Mendelson's Memos

2012
165 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

I don't know if seeing The Hobbit part 1 of 3  (teaser/trailer) in the much-discussed 48 frames-per-second diminished the viewing experience, but it certainly didn't help.  Since it's the way Peter Jackson intended the film to be seen, it very much counts when judging the overall motion picture.  It's neither the great savior of cinema that the likes of Peter Jackson or James Cameron would have you believe, but nor is it a bell weather of the 'death of cinema'.  It is *different*, that's for sure.  You get an unparalleled clarity of vision and a certain lifelike presentation, akin to looking at a window at 'real life'.  The various CGI creatures look arguably more lifelike and the 3D is pretty flawless (although the screen looked even more vibrant when I took off the glasses, making me wish there had been a 48 fps 2D option).  But for that clarity you lose a certain cinematic grandeur.  Yes, certain introductory scenes look like live theater and yes there is an inconsistency of speed, as any number of moments will make one wonder if they're watching the film on 1.5x speed on their Playstation 3.  Moreover, even during the action sequences, a few of which are indeed still impressive, resemble not so much epic struggles but rather like watching a staged recreation akin to Civil War reenactors.  Especially during battle scenes set in open fields, it feels more like the finale of Role Models than a tent-pole action sequence.  Ironically, it's a technology that may actually be better suited to character dramas that big-scale action.  Your eyes do indeed adjust to the whole 'speed play' issue pretty quickly, but you never do become 'used' to the effect during the entire 165 minute running time.

Scott Mendelson

I made an offhand comment in yesterday's box office write-off stating that The Hunger Games was all-but certain to end the year as among the top-three grossing films (domestically) by the time 2012 ended.  To be fair, it inspired more chit-chat on Twitter than it did here (my twitter followers really ought to comment here more often), but there were a number of 'what about THIS film?' and what-not.  So let's take a few moments to really examine the theoretical box office potential of the would-be box office giants of summer 2012 and the Thanksgiving/Christmas season.  This will be focusing on the biggest-of-the-big, so films that will merely be solid hits (Battleship, Snow White and the Huntsmen, anything and everything released between July 21st and November 9th) need not apply.  What is the plausible box office verdict on these films, and what real chance do they have against the likely $375-$400 million final domestic cume of The Hunger Games?  To put it bluntly, with one obvious exception, the odds are not in their favor.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn
2011
105 minutes
rated PG
by Scott Mendelson

I've written before about the recent quasi-trend of filmmakers spending time, effort, and money merely to concoct glorified homages to the films of yesteryear.  Most of these films contain little to no relevancy or ideas and exist merely as an exercise in nostalgia.  But The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn is a curious variation on this sub-genre.  Not only is it a pure homage to the old-fashioned adventure films best represented by the Indiana Jones series (and the serials and pulp novels such as this series that inspired them), it is a homage directed by the man who helped create that defining series in the first place.  On the surface it is an adaption of the Georges Rémi comic book series that ran from 1929 to 1976.  But while the film certainly exists in that world, with a faithfulness that I cannot attest to one way or the other (I've been told it's quite faithful), it basically amounts to director Steven Spielberg (and producer Peter Jackson) using the motion-capture animation technique pioneered by Robert Zemeckis to craft a homage to the theoretical Steven Spielberg adventure film.  With these new crayons to play with, it's a darn shame that Spielberg couldn't think of anything better to draw than what often feels, intentional or not, like a self-administered pat-on-the-back.

I may be in the minority, but I rather enjoy the look and feel of motion-capture animation.  I loved The Polar Express and Beowulf and rather liked A Christmas Carol (I have not seen Mars Needs Moms).  And, let's be honest, few things look better in 3D than motion-capture animation.  So the idea of Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson playing in what was once primarily Robert Zemeckis's sandbox is a tantalizing concept.  And while the teaser is just that, it does show off a splendidly vivid and real looking environment with the promise of old-school adventure.  Spielberg is about to embark on 'act three' of his remarkable career, capping a stellar 1993-2008 run that brought us such modern classics as Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and Munich, to say nothing of rock-solid entertainments such as Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can.  I can somewhat defend Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,  The Lost World: Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds if need be, but only The Terminal and maybe Amistad count as pure-whiffs.  Anyway, it may be fashionable to bash Spielberg because of his popularity and his role in bringing about more populist mainstream entertainment, but I can think of no other director aside from perhaps Alfred Hitchcock who has so successfully entertained the masses with filmmaking of such high quality.  As for Peter Jackson, he only created the single best live-action trilogy in cinema history, and followed it up with a ripping King Kong remake, so this is certainly an interesting partnership. The Adventures of Tintin comes out on December 23rd, and I shall be there with bells on in IMAX 3D.  The dynamic posters (domestic then international) are after the jump.

Scott Mendelson

I've been down this road before, but now that it's official, it's worth repeating. After years of speculation and attempted pawn-offs, Peter Jackson is in fact directing The Hobbit. As of today, MGM and Warner Bros. have reached a deal to fund two films based on The Hobbit at an absurd cost of $500 million. First of all, at $250 million apiece, each film will basically have to perform like The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring just to break even. Each film will basically cost what the first two Lord of the Rings films cost combined, and the whole two-film project will cost around $100 million more than the original three films cost back in 2001-2003. I suppose this is exciting news for the hardcore fans of the original series, as well as JRR Tolkien fans in general. While I firmly believe that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is the most impressive film achievement of the just-finished decade, I can't help feeling a little depressed at the news. This isn't a case of Peter Jackson returning in glory to a franchise that made him a legend. This truly feels like a case of Peter Jackson, unfairly marginalized because of one wrongly-lambasted box office smash (King Kong) and one genuine misfire (The Lovely Bones), begrudgingly returning to Middle Earth because he had no where left to go.

King Kong
by Scott Mendelson