Change Your Image
m-trzcinski
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Lone Ranger (2013)
Anatomy of a Flop
Disney's The Lone Ranger has been in theaters for about three weeks. In that time, it's managed to take in $141 million on a $250 million budget. Hollywood analysts agree that, at this point, it's unlikely that the film will break even, much less turn a profit. So, rather than talk about the film itself (which gets a measly two stars in my book), let's discuss why the film failed and why Disney thought it would succeed. Who cares about the Lone Ranger? I mean that. He's not a hot new character like Harry Potter or Bella Swan. He's not an icon like James Bond or Superman. Nor is he a classic figure like Macbeth or Dracula. He's a has been. Sure, he had a hit TV show, but that was 50 years ago! The last movie to star the character (1981's The Legend of the Lone Ranger) was also a box-office bomb, and a 2003 pilot for a new TV series wasn't picked up.
If anyone's interested in the fella, they're probably older. There's nothing wrong with that, but Hollywood generally caters to the under 25 demographic, as they go to the movies most often. If you're going to make a movie for senior citizens, it probably shouldn't cost a quarter of a billion dollars.
And The Lone Ranger doesn't even do that right. It may be rated PG-13, but it's a hard PG-13. The film includes a scene where a man's finger is nailed to the floor, a scene where a man is stabbed in the heart as blood oozes out of his mouth, and an extended sequence in a brothel where Helena Bonham Carter plays a prostitute with an ivory shotgun for a leg. I don't know how many grandparents out there want to see that. Plus, I don't know if anyone, regardless of age, wants to see Johnny Depp play a Native American.
So, why did The Lone Ranger get made? Ten years ago, producer Jerry Bruckheimer (Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop) made a little movie called Pirates of the Caribbean. Like The Lone Ranger, the film featured Johnny Depp as a wacky side character and was directed by Gore Verbinski. Also like The Lone Ranger, it was a PG-13 Disney movie based on something that was once popular (in this case a theme-park ride). And also like The Lone Ranger, every analyst in Hollywood predicted it would fail. However, it went on to gross $654 million and spawn four sequels.
When it comes to movies, the public can only take so much of the same thing. Sometimes you should fix it even if it ain't broken. As William Goldman once said about Hollywood, "Nobody knows anything. Nobody learns anything."
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
Fine, but not worth the hype
The opening scene of Zero Dark Thirty is absolutely brilliant. The screen flashes the words "September 11, 2001," and then fades to black. All we hear are audio clips from that infamous day: firefighters, screams, panic. All of the pain, anger, and sadness of 9/11 comes back at you full force without any images. Sadly, the rest of the film doesn't live up to the first thirty seconds. Zero Dark Thirty is director Kathryn Bigelow's account of the U.S. government's efforts to kill Osama bin Laden. The first act is pretty audacious, with its unflinching portrayal of the torturing of captured Al-Queda members. The last forty minutes is interesting as well, when we finally get to see American soldiers invade bin Laden's secret compound. But the second act manages to bring the film to a screeching halt as it shows us, in extreme details, the paperwork and governmental procedures involved in taking bin Laden down. I understand that these scenes are all for the sake of accuracy, but that doesn't make them any more compelling. To be honest, the film might have been more enjoyable if the second act was downright fabricated. As a wise man named Jimmy Stewart once said "If the legend is better than the truth, print the legend!" I suppose Zero Dark Thirty's real virtue is that despite having a very political story, it never takes sides, so to speak. The film's makers never condone or condemn the killing of Osama bin Laden They simply tell us the facts. Today, that kind of unbiased reporting is unheard of in journalism, much less in the movies. Zero Dark Thirty is currently up for a slew of Oscars none of which it really deserves, especially when compared to contenders, like Argo, Lincoln or Django Unchained. On its own merits, its a decent film but we can only hope that a better film will someday be made about the subject matter. Rating *** out of *****.
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
The Freshest Horror Film in a LOOOONG Time
I really wasn't sure what to expect going into "The Cabin in the Woods".I mean, it had one of the most cliché titles I've ever heard (how many horror flicks take place in a cabin in the woods? half a trillion?) yet it was receiving outstanding reviews. Lucky for me, those reviewers were right. This film is phenomenal. Not since EVIL DEAD II have I seen such a deliciously self-referential mix of chills, thrills, and wit. This is clearly a film made for scary movie fanatics who have grown sick and tired of by-the-numbers torture porn and are yearning for something to breathe life into the genre like SCREAM did all those years ago. Conventions are knowingly broken or lovingly mocked throughout, and I had a heck of a lot of fun picking out the references to horror classics. I would reveal more about the characters, plot, etc. but in a flick with this many twists and turns, I wouldn't want to spoil a thing for you.
10/10
A must see!
April Fool's Day (1986)
Watching This Would Be Foolish
APRIL FOOL'S DAY is one of the 500 million or so holiday-themed slasher films released in the '80s to cash in on the monster success of HALLOWEEN.It has a pretty basic set up: Half a dozen college kids are invited to a weekend retreat on a mysterious island by their ludicrously rich friend Muffy St. John. One by one they get killed off by an unseen killer (of course).The proceedings would all be pretty standard if it weren't for the fact that there is a notable lack of gore or suspense. Actually, this film takes more of an interest in its dull characters' romantic lives than it does in scare scenes, so much so it often comes across less as a horror flick and more as a crazed lost episode of "Days of Our Lives". Also worth mentioning is the film's infamous twist ending which caused it to tank at the box office because so many slasher fans felt it was a cop out. I can't say I disagree. Although APRIL FOOL'S DAY isn't terrible, there isn't anything to recommend it on, unless you really want to see a horror film next April 1st.
4/10
Diner (1982)
American Graffiti Minus the Fun
I have seen a heck of a lot of bad movies in my day. Most of the ones I would qualify as being "the worst" fall into that MANOS/PLAN 9 variety of really crappy B-movies that no one in their right mind would find enjoyable, except in a so-bad-it's-good vein. DINER is a different story. So many people find it "funny" and "charming", with even the great Siskel and Ebert calling it one of 1982's best films. Why? WHY? This film has absolutely nothing to offer anyone, yet it is so beloved. It's not incompetent or repulsive, I suppose, but in all my years as a film buff I have yet to see another film this boring. Say what you want about Ed Wood, but at least his schlock keeps you awake. While watching DINER I had to fight to keep my eyes open. This film has no laughs, no charms, no characters I cared about, no insights into life, no interesting technical merits, no quotable dialogue, nothing I could possibly recommend it on. And to make it even worse, people LIKE it. I've actually heard it compared to George Lucas' coming-of-age classic American GRAFFITI, which is one of the biggest insults to American GRAFFITI one can give. DINER should be avoided at all costs, unless you are looking for a cure for your insomnia.