SPEARE'S TIPS - The Films of 3/8/13

[Shrykespeare]

Unlike 2012, where it seems a different film overachieved every weekend, 2013 has been incredibly disappointing so far, as nearly every major film that we expected to break out… just hasn’t. In January, only one film exceeded expectations (Mama), and only two did that in February (Warm Bodies and Identity Thief). And the way March has started, the wait until the summer season starts seems even more eternal.

This past weekend, Jack the Giant Slayer was the only film to achieve nine-digit success, pulling in a so-so $28 million in its first three days. Identity Thief ran its Top 5 total to a whopping eighteen as it remained in the Top 2 for the fourth straight week (with $9.7M), just ahead of newcomers 21 and Over ($9M) and The Last Exorcism Part II ($8M). On the PTA front, Chan Wook-Park’s dramatic thriller Stoker easily took top honors, dropping No to second place.

Five new films take to theaters this Friday, including the first film of the year with $200M potential. That film is Oz: The Great and Powerful (Buena Vista), and, accordingly, it is being given the widest release of any film so far this year (over 3,700 locations). It is a prequel, of sorts, to the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz, the Victor Fleming adaptation of L. Frank Baum’s bestselling book that remains to this date one of the most beloved and most-watched films of all time. I mean, apart from Gone With the Wind and perhaps Casablanca, what other pre-1950 film gets shown on TV today with more frequency?

I’m sure everyone has seen The Wizard of Oz, so there’s not much need to set up the backstory of Oscar Diggs (played by James Franco), a small-time magician trying to make it big in Depression-era Kansas. One day, however, a freak tornado transports Oscar and his hot-air balloon to the magical land of Oz, where he uses his charms and his meager magical talents to dazzle the locals and set himself up as the “Wizard of Oz”, whose coming was foretold. Also in the picture are three witches, Glinda (Michelle Williams), Evanora (Rachel Weisz) and Theodora (Mila Kunis), and they are unconvinced that Oscar is the answer to the problems plaguing Oz.

Director Sam Raimi (the Spider-Man trilogy) is taking a big risk telling this story - which comes a mere 74 years after the original – and even incorporates the same B/W-color transition. It seems to be similar in scope and design to Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, which shattered all expectations and box-office records by having a $116M OW on its way to $334M domestically (and over $1B worldwide), March-release records that would stand until they were beaten by The Hunger Games last year. However, tantalizing as it is, the combination of Raimi-Franco is not as notable as that of Burton-Depp.

Reviews thus far have been decent but not over the rainbow (heh), and while I expect Oz to do well, I don’t think it will even approach Alice in terms of OW or total take. I would like to think that it can manage $70M on its way to thirteen Top 5, eight PTA, a very decent Rating and $200M overall. Obviously, this is one of the most expensive films of the March-May season (only Iron Man 3 costs more), as it will run you a whopping $37 in the Ultimate leagues ($39 in Box Office). I think it will be worth that price, but only just. And when you consider the ratio of flops to successes this year, choosing this film becomes even more paramount. Can you thrive without this film? It’s possible, but I wouldn’t take that chance.




In 2009, Danish director Niels Arden Oplev teamed up with Swedish actress Noomi Rapace to bring Steig Larsson’s bestselling novel The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo to theaters all over the world. The film was a huge international success, and it prompted an outstanding English-language version in 2010. Now, Oplev and Rapace are reuniting, for an English-language neo-noir crime thriller entitled Dead Man Down (FilmDistrict), which will open in just north of 2,000 theaters this Friday.

The film centers on Victor (Colin Farrell), a New Yorker that has successfully infiltrated a criminal empire run by ruthless kingpin Alphonse (Terrence Howard) in order to settle a very large score with the man who ruined his life. A wrinkle emerges in the form of Beatrice (Rapace), a woman who resides in the apartment across from his. A first the pair observe each other, and then interact, and it’s not long before Beatrice learns of Victor’s plans, and she reveals that she is harboring a huge grudge of her own. So the two must team up to help each other get their revenge… if it doesn’t destroy both of them in the process. Dominic Cooper, F. Murray Abraham and Armand Assante co-star.

I loved the Swedish version of Dragon Tattoo (though I loved Fincher’s version even more), and the pairing of Oplev and Rapace intrigues me (not to mention Cooper, who I think is underrated as an actor), even though the inclusion of Howard and Farrell doesn’t. And while I plan to see Dead Man Down at some point, I have barely seen any advertising for it (which is typical of a FilmDistrict release), and I doubt that it will have enough juice to even crack $10M on its OW. However, given the weak competition, that may be enough to come in at #3. Say, a $9M OW on its way to five Top 5, two PTA, a decent Rating and $23M. At a price tag of $10 in Ultimate ($9 in Box Office), those numbers are average at best. I would pass on this one.




And now, a little bit about this weekend’s three limited-release films:

The ABC’s of Death (Magnolia) ($4 Ult, $2 BO) – Much like January’s Movie 43, The ABC’s of Death is an anthology film, composed of twenty-six separate segments, each with its own director, actors, and style, presumably for each letter of the alphabet. And much like Spike TV’s now-defunct show 1,000 Ways to Die, the film chronicles death at its most bizarre and extreme, in every conceivable form, including animation, Claymation, decimation and any other –mation you can think of.

I’m not sure how many theaters will be showing ABC’s of Death, but would imagine that only the most hardcore horror fans will show up to see it in theaters, especially given that it was release on VOD in January. For that reason alone, I would not pick this film, as VOD-released films almost universally fail to get PTA points.




Beyond the Hills (IFC) ($3 Ult, $2 BO) – This is a Romanian drama that has been nominated for numerous Film Festival Awards, including Chicago and Cannes (where it won for Best Actresses - yes, both leads won shared honors - and Best Screenplay). The film tells the story of childhood friends Voichita and Alina, who grew up together in an orphanage. Reuniting as adults, Alina wants to take Voichita away from the convent she now lives in, but when Voichita refuses, Alina uses her powers of persuasion to convince her to leave. And then the elders of the convent start to suspect that Alina might be possessed. Uh-oh…

Directed by Cristian Mungiu (who won Cannes’ Palme d’Or award in 2007 for 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days), Beyond the Hills will be showcased in three theaters this Friday. That puts it in primo PTA territory. I don’t know if it will have enough oomph to top Stoker (or Oz, for that matter), but it should get at least three points. That, plus its outstanding Rating, makes it worth its $3 price tag. It may even hang on for additional weeks.




Don’t Stop Believin’: Everyman’s Journey (Cinedigm) ($3 Ult, $1 BO) – This documentary from filmmaker Ramona S. Diaz chronicles one of the most improbable rises to international fame this side of Susan Boyle. It tells the story of Arnel Pineda, a Filipino singer who went from singing for pocket change in Manila to fronting one of the most famous bands in the world – Journey.

I grew up listening to Journey, whose star burned brightest in the late 70’s and early 80’s. However, by 1984, after completing the Frontiers world tour, the cracks that had been building up within the group finally split the group apart. Lead singer Steve Perry left the band and refused to return. From 1998 until 2007, a couple of other singers were used to sing lead vocals, but the group never recaptured the magic from before. Desperate to find a way to keep going, lead guitarist and founding member Neil Schon found a clip of Pineda singing Journey cover songs on YouTube… and instantly knew they had found their man. And the rest, as they say, is history. The film showcases Pineda’s remarkable transition, from living in a third-world country and not speaking much English, to performing for sold-out crowds all over the world. And while such a transition is often fraught with setbacks, Pineda has somehow made it work.

It’s a compelling story, but between its middling Rating and its heightened theater count (26 locations), I would imagine that one or two PTA at most is what’s in the cards for Don’t Stop Believin’. I would pass on this title.




My predictions for the weekend of March 1-3, 2013:

1. Oz: The Great and Powerful - $70 million
2. Jack the Giant Killer - $13 million
3. Dead Man Down - $9 million
4. Identity Thief - $6 million
5. 21 and Over - $5 million

PTA race (Jan/Feb): Oz: The Great and Powerful, Stoker, Beyond the Hills, No, The Gatekeepers

PTA race (Mar): Oz: The Great and Powerful, Stoker, Beyond the Hills, Jack the Giant Killer, Dead Man Down

Current RT/IMDb scores:

Oz: The Great and Powerful – 70% (7/10 positive), 7.4 (1,165 votes)
Dead Man Down – N/A, N/A
The ABC’s of Death – 62% (13/21 positive), 5.2 (1,952 votes)
Beyond the Hills – 75% (18/24 positive), 7.7 (2,652 votes)
Don’t Stop Believin’: Everyman’s Journey – 50% (2/4 positive); 5.6 (48 votes)

Well, that will do it for me for another week. Next week, we follow one epic weekend with a couple of smaller films, which will open on March 15: The Call, a thriller starring Halle Berry, and The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, a comedy featuring Jim Carrey and Steve Carell as dueling Vegas magicians. Also on tap are four limited releases: Spring Breakers, Ginger & Rosa, From Up on Poppy Hill, and Reality.

Celebrities with milestone birthdays this week:

Len Wiseman (director, Underworld, Total Recall [2012]) turns 40 on 3/4
Paul Haggis (director, Crash, The Next Three Days) turns 60 on 3/10
Carrie Underwood (country superstar) turns 30 on 3/10
Rafe Spall (Prometheus, Life of Pi) turns 30 on 3/10

Later!

[Buscemi]

As I said earlier, I expect Oz to open to about $50 million. While Alice in Wonderland was a much easier sell (since dark fantasy, Lewis Carroll and Tim Burton go hand in hand), a dark prequel to one of the most famous films of all-time is something that Disney is going to need to sell extra hard to pull. And the film's trailer hasn't really pulled it off (for one, it shows way too little on a film that's going for spectacle). Also I can't help but be reminded by Disney's last attempt at doing Oz (1985's Return to Oz), which was a complete disaster at the box office.

Meanwhile, Dead Man Down should manage a weekend of about $12-13 million. It's been well-marketed and Rapace and Farrell have been everywhere lately. Also, the mix of romance and thriller should also take in a date crowd along with the action crowd (audience demographics could be 50-50 here).

Holdovers:
- Jack the Giant Slayer drops 50-55%
- 21 and Over drops 55-60%
- The Last Exorcism Part II drops 65-70%

[Geezer]

A film from almost 30 years ago has no bearing on this incantation of Oz. None whatsoever.

[Buscemi]

But The Wizard of Oz is a film that has some very serious fans. They will refuse anything that isn't Judy Garland and "Over the Rainbow". Also, the fact that The Wizard of Oz is still run on television today makes one wonder, "Why try to reinvent it by making it darker and edgier?" It simply feels like another mistake made by Disney in recent years.

[Geezer]

But it is not a remake, its a prequel. I'm sure a lot of Oz fans will be interested in seeing the events that lead up to the iconic film. I know I am. But that misses the greater point, this is an EVENT FILM. It is aimed at the same demographic that made Alice in Wonderland huge. Just because Tim Burton's name isn't attached does not mean that people won't go, because it looks like a Burton film. It is being promoted like crazy, has four quadrant appeal, and it is Disney. There's just so much going for it. If Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (a despicable piece of garbage that spit in the face of everything that was the original) can gross 259 million adjusted, so can this.

[BanksIsDaFuture]

I’m sure everyone has seen The Wizard of Oz

Ummm....

[Buscemi]

Is Oz really an event film? The marketing push hasn't been the level of Alice, James Franco isn't Johnny Depp, Sam Raimi doesn't have the name power of Tim Burton and while Alice in Wonderland has always been popular with teens and stoners, The Wizard of Oz is really more of a families and baby boomers kind of thing. And while Alice in Wonderland was always the kind of thing where there was room for improvement (Walt Disney actually disowned the 1951 version), most people feel The Wizard of Oz was done right in 1939 and that there was no need to continue the story (same with the original book, as its sequels were never as popular).

As for the "it's a prequel" debate, prequels have rarely gotten the respect from critics and audiences. The Star Wars prequels are some of the most hated films out there, The Hobbit got a mixed reception, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is considered by some the weakest Indiana Jones film and so on. The only prequel that just about anyone can agree on liking is The Godfather Part II. Oz: The Great and Powerful is not The Godfather Part II.

[Geezer]

Every single one of those prequel examples you gave made a boatload of money. It doesn't matter what people think of it, this discussion is about its box office potential, and those examples make my point stronger. I do feel it is an event film, as it is the first big film of 2013. Hell, it's the first film of 2013 that I'll see in theaters. The wide audience appeal will drive this very high. The small group of people who say "It's blasphemy to even touch the topic of Wizard of Oz" isn't going to stop the general public from their own curiosity.

[Shrykespeare]

I have to jump in at this point and point out that The Hobbit was not a "prequel". It was based on a book that was actually written BEFORE Lord of the Rings.

The Hobbit did make $300M, which is success no matter what people were expecting. I'm curious, Boosh... do you think the Hobbit would have made more money or less if it had come out BEFORE the LOTR film trilogy?

And regarding Oz... maybe the WoO purists will poo-poo this prequel, but remember that the original is 74 years old. Most people that attend movies, at least in my experience, are my age (mid-40's) and younger. By the time they saw WoO for the first time, the film was already decades old. Yes, it is an undeniable classic from Hollywood's golden age. It revolutionized what could be done as far as polychromatic film, costumes and sets could be. But how many people who go see this movie are really going to compare OtGaP to WoO? I think that doing so would be like comparing Snow White and the Huntsman to the original Disney cartoon. The original was like a fairy tale, which was also a musical. I don't expect there to be much singing in OtGaP.

[BanksIsDaFuture]

Is Oz really an event film? The marketing push hasn't been the level of Alice, James Franco isn't Johnny Depp, Sam Raimi doesn't have the name power of Tim Burton and while Alice in Wonderland has always been popular with teens and stoners, The Wizard of Oz is really more of a families and baby boomers kind of thing. And while Alice in Wonderland was always the kind of thing where there was room for improvement (Walt Disney actually disowned the 1951 version), most people feel The Wizard of Oz was done right in 1939 and that there was no need to continue the story (same with the original book, as its sequels were never as popular).

I agree with most of these points, which I why I don't think Oz will get to Alice-like numbers of $400M. But, I also think Geez is right - 2013 has been shit so far and this looks like something that will pull people into theaters. It's not a dark and edgy version, I'm not sure where you're getting that from - this looks family oriented.

And with no decent looking kiddie movies since Rise of The Guardians (last Thanksgiving!!), the market is just waiting. Hell, even awful family films in that void cleaned up, just by targeting an underserved market (that Billy Crystal shitfest made $75M and the 7-11 cartoon has somehow gotten to $35M).

I'm predicting an OW anywhere from $60-$80 and a final of $250M. It should have no problem staying at #1 until G.I. Joe comes out 4 weeks later.

[Shrykespeare]

I doubt that. It will be #1 for two weeks for sure, and then The Croods will take over. If Oz does $80M and then drops only 40% over its next two weekends, then it will make $28M in its third weekend. I think The Croods will top that easily.

[BanksIsDaFuture]

I doubt that. It will be #1 for two weeks for sure, and then The Croods will take over. If Oz does $80M and then drops only 40% over its next two weekends, then it will make $28M in its third weekend. I think The Croods will top that easily.

I don't know, marketing on The Croods looks terrible. The concept is pretty bad to begin with, and match that with the animation and lackluster voice cast....

Animated movies usually need to look funny or interesting/different to do well, and Croods looks neither.

[empire13]

Weren't we saying the same things about Wreck It Ralph? Poor voicing cast. Poor marketing. Looks terrible. Well, it's still in theaters and at $187+ million in box office. Not saying The Croods will do that, but...

[Geezer]

Weren't we saying the same things about Wreck It Ralph? Poor voicing cast. Poor marketing. Looks terrible. Well, it's still in theaters and at $187+ million in box office. Not saying The Croods will do that, but...

Who was saying that? I was saying it looked awesome and had a floor of Hotel Transylvania, with a ceiling a lot higher....

[W]

One person was saying that about Ralph... I believe they still are.