How My Coverage of Wolverine Turned Me into the Worst Kind of Film Critic/Pundit...
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read."
There is a movie coming out this Friday that I have written quite a bit about over the last month. While some have taken my constant commentary on said movie and the circumstances which surrounded the month prior to its release, as some kind of rooting interest in its artistic and financial failure. This is not the case. Although I will confess that I perhaps became, for a moment, the sort of media person that I often criticize. In that, I became aware that if X-Men Origins: Wolverine opened well this weekend, despite the leaked work print and despite the current flu scare, then there would be no story and there would be nothing to discuss. However, if the film underperformed over the weekend, it would be news.
"But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."
It it opens at anything under $55 million, it will be seen as a true disappointment. It may be blamed on the availability of the rough cut, the bad word of mouth, the slowly forming bad buzz in the form of negative reviews, or, yes, the theoretical panic of swine flu (quick, what's the most memorable scene in Wolfgang Peterson's Outbreak?). But if it bombs it's news. If it does the 'normal' $70 million+ opening weekend, there will be nothing for us to talk about. So if I am guilty of subconsciously wanting the film to under perform, it is because such a thing would be news, and it will give me material to discuss on Monday night. So, yes, I'm guilty of being a film pundit who hoped for a situation in which there would be news. In those moments, I was no better than the political pundits who constantly try to turn every election into a horse race, because that would be more exciting to write about than a blow out. Regardless of how Wolverine opens this weekend, I will still write about it. But I will not take joy or sadness in whatever comes of it.
"But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends."
The main reason I'm writing this is to give some context to a review of the film, which is coming down the pike. It just went up at Mendelson's Memos and it will appear here on Friday. As for the movie, it is everything I feared. And, frankly, at this point, it feels like any full-on negative review feels like kicking a sick puppy. The failure of this beleaguered project, after all that has transpired, brings nothing so much as pity for those involved. Contrary to popular belief, a film critic should take no joy in the failure of the art form which he or she covers. When a film fails, it is a cause for mourning, not celebration. Nothing would have made me happier than to be proven wrong. But, alas, I am not wrong. Not this time.
"Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source."
My review of Wolverine will be up at Huffington Post on Friday morning. In the meantime, let me do my job as a film critic and point my readers along the path to some truly great somewhat recent movies that have slipped through the cracks. Some are simply great movies that failed to find their audience, some are unfairly maligned gems that deserve a second look. All of them are better than X-Men Origins: Wolverine. All of them are examples of what makes this worthwhile.
Meet The Robinsons, Akeelah and the Bee, Frailty, Black Book, Nothing But The Truth, Shanghai Knights, Sixteen Blocks, Dark Water (the remake), Open Range, In America, Spirited Away, Joyride, Wet Hot American Summer, Sunshine, and the just released State of Play.
Scott Mendelson
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This movie made $87 million this weekend. I guess you don't have anything to write about now. Too bad.
MY TWO CENTS: I was intrigued by the scenes around the credits, I would have loved to see more story take place during those years and wars, perhaps dreams while Logan is in the tank. And I always imagined more pain in his background. I imagined the reason he was the candidate for the metal coated bones was that, because of his healing factor, they could strip his flesh to the bone in order to apply it, though he would feel all the pain of that stripping (a long painful drawn out surgical horror to experience). And yes the Origins comic was brilliant, but could not have starred Hugh, but still much of it could have been told in the tank dreaming. My opening shot would have been a surgical tool tearing away his biceps, perhaps even his face, to get to the bone, so all the flashbacks would be wrapped in that pain. Highlander meats Clive Barker meets Marvel.
yeah, yeah, now my creative juices are buzzing... the pain of being shred to the bone (no pain killers for some reason) is so tremendous his mind blocks out the memory of the procedure and a bit more like who he is where he came from.... ok, where's my paycheck?
worked out the no pain killer reason... the healing factor won't allow pain killers to take affect.
just saw Wolverine tonight. It was pretty good, up until the end. The way they make him lose his memory is like someone had a last minute idea and just put it in without any real thought to it. I know its all fantasy, but that part was just dumb. It really ruined what otherwise was a pretty good movie. Well, that and all the people coughing and sneezing in the theater that brought chills up my spin thinking of the swine flu.
"X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a film that has no particular reason for existing." (- excerpted from Scott Mendelson's review at Mendelson's Memo, link in above article.)
Beg to differ, this is a film that has a very particular reason for existing - event film franchising. Event films come in threes, that's the minimum, that's the deal. I'm sure Hugh Jackman's original X-Men contract included this proviso - if you're in for one, you're in for three. (You can be sure Robert Downy, Jr. gets a little queasy when his thoughts drift to donning the IRON MAN suit for a third time.) Everyone gets a big payday. Whether the story line contains enough material to merit a worthy third film, well, that's another story line all together.
As a former comic book fanboy, my love for comics was crushed by the rob liefeld's of the world. I was a huge (chris claremont/john byrne) x-men fan. I had little hope they would do the x-men movies right & i wasnt surprised when they did them all rather blandly. Watching an x-men movie is like eating regular oatmeal with no butter & sugar. I have no desire to watch wolverine cuz I know it wont be the marvel comic I grew up reading. It will be some watered down monstrosity made just to help sell toys & fast food tie ins.
Why does box office even matter? Who cares? Money does not equal artistic or entertainment value. The best films usually are the worst performers.
"Why does box office even matter?"
Because, as I have been repeatedly told, "It's a business." Yes, it's a business that, at its best, employs a lot of wonderful artists at the top of their craft, but it is still a business. It takes a lot of money to produce, market and distribute a movie, and those who put up that money expect a return on their investment. When they don't get it, they shun those artists who made that film. There are a few laudable souls who go to great and difficult lengths to raise funds for a project that they believe in based solely on its artistic merits, and they are to be praised long and loud for their effort and commitment, but in Hollywood it is purely a numbers game: I gave you money to make your movie, your movie had poor box office, earning me zero profit, therefore, I will no longer give you money to make movies. So, a talented artist makes a great little drama that no one sees, the talented artist is shown the door. Shiddy writer and shlock director make dumb accessible fare that makes a tidy profit, they are given the keys to the kingdom. They get to make more, bigger, dumber movies, further turning off the audience for quality fare, thus fine tuning the business model for box office success, and, well, when all is said and done, you get what you pay for.
Where's your review?
Wolverine looks much less interesting than the first 2 X-men movies. The third, not so much.
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
http://www
the 3rd xman movie was just horrible I thought. 1 and 2 were good.
Shanghai Knights deserves its spot in the film garbage-heap: there's just nothing more to it.
As for Sunshine, what on Earth makes you say it is unfairly maligned? Boyle's film moves from emulating 2001 and Die Hard---then leaps downdowndown to Plan 9, splicing genres until I had to laugh. Where is the intelligence so many projected onto the film?
Black Book you are so right about.
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
Sorry, I meant the 2000 multi-generational Hungarian fable with Ralph Fiennes, Rosemary Harris, and Rachel Weisz. I agree with you about Boyle's Sunshine.
OK, my confidence is restored, and now I recall the Fiennes film. I will check it out--thanks.
Shanghai Knights while not the greatest film is really liked by kids, so if you dont look at it strictly in a personal opinion type of way, its an ok movie. Ive seen a lot worse.
Im sick to death of fox and its destruction of one of my favorite comics X men was one of the first five comics ive ever owned . I was at first just excited to see these characters on screen but if you take a second look everything is all wrong . Why cant they just look at the source material . From what im hearing about Deadpool alone makes me want to pass . But you guys go ahead keep giving your hard earned money away and theyll keep giving us these horrid movies .
I've heard all this negative buzz about the movie but seriously, I can't see it as a miss. I literally know fifty people who will see it this weekend, and I'm going with a group of ten people tonight at midnight. For those of us who read the comic back in the day we are thrilled that marvel took the chance to do this movie. I have resisted the urge to download it, and I have to tell you it took a herculean effort not to, but I wanted to go in fresh, and I wanted to enjoy theater experience. If I had to bet over under on 55 million I say over, way over.
J
I tend to dismiss as overblown the costs of piracy. First of all the numbers the industry uses presume that everyone who consumes at a lower price point would have paid full premium otherwise, and that defies basic economic sense.
Is 55 million really a normalized expectation for a comic book movie (4th of the series) opening in the first weekend of May? That feels high to me, but I don't have access to the tracking data that helps predict these things. I would think that if a movie had a potential to pull 70 million, it should be moved to the Memorial Day weekend and be in the running for a 100 million opening.
Now, if the movie opens number 1 and breaks a record for the weekend, then perhaps the case regarding piracy damaging box office is without merit, and maybe that is a story. If it does underperform and you report about it, please be sure to mention other reasons. Perhaps Jackman's Oscar hosting, good as it was, led to audience distraction. Core fans seem to hate Fox.
Watchmen was a highly anticipated movie and should have been a hot item on the P2P networks. My sense is the box office was pretty much as expected for a difficult story and an ending that split the source's fans.
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
The first X-Men opened to $54 million nine years ago. I'd think Fox would want an at least comparable number. While it's not being treated as a direct sequel, it was at least more expensive than the first two X-Men pictures. As for the Oscar gig, Jackman's popularity went up as a result, so I don't think that will be a negative factor in the least.
The 'summer kick off slot' is one of the year's best weekends. Spider-Man, Spider-Man 3, and Iron Man all opened at or well above $100 million in this slot. Only over the last three years have we seen $100 million+ openers over Memorial Day (X-Men 3, Pirates 3, and Indy 4).
$55 million is the minimum opening that Fox can be happy about. Since the film isn't very good and Star Trek is coming next week, Fox is now in the same situation as WB was with Watchmen. Since the film won't have legs, even a normally fine $55 million+ opening weekend will be dangerous as the film will likely collapse rather quickly. Normally a $55 million opening would lead to a $140-160 million final take, but it could very well collapse like Watchmen and struggle to get to $110 million. Of course, if it opens to $70-80 million, then ignore all of that.
Well, there will be more to discuss when the numbers actually come in. Expect a full analysis on Monday or Tuesday.
well now I have to go read your review!
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
Muwahahaha! My plan worked!
I was pretty happy to see you recommend "Spirited Away". It's such an amazing movie.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
