SPEARE'S TIPS: THE FILMS OF 1/16

Apologies for the lateness of this column, but I’ve had my caboose fairly kicked by a rather nasty strain of the flu these past few days. So nasty, in fact, that I can picture it in my mind’s eye, ravaging my immune system, glowering at me from the inside like a pissed-off shotgun-toting Clint Eastwood from Gran Torino. (Grin.)

If you haven’t done so, I would strongly advise you to get in the Super Leagues immediately. The 51-week full-year tournaments start this Friday, and if you haven’t sent in a lineup by then, you’ll be unable to avail yourself of this weekend’s movies. And if you haven’t entered by January 23rd, well, that means you are S.O.L. until June, when the 2nd-Half tournaments start. Don’t be left behind! Get those rosters (complete with studio names) in to me ASAP!

Three titles ring in the new year of cinema on January 9th, as I outlined in my last column; well, two-and-a-half, actually, as it would appear that Not Easily Broken is slated to bow on well below 1,000 screens, which doesn’t say a lot for its fiscal chances. However, there are four fairly large films hitting theaters one week later, and it’s then that you’ll probably realize that the new year has begun.

The first of those is Notorious, which is the latest title to fit into the genre of musical biopics. But unlike critical darlings like Ray and Walk the Line, both of which drew much Oscar buzz in their depictions of music legends Ray Charles and Johnny Cash, Notorious tells the all-too-brief life story of a much more contemporary musician, that being gangster rapper Christopher “Notorious B.I.G.” Wallace. And also unlike the previously mentioned titles, the actor playing the lead role is a complete unknown.

The story of “Biggie” is well-known to most aficionados of rap music. Christopher Wallace (played by newcomer Jamal Woolard) rose from the crime-laden streets of Brooklyn to become one of the most famous, influential and gifted hip-hop artists of all time. Under the guidance of Sean “Puffy” Combs (played here by Derek Luke), Wallace would achieve monumental fame with his lyrics, which tended to be about the violence on the streets.

Though I have no idea how accurate the finished product will be, I have heard that it will portray Wallace as accurately as possible, warts and all, from his arrests for drug-dealing to his philandering, not to mention the whole East Coast/West Coast rap war that escalated to such a point that it claimed both the lives of Wallace and Tupac Shakur. Angela Bassett co-stars as Biggie’s mother, Violetta Wallace, which can only be a plus.

This film will run you $17 in the January Ultimate leagues and $16 in the Box Office. Despite the uproar that a biopic about Tupac is still not even in the works (a valid point), Wallace’s legend has not waned in the years since his death, and only a barrage of scathing reviews, I think, will keep the hardcore fans of gangsta rap away from this one. A $15 million opening seems likely, though it could go as high as $20 if the reviews are rock-solid. I imagine a total of nine Top 5 points, four PTA and a User Rating around 5.0 (it’s one drawback), which, for a title priced in the high teens, is not that bad.

Up next we have Hotel For Dogs, which marks the second time that Nickelodeon has teamed up with DreamWorks Pictures (the first being Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events). It is based on the book of the same name by Lois Duncan. Directed by novice helmer Thor Freudenthal, Hotel stars Emma Roberts (Nancy Drew) and Jake T. Austin as Andi and Bruce, a pair of orphaned siblings who are forced to give up their beloved dog when they move into a foster home. But once they realize they can’t stand to be without him, they turn a closed and abandoned hotel into a home for not only their pooch but pretty much every stray they can find.

Though most of the trailers for this film tend to center almost exclusively on the kids and their canines, it wouldn’t be a family film without some grown-ups to befuddle: Lisa Kudrow, Don Cheadle and Kyla Pratt rounds out the top of the human cast.

If you go up and down the list of films being released in January, you will notice that apart from Hotel For Dogs and Inkheart (coming the following week), there really is nothing else for the kids to sink their teeth into (the younger ones, anyway, who may not be all that stoked for Paul Blart). And while Inkheart is definitely in the category of family/action, Hotel is much more a whimsical family comedy. Let’s just hope, for the accompanying parents’ sake, there aren’t going to be huge bags of doggie-doo being flung around…

Even so, this being January, I’m somewhat loath to predict a huge opening for anything, especially a rather routine-looking kids-and-animals-versus-big-dumb-adults picture. I suppose a $15 million opening here, too, is quite possible, if the theater count is up around 2,800 or so and the weather on the East Coast can behave itself. It’ll run with $10 in Ultimate leagues ($15 in Box Office), for what will probably net you five or six Top 5 points, a couple of PTA (maybe), and a middling User Rating. Someone on the Boards predicted a $1 billion total ticket-counter take in January, and while I think that may be a tad (okay, ten or eleven tads) optimistic, Hotel For Dogs could be a good sleeper pick for your roster, if you’re adventurous enough to take it.

Also coming out on January 16th is Paul Blart: Mall Cop, the latest comedic vehicle for former King of Queens star Kevin James, in which James plays the titular Blart, a suburban dad whose dreams of joining the police force have met with, well, abject failure. Still feeling the need to protect and serve… something, I guess, he takes a job as a security guard, protecting a middle-class New Jersey suburban mall. He takes said job very seriously, riding around on his Segway and protecting the public from miscreants.

That is, until one day in the Christmas season, when armed gunman shut down the mall and take hostages, meaning that it us up to Blart to get his best John McClane on and not only save the day, but impress the police force that told him to not let the door hit his chubby caboose on the way out. As premises go, not bad, if a little clichéd; thank God they got someone with a few more comedic chops than Larry the Cable Guy.

Like December’s Bedtime Stories, Paul Blart comes out of Happy Madison Studios, and Adam Sandler himself is listed as a co-producer (along with James). This isn’t director Steve Carr’s first rodeo either, having helmed primarily African-American lowbrow comedies thus far, such as Daddy Day Case, Rebound and Are We Done Yet? in recent years.

It’s a fairly crowded weekend, but this film has been advertised pretty heavily for the last few weeks, so I’m looking for a decent opening weekend. It could come in as low as #4 (depending on how all the others open), or it could become a surprise hit and end up bowing at #1. However, I think it will open slightly better than Hotel for Dogs, and if Gran Torino and Bride Wars don’t blow the roof off their first big weekends, Blart could very well top $20 million en route to a total take of $45-$50 million. Currently priced at $9 in the Ultimate leagues ($11 in Box Office), I predict five Top 5 points, one or two PTA, and a middling User Rating. It’s a pretty good pick (if uncertain), so pay attention to tracking right before it opens. If it looks like buzz is good, snatch it up!

I have heard speculation that My Bloody Valentine 3-D is going to open absolutely huge, and is the film to beat in the horror genre for the early part of 2009. Honestly? Just can’t see it. This is the first of what promises to be many titles that will be released this year with the “three-dimensional” tag attached, and that may be a selling point, but I don’t recall hearing that 3-D theaters have been springing up from the ground with regularity. And if you, like me, are stuck with plain vanilla 2-D theaters in your general vicinity, what you have here is just your run-of-the-mill slasher film, one of a group of unremarkable sojourns into horror for us to feast un in January.

Directed by Patrick Lussier, who cut his teeth as a film editor on several of Wes Craven’s films before helming such completely forgettable fare such as Dracula 2000, Prophecy 3 and White Noise 2 (I guess it’s his lot in life to direct horror flicks with numbers in them), My Bloody Valentine is actually a remake of a 1981 Canadian film of the same name. It stars current TV heartthrob Jensen Ackles (Supernatural) as Tom Hanninger, a coal miner who accidentally caused a cave-in that killed five of his co-workers.

Ten years later, Tom returns to his hometown, still haunted by guilt and trying to mend fences with his ex-girlfriend (Jaime King), who his now married to his best friend. And when a streak of brutal murders occurs, perpetrated by a pickax-wielding, gas-mask-wearing killer, Tom becomes the prime suspect.

As I said, this is the second in a streak of four consecutive weekends featuring a horror or horror-related theme, and apart from Ackles’ swooning fan base and diehard gore-hounds, is there really enough here to make My Bloody Valentine a viable pick? Well, given that it’s only priced at $5 in Ultimate AND Box Office leagues, one might be tempted to try… It might scurry by with a User Rating of 6.0 or so, and Top 5 points are anybody’s guess. But for only a five-spot, it certainly won’t cripple you.

My predictions for this weekend:

1. Notorious - $20 million
2. Paul Blart: Mall Cop - $18 million
3. Bride Wars (2nd week) - $16 million
4. Hotel For Dogs - $14 million
5. Gran Torino (2nd week in wide circulation) - $12 million
My Bloody Valentine - $10 million

Well, that will do it for this week. Next week, I’ll tackle the weekend of January 23rd, which will usher in three more hopefuls vying for your unspent holiday cash – Inkheart, Underworld: Rise of the Lycans and Possession.

I just don't see Notorious being that big. I think it will switch places with Hotel for Dogs to be honest.

Dont count out Defiance. It's going wide this weekend. I could see it making 14 to 17 million. I also agree that Notorious is high, but other than that i think your spot on.

Notorious is only getting 1,500 theaters so it will have to have some huge buzz for it reach those numbers. Anyways, not to get into tooo much detail, but this weekend seems like a snoozer for me. And 10M for My Bloody Valentine? Really? The alleged lack of 3D theaters didn't hurt Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D.

Damn, I'd completely forgotten about Defiance. And I was unaware that Notorious's theater count was going to be that low, thanks JackO, always nice to be put in my place by someone more informed.

No, it didn't hurt Journey's numbers, true, but January ain't July, and Valentine doesn't even look as juvenile-ly cool as Journey did. A turd in 3-D is still a turd.

Armed with this new information, I will revise my Top 5:

1. Paul Blart - $18 million
2. Bride Wars - $16 million
3. Hotel For Dogs - $14 million
4. Defiance - $14 million
5. Notorious - $12 million
6. Gran Torino - $12 million
Valentine - $10 million - that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

Shrykespeare wrote:A turd in 3-D is still a turd.

Indeed.

I do kind of want to see MBV3D simply for posterity's sake and to see if this 3D thing is worth all the dollars being thrown at it. But yeah what you said.

My Bloody Valentine does look like shit but it will make money. I also think Notorious will do pretty well. Here is my prediction for next weekend

1.Paul Blart Mall Cop 23 Mill
2. My Bloody Valentine 20 Mill
3.Bride Wars 14.5 Mill
4. Notorious 13 Mill
5.Defiance 10 Mill

Shryke, there is a theater with DLP (which means they SHOULD have 3D capability) in Peoria, AZ, which if the 85301 zip code I used for the search is correct, is just short of 10 miles outside of Glendale. So I don't think you're necessarily stuck with plain ol' 2D theaters.

I mean, c'mon, if western Wisconsin can have 3D screens, the bigger metro area of Phoenix has got to, right?

Here's a link to the search I did: http://www.dlp.com/cinema/search_results.aspx?zip=85301

Mr I, you're now officially the Fantaverse Secretary

We expect you to come in tomorrow wearing a pencil skirt.

Donte77 wrote:

Shrykespeare wrote:A turd in 3-D is still a turd.

Indeed.

I do kind of want to see MBV3D simply for posterity's sake and to see if this 3D thing is worth all the dollars being thrown at it. But yeah what you said.

I saw enough of this turd while they were filming it here in Pittsburgh to know that I don't want to be anywhere near it when it opens. It's amazing how Pittsburgh has suddenly turned into Hollywood East with no less than 6 movies filmed here in the last 18 - 24 months set for release or just having been released.

Zack and Miri
MBV3D
The Road
Sorority Row
Adventureland
Mysteries of Pittsburgh (The latest Michael Chabon book to be adapted but still looking for a distributor)
She's Out of My league

I'm interested in seeing Adventureland but I'm afraid that it's going to end up being Keystone State or Garden State Goes To Pennsylvania.

And is it me or does Kristen Wiig always see to play either a) the roles that Jenna Fischer doesn't take or b) somebody's wife or girlfriend? I'm really talking wasted talent here but that's probably what happens when Hollywood's only wanting the next Megan Fox or Carmen Electra.

Buscemi wrote:I'm interested in seeing Adventureland but I'm afraid that it's going to end up being Keystone State or Garden State Goes To Pennsylvania.

And is it me or does Kristen Wiig always see to play either a) the roles that Jenna Fischer doesn't take or b) somebody's wife or girlfriend? I'm really talking wasted talent here but that's probably what happens when Hollywood's only wanting the next Megan Fox or Carmen Electra.

Bousch,

We're going to have to agree to disagree on Wiig. The wife and I always fast forward through any skit she's in on SNL. Talk about a one trick pony.

I stopped watching Saturday Night Live when it became The Tina Fey/Andy Samberg Show. Those are your one-trick ponies.

And while I'm asking, why haven't we seen Jenna Fischer in any movies lately? Is she just too old for Hollywood or is it because she never really does any mainstream films (Slither, directed by her ex-husband is probably an exception)?

numbersix_99 wrote:Mr I, you're now officially the Fantaverse Secretary

We expect you to come in tomorrow wearing a pencil skirt.

Yeah right, like I can even squeeze into one. THIS was hard enough to fit into...



On the subject of Tina Fey, I think if you've ever watched 30 Rock you'll realize she is not a one trick pony.

I've never watched 30 Rock but I think that it's the people surrounding her (Alec Baldwin, Tracy Morgan, Jane Krakowski, etc.) that make that one a hit. She just gets all the credit.

And her two Hollywood movies ripped off other, better films (such as Heathers) and were thought to be original simply because of her name. Nowadays, Mean Girls is almost forgotten and Baby Mama will soon be forgotten like the other, better film that it cloned (The Brothers Solomon, from Mr. Show's Bob Odenkirk).

It's true that Baby Mama just seemed like a poor SNL sketch (or a 30 Rock plotline) that got extended into a feature length movie, but I think to lump Fey (who was writing for SNL before it got shitty) in with Andy Samberg (who I agree IS rather annoying) is a stretch.

MisterInformative wrote:but I think to lump Fey (who was writing for SNL before it got shitty)

It's funny how every generation comes to a point where they think SNL "gets shitty" I've been watching it since it's debut episode, and to me it got shitty with the initial replacement cast(Not Murray replacing Chase but after most of the originals finally left) because they could never be as funny as the original, but over time, I would start watching again, and it would get funny, then get shitty, then get funny again. And what I have found is that most people always think it is funny at the time they start watching, and then it eventually gets old. After that, it becomes cool to say that SNL isn't nearly as good as when you used to watch it.

I meant that it jumped the shark when she became head writer. After that, all of the funny people from the 1990's left and the crap you see now came in. I stopped watching when Fey and Lorne Michaels let Paris Hilton host the show. Hilton has the appeal of a lampshade and to watch her in the forty minutes or so that she appears was like feeling the cancer in one's body eating your insides. Once the episode finished, I said never again. Other than Will Ferrell returning as Alex Trebek in 2005, I've kept my promise to never watch it again.

I also blame Fey responsible for the popularity of Dane Cook and Sarah Silverman, two other famous yet incredibly unfunny comedians. Meanwhile, Carlos Mencia was simply just the lovechild of Comedy Central and Fox News.

I have to disagree I love Andy Samberg. I think he is hillarious. Also i like Dane Cook he is a funny guy. But i do completely agree about Silverman and Mencia two of the worst comedians ive ever seen.

I love Samberg but I can't fucking stand Dane Cook. What a hack.

transformers2 wrote:I have to disagree I love Andy Samberg. I think he is hillarious. Also i like Dane Cook he is a funny guy. But i do completely agree about Silverman and Mencia two of the worst comedians ive ever seen.

On the other hand, I like Mencia and Samberg, but can't stand Silverman or Dane Cook

To be fair, SNL does have good moments now, it's just not consistent. It really wasn't 100% hilarious when I started watching it either, but I feel like there was less stuff that fell flat.

For example, Peyton Manning's fake NFL/United Way commercial is awesome, but not everything is quite so clever. I can't embed it, so here's a link:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/160489.html

Keyser Soze wrote:

MisterInformative wrote:but I think to lump Fey (who was writing for SNL before it got shitty)

It's funny how every generation comes to a point where they think SNL "gets shitty" I've been watching it since it's debut episode, and to me it got shitty with the initial replacement cast(Not Murray replacing Chase but after most of the originals finally left) because they could never be as funny as the original, but over time, I would start watching again, and it would get funny, then get shitty, then get funny again. And what I have found is that most people always think it is funny at the time they start watching, and then it eventually gets old. After that, it becomes cool to say that SNL isn't nearly as good as when you used to watch it.

That is very perceptive. I think there is a lot of truth to it.

Or maybe the show goes through cycles of actually being hilarious and then funny and then humorous and then not funny and then terrible before they realize they are sucking and start being hilarious again.

Donte77 wrote:That is very perceptive. I think there is a lot of truth to it.

Donte,

Did someone hack into your account and start posting nice responses under your name?

I think it has more to do with the talent of the cast than it does anything else. There are certain casts that just work, and some that just don't. The current one, being in the latter category. I personally believe that SNL has only had 2 truly great periods during its run, and the rest fall somewhere between mediocre to bad.

The 1975-1980 era which included: John Belushi, Chevy Chase, Dan Aykroyd, Gilda Radner, Bill Murray, and Jane Curtin

And the 1988-1995 era that included: Dennis Miller, Dana Carvey, Phil Hartman, Kevin Nealon, Mike Myers, Rob Schneider, Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, David Spade and Tim Meadows

Now, you could also argue that the next era, 1995-2002 was pretty good too, but this was and always will be the Will Ferrell era. Without him, I believe the show would have been awful during this period. He saved SNL for 7 solid years.