Jesse Eisenberg is Lex Luthor

Looks like we are back at it talking about the ongoing development of upcoming Superman/Batman movie (now moved back to 2016).  We should just make this movie a regular feature here at The Culture Cast.

Anyway, news hit earlier today of two big bits of casting for the film.  Jesse Eisenberg is going to portray arch-villain Lex Luthor while Jeremy Irons will follow in Michael Caine’s footsteps as Alfred Pennyworth.  Of course, the ever-rational fanboy community has been vocal with its opinion over this news.  It seems that people are cool with the idea of Irons as Alfred, but there is an uproar over Eisenberg as Lex Luther.  As of this writing, it was starting to reach Batfleck levels.

I’ll admit, when I think of Lex Luthor, Jessie Eisenberg would not be the first actor to spring to mind.  I’ll also admit that I am not really a fan of the actor.  Or rather, at least the characters he plays.  He tends to deliver smug performances and line deliveries which position him to make him seem arrogant, obnoxious, and smarter than he actually is.  I kind of find that to be grating, and it tends to be roles he continually gets (at least in the wake of The Social Network).

And that’s exactly describes how Lex Luthor has typically been portrayed in the comics for decades.

Eisenberg’s casting is really brilliant in that sort of way.  This movie needs to have a modern take on the classic villain.  Zack and I were texting back and forth about this today, and he commented that Eisenberg’s casting is completely outside of the box.  It is, and in some ways I am still trying to wrap my head around it.  The brilliant thing about casting outside of the box is that it gives the movie an unknown quantity.  If the producers cast someone like the rumored Mark Strong, audiences probably would have known what they were getting into.  Eisenberg is so unexpected that you can go pretty much anywhere with his Luthor.  A really good comparison would be Heath Ledger as the Joker.

This movie might be terrific or a complete mess.  Either way, it gets more and more interesting to me, and I, whether good or bad, I know it will at least be entertaining to watch.  In the meantime, the fanboy outrage is getting pretty ridiculous at this point.  They all know they are going to see this opening weekend.  Let’s just cut the crap.

But if they even dare to cast someone other than Jonah Hill as Otis, I so so boycotting this movie!

~N

Speed Reading! – The Flash #27

“History Lessons, Part One”

Brian Buccellato begins his final arc on The Flash in a story that, apparently, has been a long time coming.  Rumor has it way back during the first year of the New 52, Buccellato and then-collaborator Francis Manapul planned to do a CSI-type story that looked back at the history of Central City.  This story was shelved in order to move up Captain Cold’s debut.  Now, it appears that story was re-purposed as a final capstone to Buccellato’s (and Manapul’s) run on the title. 

And it really isn’t surprising with what they are doing.  One of the central mysteries which has lingered in the background of The Flash was who killed Barry’s mother.  It has been unresolved and Barry has shown to be obsessive over bringing the killer to justice due to the fact that his father is imprisoned for the crime.  It seems right that the title is finally dipping into this. 

I have to say that I found myself enjoying the issue way more than I anticipated.  Not that I was predicting to hate it or anything like that, but I really became invested with what was going on.  I do appreciate a good mystery, and this issue has a nice one.  More enticing is that we finally get a reveal about Captain Frye (which, let’s be honest, surprises absolutely no one).  I do have a feeling that there is still more to Frye than we know currently (I have a theory which I don’t care much for, but I’m going to keep it to myself to avoid potentially spoiling it).  Plus, this issue gives us g-g-g-gghoosts! 

Moving on, I especially like how this story uses the Central City CSI unit.  One of the slight disappointments I have had with this series is that that supporting cast is largely left alone when they seem to be really fun characters.  It was great to see them again.  I hope they continue to pop-up in this arc and that the next creative team taking over in issue 30 uses them more generously.

Patrick Zircher’s art is okay.  I suppose it really isn’t the style that I generally like.  However, it really works for this story.  That is the thing about art.  It can be good or bad, but regardless of that sometimes the art can really pop if it works within the tone of the story.  Zircher’s does that as his somewhat darker flair really meshes with this murder mystery. 

I was disappointed with the issue ended, because I was really getting into the story.  I am looking forward to part two next month to see where this increasingly strange tale wants to take readers next.

Next: Deadman Walking

 

Didn’t We Use to Do a Podcast?

When Zack and I started The Culture Cast, we had one simple goal in mind: become the driving force of the internet surpassing the popularity of cat videos and pornography combined.  We eventually scaled back our ambition, but those of you who follow us probably noticed that, besides American Hustle, we haven’t had a new podcast episode up in nearly two months.  Don’t worry, we’ve noticed that too.  Normally, we hold our followers in contempt and just assume they will blindly follow us no matter what schlock we put out.  But we also realize that’s a poor business plan, so it is probably good to say what’s been going on.

See, at first, we just needed some time off to recharge our juices (plus the busyness December holidays didn’t help much).  We were planning to restart after the New Year.  However, we’ve been having huge technical issues with 1) the original programs we used to record the podcasts stopped being compatible with each other, and 2) my headset microphone completely crapped out and my attempts to replace/fix it have been for naught thus far (seriously – it was fine since I got it a year ago and then it just stopped working – I have no idea why!).

We want to get back to making “quality” contemporary commentaries on movies, TV shows, and other pop-culture topics for all to “enjoy”.   In the meantime, please continue to check out our frequent movie reviews and recurring features such as What Went Wrong and Trek Tuesday.  And we’ll be back with a brand-new podcast episode real soon!

Trek Tuesday: Galaxy Quest

JJ Abrams once said that Galaxy Quest is the one of the best Star Trek movies ever made.  He is not wrong with that assessment.  It is such a wonderful, quirky film that not only lampoons Star Trek and its fandom, but also is incredibly sweet towards it as well.  That is a difficult balance to find, but Galaxy Quest pulls it off terrifically.  But what made this film work within the context of the Star Trek fandom?

For starters, the film doesn’t take itself too seriously.  Galaxy Quest plays with the idea of what would happen if the cast of a popular, but cancelled sci-fi TV show is thrown into a real sci-fi setting with the aliens thinking they are the characters they portrayed on the TV show.  In other words, what would William Shatner do if he was really thrown into the captain’s seat of the Enterprise?

If this movie didn’t play up the goofy nature and was more straight-laced, then it wouldn’t have worked at all.  The cast is perfect for their respective roles.  Tim Allen in particular as the Shatner-like Jason Nesmith.  Everyone is completely committed to their respective roles, and it clearly shows they are having a blast making the movie.  They knew exactly what they were doing and were running with it.  Because of that, they were able to sell it and make audiences connect with them.

The film does indirectly poke a lot of fun at the Star Trek fandom, but it is never malicious.  Justin Long plays a hard-core Galaxy Quest nerd who, early on in the movie, is told off by Allen’s Nesmith.  Long’s character is obsessive, overly technical, and has working knowledge of how things worked in the fictional world of the show.  These elements are played for some light laughs, but interestingly enough, he is also the one who saves the day because of it.  Again, that is another thing that sells the movie for the Star Trek fandom.  They are the heroes.

Also, this movie came out in 1999.  I usually pinpoint that Star Trek’s modern popularity peaked around 1996 before its downward spiral.  By 1999, the franchise was still popular enough for this movie to be made and Trek fans and general moviegoers to see, get, and appreciate.  If it was made any time after this, I doubt it would have flown.  Galaxy Quest was the right movie at the right time.

While the potential was there, I am glad they never made a Galaxy Quest 2.  What more could have really been done.  Warring cast members between spin-offs?  A reboot?  I guess these ideas have potential, but I feel all that was needed to be said for Galaxy Quest was successfully done the first time around.  This really is a great film – not just for Trekkies, but for anyone who has a sense of humor.

~N

What Went Wrong?: Vol. 42 – Insufferable Hipster Edition

I legitimately hate the word “hipster.” It is an overused, absolutely clichéd word that, in addition to losing all meaning years ago, also implies a sort-of snobbishness that I hate. Having said that, there is essentially no other way to describe a film like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World than as hipster garbage. The film is essentially the story of an uninteresting, early twenty-something slacker named Scott (Michael Cera at the height of Michael Cera overexposure) who must battle the seven evil exes of manic pixie dream girl Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, uncharismatic in what should be a charismatic role) to win the right to date said girl, even though Scott himself is already dating a much more compatible and interesting girl (Knives Chau, perhaps the most interesting character in the film).

Even the poster is insufferable.

With a massive budget of 90 million dollars (reduced to something more like 60 million after tax incentives) and a huge marketing push from distributor Universal, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World had the nerd credibility, the lucrative summer release date, and the muscle of a major studio behind it. It also had the talents of internet darling director Edgar Wright, whose previous films Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz garnered much acclaim online. Fans of the original comic book series also cheered the casting of Michael Cera, who seemed perfect for the role of Scott. The film debuted with a thud, however, ending up essentially dead on arrival when it debuted in theaters in August 2010, grossing a paltry 10.5 million dollars over its first weekend. So, what exactly went wrong?

Lobby cards like these were ubiquitous during the summer of 2010.

It was pretty obvious Universal expected Scott Pilgrim vs. The World to be a huge success. The studio held a massive panel for the film at the 2010 San Diego Comic Con, a convention best known for being a launching pad for Hollywood’s biggest film and television projects. Scott Pilgrim was also heavily advertised, with individual lobby cards in theaters to represent its many featured characters (including Jason Schwartzman, Chris Evans, and Brandon Routh as three of the evil exes). Tie-in merchandise was also everywhere, with a well-reviewed video game version debuting on services like PlayStation Network and Xbox Live Arcade to critical acclaim. Additionally, retail outlets like Hot Topic carried a plethora of Scott Pilgrim t-shirts and other ancillary products (many of which featured obnoxious internet catch phrases such as “Epic Win”).

As noted earlier, internet darling filmmaker Edgar Wright directed and edited the project, and it shows – the editing is actually really fantastic throughout the running time. The film was also fairly well-reviewed, scoring an 81% on Rotten Tomatoes. Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich was responsible for the soundtrack, which is also good. The film was unfortunate to release, however, during a massive Michael Cera backlash phase. Cera had, since 2007, starred in something like six movies (including big hits such as Juno and Superbad and smaller films like Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist and Youth in Revolt) where he portrayed almost exactly the same character in each film. Since this was essentially the same character he played in Arrested Development, which began airing in 2003, it is pretty easy (and accurate) to say that Cera had been playing the same character for almost seven years. Much like Seth Rogen in the recently discussed Observe and Report, audiences had kind of grown tired of this schtick.

This image pretty much says all you need to know about our main characters.

In the end, I think where Universal mainly went wrong was on relying on massive internet buzz and hype to carry the picture to box office success — something that has yet to work. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World was always going to have limited box office appeal despite a huge internet presence. It is in this manner similar to 2006’s Snakes on a Plane, which Fox also over-marketed to a widely disinterested audience despite a huge presence online, as well as 2013’s Pacific Rim, a very fun Warner Bros. summer movie that relied on a similar word-of-mouth internet marketing campaign that also didn’t live up to box office expectations.

This sort of online marketing has never truly worked the way film studios keep imagining it should, as the internet echo chamber is not at all indicative of the tastes of the movie-going public at large (additionally, the internet echo chamber is probably much, much smaller in reality than it seems to be, for reasons Nick and I should really cover in a podcast). It didn’t help whatsoever that to the average theater-goer, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World looked like hipster garbage that disappeared up its own asshole with its twee, undeveloped characters and slacker sensibilities. Even if I don’t find that to absolutely be the case (I actually kinda like Scott Pilgrim, mostly for the tech side of things, like the editing and special effects), I can definitely see why the film didn’t click with a mainstream audience, despite Universal’s muscular backing.

-Z-

Nick saw “12 Years a Slave”

I caught this film about a week ago, but I haven’t had a chance to sit down and write about it.  12 Years a Slave depicts the true story of Soloman Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) who was kidnapped and sold into slavery during the mid-1800s.  It took him twelve years to prove the fact that he was a free man.  During that time, he witnessed and was inflected with horrors that no person should have to endure.

I wasn’t sure what to expect when I went into this movie.  A film about a one of America’s darkest periods is always going to bring up certain questions and concerns.  Will it treat the subject material respectfully or trivialize it?  Will the characters (particularly the white characters) be fully realized or one-dimensional?  Will it be gritty or gloss over the terrible nature of slavery.  Fortunately, the film hits all the right notes and does what Django Unchained completely failed to do.  12 Years a Slave is arguably one of the more important films made from recent years.

What really sells this movie is Ejiofor’s performance.  He truly is terrific.  A lesser actor would have played Soloman over-the-top or incredibly preachy.  That sort of thing would have undermined the film (though wouldn’t be unexpected given that 12 Years… is a historical movie).  Ejiofor goes another route with him being more subtle and quiet in the role.  It makes Soloman feel like an “everyman”.  This approach makes the viewer connect with him and want to see him through his struggles.  I fully enjoyed with Ejiofor brought to the movie, and I really hope this propels him further into the mainstream.

The rest of the cast fills out nicely with fantastic supporting roles from Michael Fassbender, Benedict Cumberbatch (this guy is everywhere it seems), and Lupita Nyong.  I don’t know if it was the material or just the standard of quality from the actors, but the performances in this film are amazing.  That said, there are some cameos in the film which are completely distracting, specifically that of Brad Pitt.  Somehow, he is just too recognizable to see him in the role that he’s in for a film like this.

12 Years… isn’t a perfect movie.  There are elements that don’t quite work such as the aforementioned cameos, the pacing being a too slow (although that could have been a creative decision), a perplexing sex scene early on (at least I think that’s what it was), a few needlessly uncomfortable sequences (though I get why they were there) and some pretentious direction at times.  However, all of this is really minor when compared to the rest of the film.  12 Years a Slave is an important film to see, especially if you want an unbiased look at slavery in the United States.  I encourage people to check it out. It isn’t a film that you’d want to watch again and again, but it is worth seeing as its filmmaking at its finest.

~N

I saw The Wolf of Wall Street

The fifth film collaboration between legendary director Martin Scorsese and celebrated actor Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street is based on the real life rise and fall of Wall Street upstart and convicted criminal Jordan Belfort. It is an explicit film fraught with sex and drugs, and it is a pretty glorious affair. Directed with the touch of a master and filled with mesmerizing performances (including co-star Margot Robbie – who is about to get a lot more work – as Belfort’s wife Naomi), The Wolf of Wall Street is also one of the best films of 2013. It is funny, engaging, entertaining, and eminently watchable. A few flaws, however, keep it from truly standing out, but it is perhaps my favorite latter day Scorsese film.

DiCaprio stars as Jordan Belfort, and the film essential follows his life over a five-year period. Belfort begins as a young analyst for an established firm on Wall Street, where big boss Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey) takes a shine to him, inviting him to lunch and giving him the insider’s scoop on the life of a successful broker. The firm eventually collapses, and Jordan, on the brink of financial ruin, begins working for a small-time firm and eventually begins his own business based on his experiences selling penny stocks. The film then focuses on Belfort’s attempts to fit in with the big boys on Wall Street, chronicling his eventual downfall both at work and in his family life.

DiCaprio’s performance throughout The Wolf of Wall Street is magnificent. It is a mature, nuanced performance that is highly entertaining. He is electrifying as Belfort, capturing the screen like few in Hollywood can do. It is interesting that DiCaprio would play two very similar characters in less than a year (His role in The Great Gatsby is fairly similar to Belfort) and yet his performance in each could be so different. It is unfortunate that the controversy behind the film may keep DiCaprio from winning the Best Actor Oscar, as will his perceived youth from the Academy (the baby-faced actor is only 39 – the average age of the last 5 Best Actor winners is something like 52).

My main criticism of The Wolf of Wall Street is that it is an incredibly explicit film, even when it doesn’t really need to be. Everything is over the top, and Scorsese, along with screenwriter Terence Winter, come awfully close to glorifying the horrific lifestyle Belfort lives. His drug abuse alone would be enough to cripple most able-bodied men, but he is also a sex addict, white-collar criminal, and suffers from intense bouts of rage, withdrawal, and paranoia. I don’t feel like the filmmakers condone Belfort’s lifestyle in the end, but truth be told it looks like a helluva lot of fun to do some of the fantastic things Belfort allegedly did (without the defrauding people out of millions of dollars part of course).

The Wolf of Wall Street is also an incredibly long film at three hours, and I can only watch people do drugs and party for so long before it gets kind of tedious. Fortunately DiCaprio’s performance is so electrifying that the film, and Belfort himself, is never boring. There are also portions of the film that I feel could have been edited better, and I do feel the film suffered a bit from a lack of post-production in places. It had original been scheduled to release into theaters in November, but was pushed back for editing purposes. The end result is just fine, but the editing doesn’t quite match the otherwise high levels of quality throughout the film.

This is a pretty great movie. I was surprised by just how fun and funny it is. DiCaprio is absolutely electrifying, and Scorsese has made perhaps his best film since Goodfellas (I was not a fan of Gangs of New York and The Aviator and The Departed are good but not great films – the less said about Shutter Island the better). The Wolf of Wall Street is an explicit film featuring gratuitous nudity and drug abuse, and though this is excitingly filmed and entertaining to watch, it does get somewhat tedious by hour three. Ignore the controversy behind the film as well – The Wolf of Wall Street does not condone the actions of Belfort whatsoever. Scorsese and DiCaprio give cinematic life to a complicated character in a movie based on a real life tragedy and the end result is highly entertaining.

-Z-

Trek Tuesday: All About the Borg

The Borg were, arguably, Star Trek: The Next Generation’s most memorable villains.  Taking the concept of a cyborg and giving it a hive-like personality, the Borg were menacing and terrifying as they sought out to assimilate other species and technology into their collective.  While their goals somewhat changed during the first few appearances, when these cybernetic beings popped up, you knew they meant business.

When that cube showed up, you knew things were about to get real.

Somewhat always meant to be TNG’s “big-bad” (with early seeds of the species laid during the first season), rumors suggest that the original idea behind the Borg was to invade the Federation which would cause our heroes to put aside differences with their other enemies, the Klingons and Romulans, to thwart the attack as a way to conclude the series at the end of the third season (the show’s popularity altered these supposed events).  I’m not sure how much of that is true, but that general idea is the same one behind the classic “The Best of Both Worlds” (what all other summer cliffhangers aspire to).  The point is that the Borg were a big deal.

The Borg only appeared six episodes of The Next Generation, but were popular enough to be the featured villain in 1996’s Star Trek: First Contact.  First Contact added a new, somewhat controversial, element to the Borg in that of a Queen.  While the Borg were to be of a hive mind, the Queen seemed to be an individual (though, what her deal was was left intentionally vague).  It made the species a bit less scary as it gave them a leader, but it made sense in terms of a movie.

Voyager even had Borg children.

Then, we started to run into some problems with the Borg.  Star Trek: Voyager came along and also used them as their “big-bad” during the latter half of their series appearing in over twenty episodes.  The show even had a former Borg main character in the form of Seven-of-Nine (Jeri Ryan).  Because of a continuing presence, the Borg lost a lot of their mystery (especially with the Queen now playing a much larger role).  Not helping matters was that Voyager found ways to defeat the Borg time and again.  Before, they were a nearly impossible foe to beat, and now they felt like little more than a nuisance.  I am not trying to be critical of the Voyager episodes themselves (some of they were quite good), but it was clear the Borg lost their edge.

Surprisingly, the ship was righted when the Borg appeared on Enterprise.  I remember the message boards at the time.  The heads of Trekkies exploded!  How could the Borg appear on the show if it takes place before the Borg chronologically first appeared in-universe? The episode, “Regeneration”, made it work.  It picked up from the events of First Contact with a few Borg drones surviving the incident via arctic crash, being unfrozen, and taking off to rejoin the collective.

The Borg became scary again mostly due to the audience knowing exactly what these creatures are about while the characters don’t.  That’s dramatic irony.  Horror films do it a lot, and “Regeneration” was meant to have that element of horror.  I feel this episode really went a ways to reestablish how relentless and threatening the Borg are.

“Q Who?” – The Borg’s first appearance.

“Regeneration” also solved some lingering continuity issues that cropped up with the Borg made during Star Trek: Voyager.  “Q Who?” was the Borg’s first appearance in Star Trek lore and it was clearly established the first time the Federation had any contact with them.  However, in Voyager, it was established in multiple episodes that the Federation (or some within the Federation) knew about the Borg a good ten years before “Q Who?”.  Having the Borg appear on Enterprise allows viewers to create the idea that the Federation knew about the Borg (given the events of “Regeneration”), but it was kept quiet and only a need-to-know sort of thing until Picard’s crew encountered them big-time some 200 years later.  Not only does this explain why the Enterprise-D crew were completely unfamiliar with them, but also why Seven-of-Nine’s parents were searching for the Borg ten years earlier.

Sorry about the tangent.  I’m a nerd.  Deal with it.

Back on point: the Borg were great villains when they first appeared on the show.  They arguably peaked early with “The Best of Both Worlds”, but continued to maintain that threatening vibe.  However, like anything cool, too much of anything is not usually a good thing.  With too many dips into the well, the Borg somewhat became played out by the end.  Does that take away anything from those earlier appearances?  Absolutely not.  They were terrific villains and deserve their place in some sort of bad guy Hall of Fame.  Even though they were not associated with the original Star Trek series, I would be shocked if they do not work themselves into the JJ Abrams rebooted film series.  And, if that does happen, that creepy, menacing, impossible to defeat fear needs to be maintained. In my opinion, that’s what makes them great.

How is this not a terrifying image?

Sherlock – Season 3, Episode 3

Like, Really Real Spoilers.

Sherlock’s third season comes to a close with an episode full of twist and turns, an intriguing and loathsome villain, interesting character work, and a cliffhanger which, well, I’ll get to that.  There as a lot to like about “His Last Vow”, but there were other elements that just didn’t work as well as I think the writers/producers would have wanted.  For me, this season ender was a bit of a mixed bag.

“His Last Vow” has Sherlock going up against Charles Augustus Magnussen (Lars Mikkelsen), a Rupert Murdoch-type media king.  Magnussen has a precise way to obtain information and blackmail various key people in order to get what he wants out of them.  Magnussen is a terrific villain because he knows he has other people completely under their thumb and they cannot do anything about it.  He works from the fear he installs, and with no one above him to put an end to his activities, he truly is the ultimate bully.  He isn’t doing his blackmailing for any personal or financial gain.  He does it just because he can.  That really is terrifying.

As we discover in the episode, Magnussen has some key information on Mary Watson.  She is desperate to keep that info quiet from John, so she attempts to kill Magnussen (who, perplexingly seems to have never had a hit on him before), which fails.  Mary’s secret comes to light (I’m not going to reveal it here), and John is devastated.  While I found the reveal and the fallout dramatically interesting, it seemed odd that Magnussen would care about a nobody like Mary to even warrant blackmailing her.  Granted, Magnussen just likes to pick on people and likely has no standards on who he chooses, but a slight explanation would have done this plot element justice.

I do have to give this episode credit, though, for some of its character work on Sherlock.  Since the beginning of the series, Sherlock has described himself as a “high-functioning sociopath” to explain away his strange behavior.  Despite that, he never really acts like any sort of sociopath.  True, is socially awkward without realizing it and continuously says whatever is on his mind.  I’d argue he is more autistic than anything else.  And this season, I’ve noticed a warming of Sherlock’s personality.  Sociopaths are people who are incapable of expressing true emotion and fake their way through it in order to get what they want out of other people.  Sherlock has never openly done this…except for this episode where we find him in a loving emotional and sexual relationship (and possible engagement) which is revealed to be a giant ruse so he could gain access to a secure office building.  Now, that’s being a sociopath.

And we have our cliffhanger.  It’s terrible and incredibly tacked on.  I know, the Sherlock fans out there have gone ga-ga crazy over it, but none of it comes naturally.  The episode has a solid resolution, but it felt the need to have this curveball thrown in at the (literal) last minute.  I almost wonder if the writers/producers were worried the way they were ending the season would have been considered a disappointment, so they felt it would have been better to give something to the fanbase to chew over. Nothing would have been as audience grabbing as Sherlock’s apparent death from last season, so they shouldn’t have felt the need to try to top it.  That said, I am intrigued by what they might do next season.  No, I’m not going to reveal it here.  It does come out of nowhere and I doubt any viewer will truly expect it.

So, that wraps Sherlock season three.  I really wanted to like “His Last Vow” a whole lot more.  It has so much going for it, but it falls just short with some odd character beats and story elements.  This has been a pretty solid year for the program.  Very game-changing and, much to my surprise, did not reset things to the status quo of the previous two years.  I really hope they keep changing and evolving as the show progresses.

“His Las Vow” is scheduled to air in the US on February 2nd (Super Bowl Sunday!) on PBS.

What Went Wrong?: Vol. 41 – Similar Yet Different Edition

In January of 2009, critically reviled Kevin James vehicle Paul Blart: Mall Cop grossed over a hundred and forty million dollars domestically against a comparatively miniscule budget. The film turned James into an A-Lister, where he would go on to star in a bunch of even crappier movies than Blart. A catchy premise coupled with a fun marketing campaign helped propel the film into profitability after just its first weekend in theaters. The leggy film continued to dominate the box office in the weeks after its release, and a sequel has long been rumored (and is schedule to begin shooting in April of this year).

Just a few short months after Blart’s successful run, another mall cop film was released. Starring Seth Rogen and directed by Jody Hill, Observe and Report garnered slightly better reviews than Paul Blart (51% RT score vs. 33% RT score), but was met with almost total disinterest at the box office, where it failed to gross in its entire run what Blart did in just one weekend. The film ultimately reeled in just 26 million dollars in box office sales against a budget of 18 million – not a total disaster but not a profitable venture for Warner Bros. either. Observe and Report became Rogen’s second flop in a row (after 2008’s Zack and Miri Make a Porno). He wouldn’t star in a hit film again until 2013’s This is the End. The film also derailed Jody Hill’s directing career – he hasn’t made a film since. So, what exactly went wrong?

Described as “the dark mall cop movie,” Observe and Report featured complex and controversial film subject matter such as date rape (a still controversial scene features Rogen’s character having sex with a half conscious woman), full frontal male nudity, rampant drug abuse, and explicit language and violence – absolutely none of this was found in the family friendly (and PG-rated) Blart. And yet, the two were compared with each other ad nausea at the time, and many still remember Observe and Report as the failed mall cop movie from 2009. Also featuring in supporting roles Ray Liotta, Anna Faris, and Michael Pena, the film was also compared upon release to Martin Scorsese’s iconic Taxi Driver, with Rogen channeling the dark and twisted spirit of Robert DeNiro’s Travis Bickle.

I don’t think in this case that the marketing was to blame for the failure of Observe and Report. The ad campaign clearly marked it as being a much more mature film than Paul Blart. The R-rating alone should have been a huge indicator of that. Additionally, marketing for the film was everywhere. Nearly every movie I saw in early 2009 featured a trailer for the film, and advertisements ran over and over again online, particularly on Hulu. But still, people reacted as if Observe and Report was ripping off Blart wholesale (something similar happened two years ago when people accused Dredd of ripping off The Raid – a ridiculous notion considering film production and development).

A more likely scenario is that people flat-out rejected Observe and Report for its incredibly dark subject matter. People just generally don’t like black comedies. There is a long history of them failing at the box office. The only real example of a film with dark tendencies that succeeded at the box office was probably Horrible Bosses, and even that film was fairly light despite its dark premise, featuring characters that were likable despite their shortcomings. Observe and Report, like, for example, Very Bad Things before it, doesn’t feature characters likable and compelling enough to hold the interest of the general audience. I like this film a lot (Rogen gives his most mature and intense performance), but my tastes are an outlier here. The public largely rejected Observe and Report, and it is mostly remembered for being the other mall cop movie released in 2009.

-Z-