SPEARE'S TIPS: THE FILMS OF 4/17 - State of Play, 17 Again, Crank: High Voltage

$72 MILLION? Are you freakin’ kidding me?! Goodness gracious. One week after I profess that Monsters vs. Aliens will be the biggest pre-May film of the year, along comes Fast and Furious to knock my wind right out. Now, the race is by no means over: for all I know, F&F might suffer a tremendous 2nd- and 3rd-week drop, while MvA chugs merrily along… and an evil part of me actually hopes that happens, if for no other reason than I’m tired of eating crow every damn week. (Sheepish grin.)

We are but four short weekends away from the opening of the summer season 2009, and the buzz is starting to build at a tremendous rate. Questions abound: will X-Men Origins: Wolverine be able to achieve the success that former Marvel leadoff hitters Spider-Man 3 and Iron Man did? Will J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek capture the imagination of a new generation of Trekkies without becoming another Cloverfield?
Will big-budget sequels/prequels Angels and Demons, Terminator: Salvation and Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian be able to outshine their predecessors? And will Up be able to continue Pixar’s perfect batting average? It seems inconceivable that the answers to ALL these questions is “yes”, so that begs the question… which of these potential titans is the dud?

But we’re not there yet. We’ve still got a full rack of April films to talk about, and the weekend of April 17th will bring with it three more films: a taut political drama, a whimsical comedy and a balls-out action movie. Not one of these films is a sure bet, but neither are any of them throwaways either. So let’s get going.

Being a huge fan of British television, I wish that I had the means to watch more of it from my little Arizona flat. If I had, I might have been able to watch the critically acclaimed BBC One serial State of Play, which was directed by David Yates (Harry Potter V-VII) and starred David Morrissey, Kelly Macdonald and Bill Nighy. In this story, a young man is murdered in an apparent drug killing, and his death coincides with that of a young woman, who happens to be a researcher for a notable member of Parliament. Reporters from The Herald newspaper investigate and find that the deaths are not only connected, but that the political undercurrents involved run much deeper than it first appeared.

I am not against the idea of an Americanized version of this story, not at all, especially given the fact that Kevin Macdonald (whose last film was the critical monster The Last King of Scotland) is directing and that Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton, Duplicity) co-wrote the script. The particulars have changed, of course: in this State of Play, the notable member of Parliament has been replaced by fast-rising Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), and is set in Washington, D.C. The death of his research assistant causes a scandal that his political foes want to use as ammo to kill his career, so he turns to Cal McCaffrey (Russell Crowe), his former campaign manager who is now an investigative journalist, to help get to the bottom of the crime… unaware that Cal has entered into a secret romance with his estranged wife (Robin Wright Penn). Helen Mirren, Rachel McAdams and Jason Bateman also co-star.

Great director, great cast, great writer, great source material… so what’s missing? Well, first and foremost would be a more favorite release date. Something like this would probably have been better served with a winter release, but I suppose Universal figured State of Play would get swallowed up by more worthy dramas. Here in April, I just can’t shake the feeling that it might be heavily ignored.

I’m hoping that this film will fare slightly better than Duplicity did a couple of weeks ago. That film opened at #3 with an OW in the low teens, and will probably top out at around $35 million or so. Given the titans that are coming just a few weeks down the line, I have to believe that State only has a two weeks to make its hay; one might surmise that a solid adult-centered drama is good counter-programming for an explosive blockbuster, and it is, but I’m not sure that will translate to big bucks.

This film will run you $14 in the April Ultimate leagues and $13 in Box Office. It has an outside shot at the Top 2 for the weekend of April 17th, depending on how previous holdovers, well, hold. It should get a handful of Top 5 points and a respectable User Rating, but unless it can pull an opening weekend of $20 million or more, I think the price tag is just too steep. A lot of players, I’ve noticed, seem to be favoring Observe and Report, which opens one week earlier and costs virtually the same amount.

I remember a period in the mid-1980’s where four, yes, FOUR movies came out within a year of each other with the same basic theme: adults magically becoming kids again. In the truly awful Like Father, Like Son, Kirk Cameron switched places with Dudley Moore. Later, in the mildly amusing Vice Versa, Judge Reinhold swapped bodies with Fred Savage. Not long after that, George Burns and Charlie Schlatter traded places in the barely-seen 18 Again. And finally, Big, where Tom Hanks plays a young boy mystically advanced to adulthood. Interesting that that is the only one of the four that still gets watched today.

Despite the fact that the third film mentioned is only one digit removed from the title of 17 Again, this particular film seems to have the most in common with Big, in that no other people are involved in the whole age-changing thing, only here it’s happening in reverse: a 37-year-old man named Mike O’Donnell (Matthew Perry) is not living the live he envisioned as a kid. His career as a pharmaceutical rep is at a standstill, he’s separated from his wife (Leslie Mann) and is living with his best friend Ned (Thomas Lennon).

After a visit to his old high school for a trip down memory lane, desperately wishing he could go back and do it all over again, a magical plot contrivance makes exactly that happen. He is reverted back to his teenage self (High School Musical hunk Zac Efron) but retaining his adult memories. Deciding to make it all different this time, he goes back to high school… the same high school where his own kids are students. Ooh, awkward…

It almost sounds like a Disney plot-line, but 17 Again is actually a product of New Line Cinema. It’s being directed by first-timer Burr Steers, and produced by director/choreographer Adam Shankman (Hairspray). I don’t know if Zac will be getting his musical groove on like he did in HSM, but I suppose it’s possible.

Well, really, what can you say about this concept? It’s nothing new, obviously, though it hasn’t been done quite this way in a while… it looks like fun, harmless entertainment, and stars an up-and-coming teen heartthrob who could very well pack in throngs of female fans. It’s got some competition, not the least of which is Hannah Montana: The Movie, which will be in its second week, and is aimed at the same demographic.

I’ll be generous and give 17 Again the benefit of the doubt and project an OW of $24 million, en route to eight Top 5 points, four PTA, and a User Rating between 5 and 6. For $14 (in either league), you could do a lot worse. It is certainly the last film for a good long while that is aimed almost specifically at teens and under (Battle for Terra and perhaps Dance Flick being the only ones in May).

It’s not often that an actor, director or film pisses me off to such an extent that I take advantage of my having my own column to rant a bit. The last time was late last year, when I railed on ad infinitum about the talentless director combo of Friedberg and Seltzer. But now, it’s not a person that I get to bash, but a film. Specifically, Crank and it’s sequel.

Say what you like about Jason Statham and this niche that he’s carved for himself, the soft-spoken, ass-kicking, car-driving British action star; most of his films require no small amount of suspension of disbelief, and most, on a base level, are enjoyable as switch-your-brain-off entertainment. I was absolutely, thoroughly entertained by both Death Race and Transporter 3 in the latter half of 2008, for example.

But the original Crank film, which came out in 2006, basically took just about everything that I like about Statham’s films and just threw it out the window. Though he often plays characters who are a little rough around the edges, and have often ended up on the wrong side of the law, you still find yourself rooting for them. Chev Chelios, on the other hand, was, not to mince words, an ASSHOLE. In trying to keep his heart going and combat the poison he had been dosed with, he ran roughshod over anyone that got in his way, even innocent bystanders. And even the highlight scene, where he banged his girlfriend in the middle of a Chinatown crowd failed, to get any reaction from me at all.

I can totally get behind the story of a bad guy who has been wronged, and seeks revenge on the even-badder bad guys who wronged him… it worked beautifully for Mel Gibson in Payback, after all. But Crank was so horribly shot, edited and presented, I wanted out within ten minutes. I look forward to those when Statham breaks into his cool martial-arts mode to beat the crap out of a gang of toughs; but Chelios just shot them or pistol-whipped them. Wow, THAT’S exciting to watch. And suspension of disbelief? Ye gods.

Follow the sheer ridiculousness of the last few minutes of Crank (if you haven’t seen it by now, then tough): he climbs into a helicopter, tussling with the main bad guy, and about thirty seconds later, they both fall out. (During this thirty-second period, the helicopter was able to climb from the rooftop of a skyscraper to about 20,000 feet. That’s one) After a few more seconds, he breaks the bad guy’s neck – with one hand. Then he takes out his cell phone and leaves a thirty-second message on his girlfriend’s answering machine, which comes out with impossibly perfect clarity on the other end (that’s two, unless it’s Nextel), hangs up, and falls for another thirty seconds, landing on the roof of a car, BOUNCES OFF (and that’s three), and hits the pavement. The end. The only good thing I took from this film was that there wouldn’t be a sequel. Obviously someone up there doesn’t like me.

Not only does Chelios actually SURVIVE for another installment, entitled Crank: High Voltage, but the concept gets even more ridiculous. Someone steals his heart (WHY???) and replace it with a cheap copy. He therefore has to keep his body juiced with electricity to stay alive, while he tear-asses all over the place to retrieve his heart and jam it back in. No. Just… no. Needless to say, I will NOT be forking over ten bucks to see this one. I can only pray that he buys the farm this time out, but I’m not hopeful, as he seems to be as tough to kill as Wile E. Coyote.

Regardless of how good or bad they are, Statham’s films are usually good for about $30-$40 million, and I’m sure that Crank: High Voltage will be no exception. It’s the last pure-action film before May, and it has all of two weeks to make its bones before the REAL action films of the year come out. After that, it will fade away like the bad dream that it, regrettably, ISN’T.

It costs $7 in both Ultimate and Box Office leagues, and I wish I could ignore this one just on principle, but given its possibilities, it actually might be a good pick. It’s User Rating won’t be terrific, of course, but it could pick up a handful of Top 5 points and, as I said, around $35 million before the summer picks up speed.

My predictions for the weekend of April 17-19, 2009:

1. 17 Again - $24 million
2. State of Play - $20 million
3. Fast and Furious - $18 million
4. Crank: High Voltage - $14 million
5. Observe and Report - $12 million

Well, that will do it for me for another week. Next week, I’ll close out the first third of the year with three more films that chose one of the most difficult weeks to come out: The Soloist, a former Oscar hopeful starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx as, respectively, a reporter looking for a juicy story and the homeless former musical prodigy who he chooses as his subject; Fighting, a gritty street-fighting film starring Terence Howard and Step Up's Channing Tatum; and Obsessed, a noirish Fatal Attraction knockoff starring Beyonce Knowles, Idris Elba and Heroes’ Ali Larter.

Later!

Burr Steers isn't a first time director. He previously did Igby Goes Down back in 2002 and also directed episodes of Weeds. He's also a small-time actor, having appeared in films such as Pulp Fiction. It's kind of odd that a director of such dark material would be directing a big-studio teenie bopper movie but I guess he's going the Justin Lin route of going from good dark indie films to making mindless studio assembly line junk.

Meanwhile, I'm going to predict:

1.Crank: High Voltage $15 million
2.17 Again $14 million
3.State Of Play $13 million
4.Observe and Report $11 million
5.Hannah Montana $10 million

I expect it to be a down week since State Of Play really doesn't seem to know which audience it appeals to and it reminds me of last year's flop Body Of Lies and 17 Again may or may not perform well (the teens may or may not come but from seeing the trailer which makes it look like Back To The Future gone horribly wrong, probably not). But Crank: High Voltage I see bringing them in because it's had the best advertising campaign of the three and the dumb young adults who love this stuff will probably be lining up in droves the way they did with Fast and Furious. But expect it to drop over 60% in the second week.

Shryke wrote:

We’ve still got a full rack of April

Who is April?

HAHA that was a great one Brockman.

Hey dont knock Crank

Bite my Crank.

wow for once shryke actual predicted the same as me. I did have hannah montana hanging in there barely for that last spot but close enough.

my predictions

1.17 Again $22 Mill
2.State Of Play $18 Mill
3.Fast and Furious $16 Mill
4. Crank:High Voltage $15 Mill
5.Observe and Report $12 Mill

I this weekend starts another slowdown before the summer. I was all over 17 Again but now, after F&F and how weak HM is tracking, I'm going to have to downgrade it. I don't think any film makes above 15M that weekend. Summer is coming!

The success of Fast and Furious is the main reason (that and the strong marketing campaign) are why I'm favoring Crank: High Voltage. If audiences wanted one dumb action movie with a bald guy, they're certainly going to want another dumb action movie with a bald guy.

I thought Vice Versa came out before Like Father, Like Son...but I may be mistaken...

The Body Switch Movies Of The 1980's In Order Of Release:

Like Father, Like Son: October 2nd, 1987 (the worst of the lot)
Vice Versa: March 4th, 1988 (second best behind Big)
18 Again!: April 8th, 1988 (fourth best but much better than Like Father, Like Son)
Big: June 3rd, 1988 (the best of the lot)
Dream A Little Dream: March 3rd, 1989 (the middle of the lot)

And then, of course there's Freaky Friday, it's remake, and 13 Going on 30...and then I'm pretty sure there was a more adult take on this type of thing that came out not too long ago, but I can't for the life of me figure it out...

Wow, Shryke, the hate for Crank is strong in you. Although, I can understand why people hate it - it's the epitome of big, dumb action films. Emphasis on dumb. I still love it though and I'll be seeing this one OW. I like to think of it as the film adaptation of Grand Theft Auto.

And to answer your last question of the 2nd paragraph....Angels & Demons.

Buscemi, I'm still trying to figure out how you managed to drop THREE Fast & Furious references in two posts in a totally unrelated thread topic...

Come on, admit it. You saw it, didn't you? I bet you loved it. It's OK

Buscemi wrote:The success of Fast and Furious is the main reason (that and the strong marketing campaign) are why I'm favoring Crank: High Voltage...

If this is true, why did you pick it to win the weekend a full week before F&F came out? Really, you can stop being bitter now.

I actually quite like Jason Statham in most of his movies but I didn't watch Crank and I won't watch Crank II. It just looked so... umm.. well...

Just re-read Shrykey's rant.

Exactly.

I picked Crank: High Voltage to win its weekend before Fast and Furious opened based on its strong marketing campaign and the fact that the week looks pretty weak. Also unlike the other two films, the audience strong actually be there (unlike State Of Play, who doesn't seem to know which audience it's aiming towards and 17 Again, whose audience doesn't show up half the time).

Donte you should see Crank its great if you like action sure its dumb but its also bad-ass i mean how many movies do see a man put another's man hand threw a sewing machine. Its pretty much Grand Theft Auto turned into a film.

Shrykespeare wrote:$72 MILLION? Are you freakin’ kidding me?! Goodness gracious. One week after I profess that Monsters vs. Aliens will be the biggest pre-May film of the year, along comes Fast and Furious to knock my wind right out. Now, the race is by no means over: for all I know, F&F might suffer a tremendous 2nd- and 3rd-week drop, while MvA chugs merrily along… and an evil part of me actually hopes that happens, if for no other reason than I’m tired of eating crow every damn week. (Sheepish grin.)

MvA will beat Fast and Furious. Are you watching these weekday numbers?

Will big-budget sequels/prequels Angels and Demons, Terminator: Salvation and Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian be able to outshine their predecessors? And will Up be able to continue Pixar’s perfect batting average? It seems inconceivable that the answers to ALL these questions is “yes”, so that begs the question… which of these potential titans is the dud?

Angels and Demons is going to be a dud.

What exactly would make Angels and Demons a dud in your opinion. Another vague prediction that everyone seems to be making. This question is open for everyone.

Face it, the Da Vinci Code/treasure seeker craze is over. This film came too late in trying to beat the tail end of it due to the WGA strike.

Also, a lot of people hated The Da Vinci Code (myself included).

That still avoids my question. If you are calling it a dud, what is that calling for?

$85 million final. And the film costs over $100 million.

And I think it will double that.