher. Alcon Entertainment, which produced The Blind Side, was also behind Dolphin Tale. There's a certain group of movies about overcoming adversity that seem to hit a sweet spot with viewers. It can't be a depressing, Precious level of adversity, but just enough to warm the heart. These kinds of movies (I'm thinking of Marley & Me, The Pursuit of Happyness, Soul Surfer, The Blind Side) have resonated widely with audiences.

Taylor Lautner should redouble his efforts in romances like the Twilight series because Abduction earned $11.2 million by wrangling up audiences that were 68% female and mostly under 25--the opposite of a normal action movie's demographics. However, considering critics gave the movie a 3% positive rating, an eight-digit opening weekend is probably the best this poorly received movie can hope for. Unsurprisingly, females under 18 gave the movie an A-, while everyone else's scores averaged out to a B-.

Killer Elite, the first effort from newbie distributor Open Road, finished on the low side of expectations with $9.5 million. Jason Statham is something of an action movie workhorse, but many of his other actioners have doubled this opening weekend, including The Mechanic and Transporter 3. Still, with its solid cast, which includes Robert De Niro and Clive Owen, this movie should do well in home markets.

The gay romance Weekend, which our critic David Noh raved about, should have planned for a bigger run. It earned $25,000 over the weekend to sold-out screenings at one theatre. Its performance in coming weekends should be strong, especially if it expands to other locations. Other specialty releases had more middling results. Machine Gun Preacher averaged $11,000 per screen at four locations. Cameron Crowe-directed rockumentary Pearl Jam Twenty did slightly better, averaging $12,700 per screen at seven locations.

This Friday, cancer comedy 50/50 will hit theatres along with romantic comedy What's Your Number?, the thriller Dream House and the faith-based drama Courageous.

'Moneyball' aims for the bleachers

By Sarah Sluis

The fall is known for being a quiet time for movies, but this year we're already seeing a potential Oscar contender, Moneyball (2,993 theatres), coming out to entertain adult audiences. Sony appears to be repeating the same strategy they used for last year's The Social Network, which opened October 1st and still managed to have a strong presence during awards season. Critic Rex Roberts praises the movie for turning the antics of number-crunching back-office executives into "scintillating cinema" that is "eminently enjoyable." Brad Pitt stars as Billy Beane, a one-time potential star prospect who failed in the major leagues and now manages the impoverished Oakland A's. With the help of a young Yalie (Jonah Hill), he builds a record-breaking team on a low budget by analyzing little-known stats like on-base percentages. Moneyball could top $20 million, especially as critics pile on their love for the movie, which is currently rating 92% positive on Rotten Tomatoes.

Moneyball's toughest competitor will be a feel-good movie with maimed pets and Morgan Freeman. Dolphin Tale (3,507 theatres) is the latest from Alcon Entertainment, which produced The Blind Side. THR's Todd McCarthy described the movie as "an appealing family film that doesn't know when to quit with the uplift." The true-life story centers on a dolphin with an injured tail who receives a prosthetic appendage with the help of community members (including a benevolent billionaire). The aww factor should bring families to the theatre if they aren't catching up on last week's winner, the re-release of The Lion King.

Twilight fans are expected to turn out en masse for Abduction (3,118 theatres), which stars Taylor Lautner, the werewolf boy in the supernatural series. Those that don't fall into the teen girl demographic should only go if they're interested in seeing "the year's most entertaining bad film," a superlative given by critic David Noh. "Unintentional laughs" come from lines like "There's a bomb in the oven" and the threat "I will kill all your friends on Facebook."

Killer Elite (2,986 theatres), the first film from AMC/Regal-created distributor Open Road Films, is "a confusing, unsatisfying action thriller," according to critic Daniel Eagan. Starring Jason Statham, Robert De Niro, and Clive Owen, the movie jumbles together former secret service agents, fights over Middle Eastern oil, and mercenaries in the "clumsy and preposterous" tale. An opening weekend around $10 million is expected, with Abduction and Killer Elite considered close competitiors.

On the specialty front, Noh praises Weekend (1 theatre) as "one of the best gay films ever made," with an "emotional payoff" at the end that's "beautifully observed and quite devastating." I really hate the title of Machine Gun Preacher (4 theatres), which sounds like an exploitation film but is actually the tale of an ex-con (Gerard Butler) who finds God and goes to Sudan and Uganda to help those in need. Critic Kirk Honeycutt acknowledged that it's "solid, worthy effort, but doesn't like to ask too many questions," or delve into a critique of the main character's choices or methods.

On Monday, we'll see in Moneyball hit it out of the park and if audiences responded to the feel-good premise of Dolphin Tale.

Rethinking Hollywood do-overs, from 'Scarface' and 'Straw Dogs' to 'The Lion King'

By Sarah Sluis

New York Magazine recently hired producer Gavin Polone (who has pretty solid IMDB credits) as a columnist. His first article's point? Hollywood is making so many bad remakes they're driving everyone away from the theatres. He cites specific movies as examples, concluding that it can be "good" or "understandable" to make remakes, as long as "the filmmaker brings something new to it." (Example: True Grit, Rise of the Planet of the Apes for its special effects). Isn't that self-evident? Yet he brings up movies where scripts have been recycled verbatim (The Omen), and the disappointment of last week's Straw Dogs, which tried to remake a classic.

Indeed, there's a certain irony that in the sea of remakes, a re-release like The Lion King can make $30 million in a weekend. Disney didn't have to reshoot or recast the movie, or turn it into CG animation. They didn't even have to show it in 3D (Disney's one upgrade), since many of the viewers chose to see it in 2D. People want to see a good, memorable movie. They want to be entertained. Yet the only way Hollywood can think of to do that is to make bad remakes of good movies? What about seeing the originals?

After reading Polone's article, I came across a short announcement in Variety. Universal plans to remake Scarface, that epic 1983 gangster movie. Will it contribute anything new? According to the article, it "will take elements from the 1932 Howard Hughes pic and 1983 Al Pacino version, wherein a refugee or immigrant rises the ranks of the criminal underworld to eventually become a kingpin." How much does a change of scenery actually mean? From a cultural perspective, it will be interesting to frame the violence in the context of another immigrant group's struggle, but it's not like we have our doors wide open to immigrants anymore, thanks to 9/11-related policies. If the first 1932 film centered on Italian immigrants and the second Cubans, where do we go after that?

It's also worth noting that 51 years elapsed between the first and second Scarfaces. If this project goes into development/production quickly, it will be around 30 years between the second and third films. The speed at which projects are recycled has increased to an untenable point. I can understand non-cinephiles not wanting to see the black-and-white Scarface with production code-level violence. But 1983's Scarface is still incredibly watchable, if a little heavy on the cheesy excess of the era. I just saw it for the first time last year! Taking an iconic, much-loved, still-watched movie and remaking it is a recipe for disaster. It didn't work for Straw Dogs, and it won't work for Scarface unless it dramatically overhauls the entire movie--and then, at that point, why do a remake? Why not just start fresh using different plot points? Because that, my friends, is how Hollywood works.