SPEARE'S TIPS: THE FILMS OF 3/27 - Monsters vs. Aliens, 12 Rounds, The Haunting in Connecticut

I gotta be honest: I did not expect Watchmen to tank this badly. Now, granted, it’s not exactly a catastrophe on the level of, say, Speed Racer or Semi-Pro, but it’s not more than one or two steps above that on the scale of financial disasters (also known as the "Madoff Scale"). A lot of people did the smart thing and switched it out of their slates in the week prior to its release, but the rest of us lemmings proceeded to follow it straight over the cliff. Oh well, misery loves company, etc., etc.

Race to Witch Mountain did what it was supposed to, winning its weekend, but with a number far less than what I predicted. And even though Disney movies tend to have great legs, I doubt it will pull more than $75 million overall, especially given that a kid-friendly, high-profile, three-dimensional powerhouse is waiting in the wings. It’s been a topsy-turvy year, folks: the first six weeks of the year produced record numbers, and the following six weeks has seen a slow but steady tapering off of box office numbers. Sure, you can definitely count He’s Just Not That Into You and Tyler Perry’s Madea Goes to Jail as bona fide successes, but there have been so many that have ended up weighing down your slate like the proverbial lead balloon (Push, The International, Jonas Brothers, Street Fighter, 12, Miss March and, of course, Watchmen). Before we make the jump into April, habitually one of the weakest months of the year, we can only hope that there will be one film to reach $150 million before summertime.

And lo and behold, there is, and it comes from the folks at perennial powerhouse DreamWorks Animation. Monsters vs. Aliens (PG) looks to be the only gasp left for there to be a $150 million film in the first third of 2009. (Unless Paul Blart or Taken has the oomph to get there, of course. But I digress…) Needless to say, this studio, which has cranked out an average of two major releases every year for the last few years, and almost all of which have been successful at the ticket counters despite, in many cases, a severe lack of quality.

I am of the opinion that DreamWorks, unless something really major changes, will always be in the shadow of Pixar, both in terms of quality and re-watchability. Oh, the animation is terrific, of course, but honestly, would your kids rather watch Finding Nemo or Shark Tale? Do you think they’d rather spend a Saturday evening enjoying Monsters Inc. or nodding off to the craptastic Bee Movie? Yes, the Shrek series was once a novelty, but 2007’s third installment of that series has pretty much made the big green guy passé. This past winter’s second chapter in the Madagascar series was amusing, but really didn’t hold a candle to the original.

Frankly, from 2007 on, there’s only been one DreamWorks outing that has really, truly impressed me, that being last summer’s Kung Fu Panda. It was exceptionally done, a terrific story, and a true original. (And as great as it was, it still got squashed by Wall-E at the Oscars.) It is because Monsters vs. Aliens looks like such a hilariously original concept that, for the first time in a long time, I think there might actually be room for DreamWorks to challenge Pixar for that coveted Best Animated Picture Oscar. Of course, I haven’t seen Up yet, but I’m keeping my options open.

Kids, for the most part, couldn’t care less who play the voices in their animated classics. And it’s rare that I even give it a second thought. But I must admit, the celebs lending their voice talents to MvA are not only impressive, but a spot-on bit of casting. Oscar winner Reese Witherspoon plays a girl named Susan Murphy, who, in a tragic bit of bad luck; on the way to her wedding, she is struck by a meteor (ouch), but instead of becoming pancake, she instantly grows to a height of 50 feet (bummer). Labeled a “monster” named "Ginormica", she is captured by the government and sent to a facility that houses a number of other odd characters, also dubbed as “monsters”.

(Side note: I really, REALLY feel sorry for every little girl named Susan across the country once this film opens. If you’ve seen the trailer, I think you can guess what every little boy will be chasing them across the playground yelling. Sigh. Therapists, start your engines…)

The character that seems to be the comic center of the film is B.O.B., a blue, one-eyed, indestructible gelatinous blob of goo (voiced by Seth Rogen, a flawless choice); the Missing Link, a 20,000-year-old fish/man (Will Arnett); an insect-headed man scientist named Dr. Cockroach (House’s Hugh Laurie), and a 350-foot-tall behemoth called Insectosaurus. When an invasion fleet of UFO’s lands on Earth, led by the villainous overlord Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson), General W.R. Monger (Kiefer Sutherland) suggests to the President of the United States (…Stephen Colbert?! Yeah!!) that they unleash the “monsters’” power to repel the aliens. Chaos, action and comedy ensue. Paul Rudd, Jeffrey Tambor and Amy Poehler also lend their voice talents.

One year ago, the period of January through April only boasted one blockbuster, Horton Hears a Who. I feel safe in saying that if that film can rise head and shoulders above its competition, then Monsters vs. Aliens should have little trouble doing the same. It’s been advertised out the wazoo, and, from what I understand, seeing it in 3-D will be a mesmerizing experience. I myself have never seen a film in 3-D (Consternation! Uproar!), but I just might consider forking over the extra few bucks in this case.

By the time March 27th rolls around, Watchmen will have all but died. Race to Witch Mountain may still be going strong, but it will probably offer little competition. And the three films of March 20th (I Love You Man, Duplicity and Knowing), in addition to being completely different genres, will probably also not offer much in the way of competition. In other words, the door couldn’t be more wide open if the Hulk had smashed his way through it.

Looking at the calendar for April, I’d say that there is one, maybe two, films that even have a minute chance of reaching $100 million, those being the Hannah Montana movie and Fast and Furious. Everything else is either too adult, too low-scale or, let’s face it, too...crap, to stand in the way of this juggernaut. I firmly believe it will top $50 million on its opening weekend, but will not suffer anywhere near the cataclysmic 67% drop that befell Watchmen. I predict 14 Top 5 points, eight PTA, a User Rating in the high 7’s and roughly $160 million by the time the calendar rolls into May.

The March-May season is a weird one… you need at least one, perhaps two, of the really big films to give your slate some muscle. Assuming you opted not to choose Watchmen, that leaves you with a choice; you can either back-load your slate with May films, or you can choose Monsters vs. Aliens. Given that it has a clearer four-week path than, say, Wolverine or Star Trek, this may be the one to go for. Oh, what am I saying? Of course it is! For $33 in Ultimate ($34 in Box Office), you really can’t afford to pass this one up!

Now, lest we forget, there are actually a couple of other films being released on this day. One that looked a mite promising a few months ago, but much less so now, is 12 Rounds (PG-13), featuring former WWE superstar John Cena, who broke into the cinematic ranks in 2006 with The Marine. And now that he’s achieved a level of action-movie stardom on the level of, oh, I don’t know, Howie Long, he’s been tabbed for this action thriller, which is directed by Renny Harlin.

You may remember Harlin as the driving force behind previous actioners like The Long Kiss Goodnight, Cliffhanger and the woeful Cutthroat Island (starring his then-wife, Geena Davis). He also helmed Die Hard 2: Die Harder, which definitely had its moments. If you’ve seen the trailer for 12 Rounds, however, you’ll notice that the plot more closely resembles that of Die Hard With a Vengeance; Cena plays New Orleans detective Danny Fisher, who, while arresting an internationally-known terrorist named Miles Jackson (Aidan Gillen), accidentally causes the death of Jackson’s girlfriend. One year later, Jackson is somehow out of prison, and has devised an intricate series of tests for Danny, tests that Danny must survive if he is to save the life of his own girlfriend (Ashley Scott) before it’s too late.

Now, I loved Die Hard With a Vengeance, and this kind of film always gets my juices flowing no matter how far down the celebrity ladder the principal actors are. It’s car chases, stunts, gunplay and explosions, I don’t need Olivier! However, what worries me is that this film is being released by WWE Studios, whose advertising department seems to be as much in a steroid-induced stupor as most of its stars. To this date, I have not seen one trailer (except online, where I was actually LOOKING for it), not one commercial, and maybe one poster tucked discreetly in the corner of my local theater. In other words, just how many people (outside of wrestling fans, presumably) even KNOW about this film?

The Marine earned $20 million somehow, and I find it very hard to predict a number any higher than that for 12 Rounds. Even for $5, I wouldn’t take this film, except in the January leagues, where it’s the only option remaining. God help those people who have it if it gets a last-minute bump to a future date…

A film that seems to be, much like Last House on the Left did this past week, tracking very well despite its late addition to the lineup is The Haunting In Connecticut (PG-13), a film that was added so recently that the March-May season is the only one that will end up including it. After a January that was virtually choked with horror outings, this one has the benefit of being the last one for a good long while… two months, in fact. If the current schedule holds, there won’t be another horror flick entering theaters until Drag Me to Hell on May 29th. Therefore, this one has some room to maneuver.

And it’s actually refreshing to see a horror movie come out that’s not a sequel, not a reboot and not a cheap knockoff of a recent Asian horror movie. And not only that, this one seems to purportedly based on actual events. Haunting chronicles the tale of the Snedeker family, a tale that was featured in the book In a Dark Place by Ray Garton.

In this story, the Snedeker family (well, actually, for this film, they are called “The Campbells”) are forced to relocate to a new home in Connecticut for their son’s health. Unfortunately, the house they choose to live in was built on the site of an old mortuary (gulp) where unspeakable atrocities occurred (gasp!), but it turns out the owner’s clairvoyant son Jonah served as a demonic messenger, providing a gateway for spiritual entities to cross over into our world (faint dead away). Virginia Madsen and Elias Koteas star.

Directed by Peter Cornwell and shot on location in Manitoba, Canada, The Haunting in Connecticut looks like a decent-if-not-overpowering low-to-mid-range pick. Priced at a bargainly $4 in both Ultimate and Box Office leagues, this one has a chance, given a wide-enough release, to crack the Top 5, assuming it can push its way past all the holdovers from the previous week. It probably won’t do more than $15 million, but that's still a pretty good investment even if it doesn’t bring you points in all the other categories.


My predictions for the weekend of March 27-29, 2009:

1. Monsters vs. Aliens - $57 million
2. I Love You Man - $14 million
3. The Haunting in Connecticut - $12 million
4. Duplicity - $10 million
5. Race to Witch Mountain - $8 million

Well, that will do it for this week. Next week, I’ll have only two films to talk about as we usher in the month of April: Fast and Furious, the fourth film in the juiced-up car series, and reuniting the cast of the original film (Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez and Jordana Brewster); and Adventureland, a teen comedy set in the summer of 1987, where a recent college grad (Jesse Eisenberg) must take a summer job at a local amusement park in order to prepare himself for “the real world”. Uh, yeah, good luck with that.

Later!

I've seen a few trailers for 12 Rounds (with Fox releases Notorious and Taken) and the film reminds me most of last year's 88 Minutes (which did mediocre but better than expected box office) but more action oriented and more American. It could do alright but it probably won't be Top 5 material.

Meanwhile, The Haunting In Connecticut looks like a bad ripoff of The Amityville Horror (even featuring the "Based On A True Story" tag and the East Coast setting) but it should get the little bastards who couldn't see The Last House On The Left in the theatre. And maybe a few Virginia "Candyman" Madsen or Elias "Casey Jones" Koteas fans.

My Predictions For The Top 5:
1.Monsters vs. Aliens $55 million
2.The Haunting In Connecticut $13 million
3.Race To Witch Mountain $12 million
4.Duplicity $11 million
5.I Love You, Man $9 million (Gay-oriented films are usually hits but I think promoting one to an audience usually considered homophobic was not well thought out. If this were promoted to women and the LGBT crowd instead of manly men and frat boys, the film would probably perform better.)

I Love You, Man is gay orientated? Did I seriously miss the point from the trailers?

I Love You, Man is not a gay movie, it has one scene in the trailer with the two men kissing, which actually almost always gets the biggest laugh.

(And Shryke, Ginormica is 49'11... )

BanksIsDaFuture wrote:I Love You, Man is not a gay movie, it has one scene in the trailer with the two men kissing, which actually almost always gets the biggest laugh.

(And Shryke, Ginormica is 49'11... )

So I rounded up. Take it up with her.

But isn't Jason Segel's character openly gay? I thought that it was obvious from the trailers.

I didn't get that impression at all.

So, I'm guessing this is not about a straight man and a gay man becoming best friends but the straight man has fear that he's becoming gay but gay or not he must learn to accept his newfound friend being gay?

Damned mainstream Hollywood and their fear of making mainstream gay movies!

Meanwhile, I have an idea for a film that could be a blockbuster:

Pitch: Knocked Up or Three Men and A Baby meets The Birdcage

Plotline: two gay men are friends with a straight woman. The straight woman gets knocked up and her boyfriend leaves her. Now, the woman needs a male figure to become the child's father but also one that she can trust. So she decides to make the two men the child's surrogate fathers. The result is a funny but also very heartfelt story about how even the smallest differences can be fun when you learn to live with it.

Cast:
James Franco and Clifton Collins Jr. as the men
Kristen Bell as the girl
Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the real father

I'm hoping that didn't sound awkward. I had remembered reading that the film was going to be a gay-oriented comedy and now, I'm disappointed to read that it's not and the film's now probably just an Apatow wannabe with Andy Samberg showing up to kill the film's chances of being good.

But at least there taking a chance by making the engaged couple an interracial one.

I really never thought that I Love You, Man had anything gay about it. I thought it was about a guy looking for a best friend to be his best man, who he then starts hanging out with his new best friend too much and it pisses off his fiance. They all need to learn to cope with it. And somewhere along the lines One of them fights Lou Ferigno. Also staring J.K. Simmons and Andy Samberg. That is exactly what I get from the TV spots anyway.

geezer9687 wrote:I really never thought that I Love You, Man had anything gay about it. I thought it was about a guy looking for a best friend to be his best man, who he then starts hanging out with his new best friend too much and it pisses off his fiance. They all need to learn to cope with it. And somewhere along the lines One of them fights Lou Ferigno. Also staring J.K. Simmons and Andy Samberg. That is exactly what I get from the TV spots anyway.

That is exactly what i thought. I don't know where Buscemi is getting his ideas from, but where in any of the trailers/tv spots does Jason Segals character appear to be openly gay?

Maybe it's his toy dog? Who knows... of course, if Segel goes au natural like he did in FSM, that could be a whole different clue...

And does anyone know where I can trademark the phrase "Brom-com"? I think this is the first title to fit that description. I want to patent it so I can get a quarter everytime someone says it...

My reasons would take too long to explain of why I think Jason Segel's character is gay (the toy dog is one reason though) but to me, the film's advertising seems to give subtle hints that this is a gay-oriented comedy.

-In the beginning of the trailer, Paul Rudd's character is revealed to have no male friends and it seems to give the idea that his father and brother believe him to be a closeted gay.
-A few of the "man dates" in the trailer also seem to get the idea that Paul Rudd's character is gay.
-By the time we meet Jason Segel's character, they become best friends but also Segel's character seems to be coming on to him and hints that he wants to be more than just friends. Rashida Jones's character is beginning to wonder what's becoming of Paul Rudd's character. Does he love her or has Segel's character really brought him out of the closet?
-Even the title seems to be a gay reference. The title I Love You, Man may mean "you are a great friend" but it could also mean "I really do love you, man".

In short, I may be wrong but I'm still convinced that this film is about the relationship between a straight man who is insecure about his sexuality and an openly gay man who is happy-go-lucky about his sexuality. It looks we shall see on Friday (even though I tend to wait for the crowds to die on this type of film and go when fewer people are seeing them).

is this whole conversation a joke? the point of the movie is about two straight men forming a close relationship

NSpan wrote:is this whole conversation a joke?

Sorry, I was just picturing the preceding sentence coming out of your avatar's mouth...

I was wondering the same thing NSpan. I really, and I mean really, can't see anything gay about it. Paul Rudd's character starts out the trailer a little effeminate. The way I look at it, the film is more about him becoming less gay than it is him becoming more gay. I think you are way off base here boush. I think it is the opposite of what you are trying to say. Which is why I think NSpan has taken it as a joke.

And shryke, I think they will all be using the term Bromance, as it has already been popularized.

Looks like I'll go back into my hole and watch Brokeback Mountain. And maybe Milk right after.

geezer9687 wrote:I was wondering the same thing NSpan. I really, and I mean really, can't see anything gay about it. Paul Rudd's character starts out the trailer a little effeminate. The way I look at it, the film is more about him becoming less gay than it is him becoming more gay. I think you are way off base here boush. I think it is the opposite of what you are trying to say. Which is why I think NSpan has taken it as a joke.

And shryke, I think they will all be using the term Bromance, as it has already been popularized.

I'm more partial to GuyLove to be honest.. Comes complete with it's own song:

I hope MvA can hit 60M+. The only thing holding it back is the lack of 3D theaters.

That and the fact that they aren't opening it in the summer.

JackO wrote:I hope MvA can hit 60M+. The only thing holding it back is the lack of 3D theaters.

I think screens will be the last thing MvA has to worry about. It'll take all the Digital 3D screens in the country (Jonas and Coraline are pretty much dead in the water) and should, at the very worst, share IMAX screens with Watchmen. And even then, Watchmen will just have the last show of the day.