Summer Movie Preview: June 2010

So May has come to an end and this has to go down as one of the most disappointing May's in summer box office history. Every movie that came out underwhelmed. We already saw two box office bombs. Three more box office disappointments. And not a single well reviewed major movie.

Let's recap quickly (check out my May movie preview at http://bypremier.blogspot.com/2010/05/2010-summer-movie-preview-may.html.)

I predicted Iron Man 2 to do huge business. It did well opening weekend, but $128mm was still below expectations. It's done over $277mm so far, but looks to come in just around the $318mm the first one made. Everyone thought the sequel would make more than the first one, but audiences were not too pleased with the second one. Hopefully, the third one can rediscover the greatness of the first entry.

Robin Hood did OK business, but won't make more than the Kevin Costner version. This will be another blow to the box office clout of Russell Crowe.

If any movie exceeded expectations, it was Letters from Juliet. The romantic movie will finish will a good $45-50mm. Amanda Seyfried will be a huge star if she keeps this up (she was in Mamma Mia and Dear John). Who would have thought when Mean Girls came out, that Lindsay Lohan would be the third biggest star of the movie (following Rachel McAdams and Seyfried).

Just Wright and McGruber came and went in the blink of an eye. Neither made much of a dent at the box office and will go on to enjoy a nice run on DVD. McGruber was especially a huge flop, not even making back its estimated $10mm budget. It may have single-handedly killed any hope of future SNL skit to screen movies.

Shrek 4 also did decent business, but easily came in as the worst performing in the franchise. Sure it'll be the #1 movie two weekends in a row, but...

...that's because Sex and the City 2 and Prince of Persia both came up short at the box office. It's clear that audiences were not screaming for a second Sex and the City movie, when the first one wrapped things up perfectly. Audiences were also not screaming for Jake Gyllenhall as an action hero. SATC 2 will make over $!00mm, but come up far short of the first entry. Prince of Persia won't even make $100mm, and won't even 50% of the estimated $150mm budget. There goes Jake's franchise hopes.

Let's hope June has more to offer...I know the movie studios and theaters hope so:

JUNE 2010:

Get Him to the Greek: A chance to qualify under #4 and #8.

Starring: Jonah Hill, Russell Brand, and P. Diddy

This movie has an outside chance to be this summer’s breakout comedy hit. A sequel of sorts to “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” (in the way that “Evan Almighty” was a sequel to “Bruce Almighty”), “Greek” takes the rocker Aldris Snow from the first movie and makes him the star. The red band trailer looks partially funny, but I expect a lot more crazy stuff to happen in the movie. The star here will be Brand (aka Katy Perry’s lucky boyfriend) and he could put himself on another level if this movie finds much success. However, his humor also has the ability to turn lots of people off with its brashness and outrageousness. Expect a final gross in the $50-55mm final gross matching “Sarah Marshall’s” total.

Pros: A star making turn for Russell Brand?

Cons: “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” wasn't exactly the biggest hit and didn't really cry out for sequel. Also, too raunchy to be a breakout hit?

Killers: A chance to qualify under #5 and #9.

Starring: Katherine Heigl, Ashton Kutcher, and Tom Selleck.

Directed by: Robert Luketic

People are comparing this movie to "Mr. and Mrs. Smith", but it looks like a more PG version of "True Lies". Except no James Cameron and no Arnold. Plus, Kutcher is no Brad Pitt or Arnold. So in my opinion, this movie lies squarely on the shoulders of Heigl. Since "Grey's Anatomy" and "Knocked Up", Heigl has shown that she can open up a movie by herself (think "27 Dresses" and "The Ugly Truth"). All her films have finished north of $75mm at the box office and I expect "Killers" to do the same.

Pros: Couple friendly concept and stars. Friendly rating. Almost critic proof (see "Bounty Hunter", which will finish with over $60mm at the box office).

Cons: The movie is almost guaranteed to be bad.

Splice: A chance to qualify under #5.

Starring: Adrian Brody and Sarah Polley.

A very interesting horror/suspense movie that combines science and monsters. This has a bit of "Species" mixed in with "Mimic" and I could see it being a breakout hit of sorts as something different during the summer season of bang and boom. The trailers do a good job of adding intrigue while giving you a glimpse of the creature. No name stars might hurt, but I actually think it helps in these types of films (see "District 9"). Stars would only take away from the premise and that is what will sell this film. Expect a straight-to-DVD sequel. Final gross will be a solid $75mm.

Pros: Did I mention the premise?

Cons: These types of movies don't make $100mm (District 9 is the exception).

The A-Team: Qualifies under #2 and #3.

Starring: Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Sharlito Copley, Quinton "Rampage" Jackson, and Jessice Biel.

Directed by: Joe Carnahan

Now this is a movie that I'm really looking forward to. I think the casting is superb. The director's choice is spot on. And this TV show has been screaming for a movie. Now, apparently I don't speak for everyone out there (why is that?). The trailers have been both cool and ridiculous (C'mon, the tank flying in the air). But I think the movie isn't meant to be taken seriously. You come for the famous lines ("I love it when a plan comes together"), the overacting, the action sequences, and the theme song (the whistle part always gets me). This movie will make at least $150mm, but has a chance to top $200mm if the reviews are positive.

Pros: Supposedly one of the coolest action sequences ever. And a possible Mr. T cameo.

Cons: Could it be more "GI Joe" than "Star Trek"?

The Karate Kid: Qualifies under #3

Starring: Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan, and Taraj P. Henson

This movie has set off a firestorm online. Fans of the original movie are in an uproar that their beloved film is being remade with a privileged son of a famous movie star (that would be Will "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air" Smith). Throw in people upset that the movie takes place in China and should factually be known as "The Kung Fu Kid", as well as the Asian population that should be mad that the black kid is clearly going to get the cute little Asian girl at the end of the movie (while kicking the Asian boys ass in a fight) and you can understand why this movie has failure and boycott written all over it. But somewhere between all that madness, people actually started feeling sorry for the movie (kind of like in sports when someone is underrated for so long that they become overrated – see Ben Wallace). Then started the outcry of "Give the movie a chance", "It's actually pretty good", and "Wouldn't you do the same for your son if you could". My prediction, this movie will be a huge hit. The movie will be one of the better reviewed movies of the summer. Jaden Smith will be on his way to super stardom. And the movie will make a ton overseas. It will be this year's Star Trek...put it in the books for $175mm.

Pros: Based on a popular 80's movie and pays proper homage to it. Will reach out to the Asian and African American audiences.

Cons: Still potential for fan backlash. Ralph Macchio might give this movie his blessing, which will actually kill the movie's prospects.

Jonah Hex: Qualifies under #2, #4

Starring: Josh Brolin, Megan Fox, Wil Arnett, and John Malkovich.

Another "based on the comic book/graphic novel" that very few people ever heard of. The backstory on the making of this movie just cries out "bust of the summer" (change of directors, rewrites, Megan Fox's acting)...but then the first trailer came out and I must say I was impressed. Brolin seems tailor made for this role, Fox is her usual sexy self, and the action looks pretty sick. However, it also has a little too much "Wild, Wild, West" in it. I say it bombs, finishing with a box office gross of $50mm (and I really wanted to like this movie. Heck, I’ll probably still go and see it).

Pros: Brolin makes for a better action star than Kutcher. Megan Fox in a corset. Malkovich always kills as the bad guy ("In the Line of Fire" anyone?)

Cons: Bad buzz. Trailers are supposed to look cool, but if they show all the good parts then the movie will suck.

Toy Story 3: Qualifies under #3, #7

Featuring voice by: Tom Hanks and Tim Allen.

One of the few guarantees of the summer. Pixar is can't miss. They are the Jason Heyward/Justin Beiber/child of Tom Brady and Giselle of the movie business. You know exactly what you're going to get. A great movie for all age. Some funny moments. A few touching moments. A great story. And a reason to believe in the beauty of movies again. I can't wait.
But this time the geniuses at Pixar are making it's first ever threequel. And people are starting to express doubt and fear. Doubt that the original ideas are running out. Fear that they are only doing this for the merchandising rights and because Disney demanded it. Well, I say to all those doubters and naysayers...Pixar has given you at least eight reasons why you shouldn't doubt them. And even if it's not as good as the first two, aren't you just a bit glad to see Woody and Buzz one more time. I say it makes $275mm gross.

Pros: Toy Story 1. Toy Story 2. The child in all of us.

Cons: Not many third parts of a franchise are that good. C'mon who am I kidding. There are no cons.

Grown Ups: Qualifies under #8

Starring: Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Kevin James, David Spade, Rob Schneider, and Salma Hayek.

Directed by: Dennis Dugan

A comedy dream team starring some of the most celebrated and successful SNL alumni. Sandler looks to bounce back after last year's disappointing "Funny People", while the others are just looking to score another big box office hit (sad that Kevin James might be the biggest box office draw out of them all). However, the trailers have yet to make me laugh. Just like the "Funny People" trailers didn't make me laugh. And they keep trying to sell us on the stars (understandably so with this comedy all star lineup) instead of the actual movie. Much like "Funny People" tried to sell us on Apatow. So, I'm not sold on this film. I think it has a chance to be more like "Mr. Deeds" or "Click" than "50 First Dates" or "Big Daddy" on the Adam Sandler scale of greatness. I say this one barely makes $100mm.

Pros: Sandler + Rock + James + Spade + Schneider = Guaranteed to make the teenage and young boys laugh.

Cons: Doesn't it make you wish Chris Farley was there instead of Kevin James. A little too much Salma Hayek in the trailers - not bad if you're a Salma fan, bad if you have hopes of this being a funny movie.

Knight & Day:

Starring: Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz

Directed by: James Mangold

Could this be the movie that reminds us why Cruise was once the biggest movie star in the world? I think it could be. The trailers make me laugh. The action looks slick. Even Diaz comes off at the top of her game. I really think this movie has a chance to garner some good reviews and a pretty box office take. I say it finishes with a $200mm gross.

Pros: Cruise and Diaz are both big box office draws in the right type of film. This is that type of film.

Cons: A corny title. It should have been called Knight & Deay and starred Bobby Knight and Parker Deay.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse – Qualifies under #3

Starring: Kristin Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, and Dakota Fanning.

Are you ready for more pasty faced vampires and shirtless werewolves? Based on the killer box office figures of the first two Twilight films, I’m going to say yes (yes, yes, a thousand times yes). The trailer for Eclipse recently premiered to rousing fan approval. This one looks like it might actually ramp up the action a bit, which could bring in some non-diehards. However, this movie is now in the Harry Potter realm of franchises. The movies will all see final grosses in the same range (Harry Potter makes $260-300mm domestic, Twilight makes about $290-300mm domestic). This is another one of the summer’s locks. A can’t miss.

Pros: Twi-hards. Team Edward. Team Jacob.

Cons: I still don’t get the appeal. The first two were boring to me and almost tortuous to watch. And I don’t think I’m alone on the front.


Check back at the end of June for my thoughts on July movies.

Mini-Weekly Random Thoughts: 5/28/10

Just a short post this week:

1. I’m guest blogging for a friend’s site. Check it out at http://www.nychar.blogspot.com/.

It’s a great site that tells you about events happening in NYC; including free stuff, great deals, and other fun and exciting ways to spend your time.

2. Queensbridge. Say Queensbridge. (Bill Simmons beat me to using this).
But this was one of the funniest things I have ever seen in a sports interview.

Sidenote: Queensbridge Projects is the largest public housing development in North America. It is most known for its hip hop roots with many famous rappers calling it their home. From legends Marley Marl (who made the classic "The Bridge"), MC Shan, Roxanne Shante, and Craig G...to more recent names like Nas, Mobb Deep, and Capone-N-Noreaga. But thank you Ron Artest for bringing it to a whole 'nother level of recognition.

3. Have a happy and safe Memorial Day weekend everyone.

Thanks for reading this week.

- bypremier

You Don't Know Jack...

Welcome to my new column: You don’t know Jack.

(Sidenote: I was debating between Jack in the box, Jacked up, and Jack off; before going with ‘You don’t know Jack’. Because you don’t. He lives in Connecticut.)

Jack said...

Thank you for your insightful response. The truth is, many fans can't stand from an objective point of view. i.e. I hate Kobe, but I would never claim that he sucks simply because he doesn't. I can appreciate his talent, but I don't like his character.

A friend of mine was appalled and disgusted by Paul Pierce's comment and made it known on facebook. His facebook status now tallied over 60 comments and counting.

Within those comments, we touched on a subject that falls under a grayscale and I would be interested to see your point of view on this one.

Do you think an athlete should be judged by their athleticism alone, or does their moral character play a role? i.e. the Tiger Woods scandal.

bypremier responds...

Ah, the age old question…does character matter when we judge star athletes? It’s a tough question to answer, because the honest answer should be, “No, it shouldn’t”. Athletes are human just like anybody else. They are not perfect. They make mistakes. And in the famous words of Charles Barkley, “I am not your role model.”

Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. As a society, we look up to our favorite athletes. We believe that with that god given talent and fortune, they have a greater responsibility to the world (or at least…to us fans, that root for them). They are supposed to play exceptionally well, carry themselves with a sense of dignity and sportsmanship, be charitable, respectful, save lives, rescue cats stuck in trees…basically they are expected to be perfect. Much like how we hold our Presidents to a higher standard (helloooooo, Bill Clinton). But then we find out that they cheat on their wives or girlfriends, take performance enhancing drugs, that they curse, spit, buy expensive things with their money instead of helping out the needy, drink, smoke, fight…basically all the bad things they teach you in church. And suddenly, it’s like they did these things to us. But is that fair? Who are we to judge? Most of us are no better and are guilty of the same things. So where does that leave us? Depends on which side you fall.

In one corner you have the athletes: The ones who never asked for that responsibility and just want to play sports.

Then you have the fans in the other corner: The ones who wished it was them that were on that court/field/ring. The ones who pay good money…hard earned money…to watch these athletes. Who bring their kids to watch them too. And they want their money’s worth and then some. And those kids…they want to believe that these athletes are everything their imagination leads them to believe.

So who is right? You’re not going to like my answer…but I say the athletes are. They should have the right to choose to do what they want and we have the right to like them or not. We should only judge them for their ability to play and perform at the highest level. We watch Tiger, so we can see greatness on the golf course. So what if he cheats. Statistics say a majority of people cheat as well. That makes a majority of us hypocrites. Is Tiger stupid…absolutely! Did he lie and ruin a good thing…sure. But who cares. It’s his life. He’ll still be considered one of the greatest golfers ever. Same goes with Kobe, Big Ben (although he belongs in jail…if he actually raped that woman), and all the other villains the media writes about everyday. If you don’t like it, then don’t be a fan of theirs and don’t buy their merchandise. And if you choose to turn off the TV or stop following them, well…all you risk if missing out on greatness. But at the end of the day, as the great NFL writer Peter King once said, “The criteria for the NFL Hall of Fame is for what they did on the field, not what they did off of it.”

Sure, there are exceptions. Some people relish that responsibility and do good deeds with their fortune and fame. Think of the Tim Tebows of the world. But then again, a lot of it is media created. The 24/7 news cycle forces people to create an image and try to maintain some sort of privacy in their lives. But this part is a whole nother argument for another day.

Jack, hopefully that answered your question. And I hope you don’t mind me shamefully using you as material for my blog.

In closing I would like to say…WTF??? 60 comments? I wish I could get 60 comments to something I write. Heck, I’d settle for 6.