Scott Mendelson's Open Salon Blog

Why Bigelow's Oscar win isn't a true feminist triumph.

Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:03:10 -0500

"Where did we go right?" - Zero Mostel in The Producers

After botching the theatrical release and nearly shooting themselves in the foot in the final lap of the Oscar season, Summit Entertainment still managed to stumble their way into their first Best Picture winner at a relatively early age. Congrats to The Hurt Locker. It wasn't my favorite of the ten and it's a little overrated, but that's not the fault of the filmmakers or the film. This is the second year in a row that the Best Picture winner was a movie that almost went directly to DVD due to studio disinterest or regime politics. The irony is that had Avatar not become a true phenomenon and The Hurt Locker just been another movie in the running, it probably would not have won (Precious probably would have won out). But because the $11 million little indie-war drama was positioned as the antithesis of the 'biggest movie of all time', it kept the momentum completely on the strength of its fabricated David vs. Goliath narrative. The movie's quality and those who have loved it since the beginning of last year is what got it to the nomination stage, but it was the perceived 'big film vs. little film' and 'girls vs. boys' that propelled it over the top.

"First I would like to thank the Academy for showing it can be about the performance and not the politics." - Mo'Nique upon winning Best Supporting Actress for Precious.

It's the latter part that I find troubling. While it's terrific that the previously-undervalued Bigelow became the first female to win Best Director, it's more than a little depressing that such a big deal must be made of it. As I've always said, progress comes when you don't have to talk about it. The gimmick of having Barbra Streisand present the award was a little cheap, as it would have made it awkward beyond words if anyone other than Bigelow had won. For that reason alone, I was almost hoping that Streisand would be forced to announce Quentin Tarantino as the winner. Of course, I felt the same way about Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg presenting the Best Director award back in 2007 ("And the Oscar goes to... Paul Greengrass?!"). Kudos for Streisand for pointing out that Lee Daniels also would have made history had he won for Precious. On the other hand, how refreshing that a black man was nominated for Best Director and we more or less forgot about the color of his skin during the campaign season? Progress comes when we don't feel the need to mention it.

What bugged me most about the awards season is how so many pundits tried to turn James Cameron into the big male bully and Kathryn Bigelow into some helpless female victim of his male oppression. Cameron has been nothing but gracious during the entire Oscar season, and I believed him when he said over and over again that he was rooting for his friend, colleague, and former spouse (I'm guessing he voted for her). But the pundits wouldn't have that, because the battle of the combative exes was a much juicier story and an easier one to sell. So the story had to be that Cameron was the scorned ex-lover who was scheming behind the scenes to deny his more artistically-inclined ex-wife her moment of glory. So the entertainment media played up Kathryn Bigelow as a woman whose time had come vs. Cameron as the ego-centric madman who was trying to steal her just-deserts with his big, scary, expensive, and (worst of all) popular Hollywood movie. As a result, the media at large basically turned the hard-ass director of Point Break and Strange Days into yet another damsel in distress. Thus, it's hard to argue that she was awarded her Oscar last night based on the merits of her work alone, when so many seemed to be merely 'giving' it to her out of their own sense of history, obligation, and wanting to 'get back' at James Cameron for his imagined crimes. She's not the first person to win an Oscar based as much on politics as the work itself, but it's disappointing that the media circus rendered a worthwhile achievement into something approaching a charity case.

Which is an absolute shame because, if it needs to be said, she was absolutely deserving of winning. Not because she's a woman and not because she's a woman who makes stereotypically 'guy' movies, but because The Hurt Locker was a damn good movie and she was the primary reason it worked as well as it did. And, to be honest, I was rooting for her because I've been a fan for years (I even liked K-19: The Widowmaker) and am thrilled that she'll be working more frequently as a result of her 'historic' win. But saying that she should have won purely because she was a woman is every bit as sexist as saying that she should have lost for the same reason. And, because this also needs to be said, the fact that it took 82 years for the Academy to give the Best Director award to a female filmmaker should be cause for shame and embarrassment, rather than self-lionizing accolades.

Scott Mendelson

Open Salon box office in review (03/07/10)

Sun, 7 Mar 2010 13:03:56 -0500

Despite his reputation as the mainstream representation of the outcast, Tim Burton is no stranger to box office records. He more or less invented the modern opening weekend when Batman shattered all short-term records with $40.4 million in its opening sprint. He broke his own record three years later with Batman Returns, which opened with $45.6 million. At the time of its release (November 1999), Sleepy Hollow's $30 million debut was one of the largest R-rated openings on record. Two and a half years later, he would score $68.5 million with Planet of the Apes, which was the second-highest opening weekend at the time. Oh, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory opened with $56.1 million in summer 2005. No records were broken, but at the time it was the fourth-biggest July debut and the second-biggest non-Harry Potter debut in Warner Bros history, behind The Matrix Reloaded ($91.7 million). Point being, when Burton makes something that people want to see, he's the most bankable director outside of the holy trinity of Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and James Cameron.

This weekend was another trip to the record books as Alice in Wonderland propelled to $116.1 million over its debut weekend. That's the sixth-biggest start ever, the biggest non-sequel ever (beating Spider-Man, which debuted to $114 million in 2002). It's the biggest 3D debut (besting Avatar's $77 million opening). Plus, it's the second-biggest non-summer opening of all time behind the $142 million debut of Twilight Saga: New Moon. With a surprisingly strong 2.85x multiplier, the picture debuted with a $40.8 million Friday and a $44.2 million Saturday (up 8%). finishing off with a 29% drop to $31 million on Sunday. For Mr. Burton, this is the third time in just under twenty-one years that his film has broken the record for a non-sequel opening weekend (Batman, Planet of the Apes, and Alice in Wonderland).

This was the biggest debut of every actor involved saved for Mr. Johnny Depp. Johnny Depp now holds all three of the Mouse House's biggest opening weekends, with Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($135.6 million), Alice in Wonderland ($116.1 million), and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End ($114.7 million). The collaboration between Depp and Burton has certainly been a fruitful one. While Burton once had to beg the studios to let him cast his favorite actor, post-Curse of the Black Pearl the studios have been all-but demanding that the two of them work together. And, counting the $19 million wide-release debut of The Corpse Bride, four of Depp's ten best opening weekends have been Burton/Depp collaborations. For what it's worth, this is also Anne Hathaway's second $50 million+ debut in just three weeks.

Where the picture goes from here is anybody's guess. It's no secret that I rather disliked the film, and this massive debut certainly won't be good news to those who want Burton to make more original and/or just-plain better movies as his career enters its third act. Ironically, it certainly seems that, post-Sleepy Hallow (the beginning of Burton's second-act, recovering from the twin financial flops Ed Wood and Mars Attacks!), Tim Burton's opening weekends are inversely proportional to the quality of the respective film. Regardless, this will surely be Burton's third $200 million+ picture. It will likely out-gross Batman, which remains his top-grossing picture at $251.1 million (it only needs to do 2.17x its opening weekend to match that). $300 million is more of a question mark. I doubt that the general word-of-mouth will be as venomous as the harsher pans like mine, but I can't imagine that general audiences are going to be all-that enchanted beyond the surface level. Besides, it only keeps those precious 3D screens for three weeks, until Dreamworks' How to Train Your Dragon steals most of them away. As always, next weekend will tell the tale.

There isn't much other box office news, but let's press on regardless. Antoine Fuqua's gritty cop drama, Brooklyn's Finest, debuted with a strong second-place take of $13.3 million (the not-too-bad B-movie cost just $25 million). Antoine Fuqua is quickly becoming a consistent opener. His last several pictures all opened between $13 million and $17 million. Sure, sometimes they cost too much (King Arthur, Shooter), but if studios budget within expectations, Fuqua delivers the B-movie goods on a regular basis. Shooter has a special place in my heart for Danny Glover's inexplicable vocals alone. Ethan Hawke has just scored two of the three best openings of his career in just two months. I mentioned last weekend that Overture is quickly making itself into a studio to be reckoned with, and this is no exception. Oddly enough, this is the last release scheduled for the studio until the October release of Let Me In, which is the much-feared remake of Let the Right One In.

Overture is succeeding of late because they are offering adult-driven genre pictures, starring grownups and aimed at grownups, at a reasonable cost that belies the expectations of such fare. You won't find me defending Law-Abiding Citizen (and certainly not Righteous Kill) as great cinema, but there is a 'niche' market for old-fashioned genre movies (not films) starring adults and not aimed at fourteen-year old boys/girls. We all act amazed when Vantage Point or Lakeview Terrace (two Sony pictures) open well, but such pulpy fare is rare enough in this marketplace that they usually have the demos all to themselves on opening weekend. Most importantly, producers of said movies don't spend $80 million (cough-State of Play-cough) on these pictures and act SHOCKED when they only do about $40-60 million domestic. Adult, star-driven thrillers aren't dead, they just can't be budgeted like comic-book sequels.

Shutter Island fell another 41% in its third weekend, pulling in $13.1 million and ending its third weekend with $95 million. Cop Out became Kevin Smith's highest-grossing picture, with a whole $32.5 million by weekend three. Too bad no one likes it, but sometimes you hold your nose and do one 'for them'. Better luck next time. Avatar weathered the loss of its IMAX and 3D screens, as it dropped a sizable but survivable 40% in weekend 12. Still, the picture pulled in $8 million and now sits with $720.6 million. Earlier reports of its death were obviously exaggerated. The 3D version of the film could very well become a staple in theaters with multiple 3D auditoriums for a month or longer, especially if it triumphs at tonight's Academy Awards. Point being, I was wrong and Avatar's box office story is far from finished.

Crazy Heart banked on pre-Oscar hype and jumped 34% and it now sits at $29.5 million. If Jeff Bridges wins the Oscar, this thing could top $40 million. The Crazies fell an ok-for-horror 55% in weekend two. Valentine's Day now sits at $106 million. The Blind Side crossed the $250 million-mark. If Bullock wins an Oscar tonight (mazel tov on accepting that Razzie for All About Steve in person, by the way), it'll likely surpass Star Trek. Percy Jackson and the... this movie is too terrible to justify typing out the whole bloody title is at $78 million while The Wolfman just crossed $60 million.

Oh, and Roman Polanski's The Ghost Writer inches closer to the top-ten, as it grossed $1.28 million for thirteenth place. The Summit acquisition has now grossed $2.6 million. It makes me wish it were a better movie. Polanski, Scorsese, and Burton all whiffed this year. So far, only Martin Campbell delivered the promised goods. Edge of Darkness was at least a rock-solid B-genre picture with the maturity and seriousness of purpose (IE - the violence has weight and the characters act like adults) that makes me a fan. Let's hope that Chris Nolan also beats the current odds or all hope may be lost.

Anyway, join us next weekend for Paul Greengrass's The Green Zone (an Iraq-war thriller that's being sold like it's The Bourne Redundancy). Plus Paramount tries to convince us that Alice Eve is hotter and sexier than Krysten Ritter (HA!) with She's Out of My League. Lance Gross (who held his own against Angela Bassett in Tyler Perry's Meet the Browns) marries America Ferrera in Our Family Wedding. Oh, and Robert Pattinson tests his non-Twilight box office pull with the romantic drama, Remember Me. Until then, take care.

Scott Mendelson

Open Salon Review: Alice in Wonderland: A 3D IMAX Experience

Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:03:25 -0500

Alice in Wonderland
2010
109 minutes
Rated PG

by Scott Mendelson

Expectations are a funny thing. Alice in Wonderland is not a good movie. It is, quite simply, a very bad and fatally misguided picture. But since I was not the first critic to see the film, I had the luxury of knowing that a director who I once worshiped had possibly out-and-out whiffed. Had I entered the theater expecting a picture equal to Sweeney Todd, I would have walked out devastated. But, expectations in check, I was able to appreciate the few things that went right with Burton's latest adventure, while being fully aware of how shallow and empty this latest exercise really is. But make no mistake, Alice in Wonderland is easily Tim Burton's worst film since Planet of the Apes, and its failures bring into question just what kind of filmmaker he wants to be in the next phase of his career.

A token amount of plot: This quasi-sequel to the original Alice in Wonderland novel concerns a 20-year-old Alice (a terrifically low-key and deviously seductive Mia Wasikowska), on the precipice of accepting an unwanted engagement to a connected young-gentleman. At the moment of said proposal, Alice is distracted by a strange anthropomorphic rabbit that seems to be gaming for her attention. History repeats itself and Alice again tumbles down the rabbit hole into the magical world of 'Underland'. But Underland is now a desolate, fire-scorched world ruled by the Red Queen. Alice does not remember her previous trip when she was a wee child, but apparently it is her destiny to return and make things right again. If this all sounds oddly familiar, it's probably because you've seen SyFy's recent miniseries Alice, as this plays as a faster-paced, and less intelligent variation on Nick Willing's modern-day variation.

Ironically, for all of the Burton-bashing that has greeted the arrival of said film, the real culprit is apparently screenwriter Linda Woolverton. Woolverton's screenplay is a rushed, emotionally hallow, and explicitly contradictory affair. The core of Alice's arc in this picture is that she is unhappy about having her life mapped out for her without her consent. Yet, the second she zooms into 'wonderland' (the nickname she gave the place as a young child), she is specifically told that she is destined to slay a giant dragon known as the Jabborwocky, which in turn will cause the Red Queen's followers to change sides and support the allegedly superior White Queen instead. At no point in the picture does Alice really have any real choice about her actions, which negates the whole story-arc.

Turning the warped adventures of Lewis Carroll's characters into a dumbed-down 'hero's journey' is depressing enough, but the overt predestination at work removes any sense of choice from Alice's adventure, as well as any kind of suspense from the narrative. And, since Alice believes right up to the finale that this is all just a dream, there is no real reason for her to fear for her life. The decision to frame this as a sequel is an odd one, as the fact that Alice has been to Wonderland before is absolutely irrelevant to the story. Even Steven Spielberg's Hook made better use of its 'classic hero returns to his childhood adventure' shtick, as uptight, grown-up Peter contrasted with everyone's memories of the merry, flying swordsman from decades earlier.

The actors are a mixed bag. Surprisingly, Johnny Depp (as the Mad Hatter) and Helena Bonheim Carter (as the Red Queen) make an effort to give real performances. Neither of them is allowed to dominate the film and both chew far less scenery than you'd expect under the circumstances. Neither actors will put this on their highlight reel, but neither of them truly embarrasses themselves. Crispin Glover is as over-the-top as you'd expect, but his work is further stymied by the inexplicable choice to put his head onto a computer-generated-image of a very tall Knave of Hearts. As a result, all of his movements have that herky-jerky look that so often occurs with computer-animated 'live-action' characters. Anne Hathaway does very little as the White Queen, as she plays 90% of her scenes with her hands raised in the air, as if lowering them below her chest would incur punishment. Frankly, she seems as nutty in her own way as the Red Queen, so there's no real reason to root for her to reclaim her crown outside of a general disapproval of bloody coups. Of the talking animals, Alan Rickman shines brightest, even if his best scene is identical to his best moment in Dogma, where he must convince the chosen heroine to keep going by empathizing with her plight (needless to say, convincing Alice to kill a monster isn't nearly as emotionally powerful as explaining how it felt to tell a young Jesus what was in store for him).

The 3D conversion actually works best in the real-world prologue and epilogue, when it creates a genuinely immersive experience. But once the picture descends into fantasy, so much of what you see is so obviously fake, that you can't believe your eyes no matter what dimensions the image is in. The 3D is not terribly distracting, but it adds very little to the experience and is probably a large part of why the film's colors seem so muted and pale. Quite frankly, I sincerely wish this were available in 2D IMAX, so one could experience the best of both worlds. As it is, the moviegoer must now choose between crisper and bolder colors versus a larger, more all-encompassing image with eyesore potential. The visuals themselves are every bit as fantastical as $200 million can buy, but since so little of what we see ever feels real (couldn't have Burton used real dogs for the shots where the dogs don't talk?), there is no real sense of wonder at what we see.

In the end, this film is clearly a paycheck gig for Hollywood's most mainstream freak. While the main culprit is the assembly-line screenplay, Tim Burton is the director and must shoulder the blame for this genuinely uninvolving motion picture. This film could have been made by any number of less-talented directors, and there are few genuine Burton touches to be found (Danny Elfman's score is a lone highlight). Where Tim Burton goes from here is any one's guess. Steven Spielberg followed up Hook with Jurassic Park, which kicked off seventeen-years of some of the very best work of his career (Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Catch Me If You Can, Munich, etc). We'll know soon enough whether or not, to paraphrase Batman Returns (his second-best film, behind Ed Wood), Tim Burton can once again become a genuine freak or whether he'll have to wear a mask for the rest of his career.

Grade: D+

Open Salon box office in review (02/28/10)

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:02:41 -0500

This will be shorter than usual. First of all, there isn't all that much news to report and second of all, I spent the day at Disneyland which was far-more crowded than usual. Curse you, "Captain EO"! You marred my Sunday in three dimensions! Point being, I'm quite pooped. So... "Shutter Island" pulled a repeat at number one this weekend, dropping just 44% for a $22.6 million-second weekend and a new total of $75.5 million. Despite the mixed reviews and word of mouth, the Scorsese thriller is still the only real event movie out there for people who don't need a return trip to Pandora.

While I didn't care for "Shutter Island" one bit, I am heartened that a moody, complicated, 2.25-hour, non-sequel, R-rated thriller from Martin Scorsese is a genuine smash hit. In this day and age, it's always refreshing for an adult-driven genre picture to reach heights only usually accorded to franchises and animated films. The picture is Scorsese's fifth-biggest domestic grosser and will be number 03 by next weekend. Whether or not it can surpass the $132 million earned by "The Departed" is an open question, but it won't have any demo competition until "The Green Zone". Said 'Bourne goes to Baghdad' thriller opens March 12th (I have no idea if that's accurate, but it's sure how the Paul Greengrass/Matt Damon film is being sold by Universal).

Number two and three went to the openers. Both performed a bit above expectations. Kevin Smith's "Cop-Out" nearly doubled his previous personal-best opening weekend with $18.2 million (his previous high, "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back", opened with $11 million back in August 2001). This also marks one of Bruce Willis's best debuts over the last decade, as his star-power has decreased since he stopped working with M. Night Shyamalan. It's his eleventh-best opening weekend, and most of the bigger openings were from the 1990s. This isn't just a case of waning star power as much as Willis choosing non-commercial ventures. No one expected "Alpha Dog" or "Lucky Number Slevin" to play like "Armageddon", so this solid opening with a purely commercial picture is a good sign.

As for Kevin Smith, this will easily surpass his biggest-grossing picture, as he's never had a picture gross over $31 million (so good on Warner for only spending $30 million on this picture). I'd argue that the whole 'Kevin Smith gets tossed of an airplane' controversy helped push the film into the public conscience, it still doesn't excuse how the media covered said event (it was treated as 'Ha ha, Kevin Smith is fat!' rather than 'Hey, Southwest Airlines ejected a passenger who clearly was not too obese to fly!'). As it is, Kevin Smith pictures are often greeted by one controversy or another (Kevin Smith vs. the Catholic Church, Kevin Smith vs. GLAAD, Kevin Smith vs. the overexposure of 'Bennifer'). It will be interesting to see how the film plays long-term. Despite terrible reviews, it still pulled in a solid 3.06x multiplier, implying theoretically positive word of mouth. It will also be interesting to see if Tracy Morgan gets more film work as a result of this opening, as the film was clearly sold on his antics as much as Bruce Willis's star-power.

Number three went to the remake of "The Crazies", which Overture opened to $16 million (at a cost of just $20 million). The surprisingly well-reviewed remake of a 1973 George Romero picture pulled in a 2.68x multiplier, which is about normal for a horror film. With this opening and "Law-Abiding Citizen", "Capitalism: A Love Story", and "Righteous Kill", Overture is quickly establishing itself as a major player. For what it's worth, my wife and I watched the original version of "The Crazies" last night, and it's a shockingly good and genuinely disturbing little picture. If the remake is any good, might I suggest you check out director Breck Eisner's previous film, the vastly underrated "Sahara"?

Anyway, fourth place went to the film that cannot be killed (until next weekend, when it will likely be killed), "Avatar". Dropping just 15%, the James Cameron epic crossed $700 million in its eleventh weekend. Aside from crossing the $706 million in domestic sales, the film's overseas takes has topped $1.84 billion, which means that "Avatar" has made more overseas that "Titanic" made worldwide. The new worldwide total for "Avatar" is a staggering $2.5 billion. Alas, this will likely be the last weekend of tiny drops, as Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" opens next weekend and will steal all of the IMAX screens and most of the 3D auditoriums.

The only limited releases were "A Prophet" ($163,773 on nine screens) and "Formosa Betrayed" ($77,326 on fifteen screens), "Art of the Steal" ($39,019 on three screens), and "The Yellow Handkerchief" ($37,296 on seven screens). Roman Polanski's "The Ghost Writer" expanded to 43 screens and made another $789,064. It's new total is $1.04 million. While the film is not cheap ($45 million), Summit Entertainment is only on the hook for whatever they paid for North American distribution rights, so this should be a nice non-"Twilight" feather in their cap to go along with their likely Oscar glory for "The Hurt Locker" (be it just Best Director or Best Director and Best Picture).

Other than that, it was just a matter of various films crossing arbitrary marks. With $99.9 million by Sunday, "Valentine's Day" will cross $100 million by the time you read this, making it the decade's first $100 million grosser. Ironically, the first such milestone of the last decade was "Erin Brockovich", also starring Julia Roberts. "Percy Jackson and the... too tired to type out the full title for this terrible movie" and "Dear John" crossed $70 million, while "The Wolfman" sits at just $57 million (on a budget of $150 million). "Crazy Heart" crossed $25 million and "When in Rome" crossed $30 million. At $248 million, "The Blind Side" is less than $10 million from passing "Star Trek" after dropping just 14% in its fifteenth weekend.

That's about all that's fit to print this weekend. Join us next weekend for the likely-to-be huge debut of Disney's "Alice in Wonderland". While I likely won't see it until opening night (it was a choice of seeing it early by myself or waiting until Friday and letting my wife come along), I do hope it's closer to this than to this. Alas, if you've read this, you know where my instincts lie. Also opening is the Antoine Fuqua police drama, "Brooklyn's Finest" (also from Overture, natch) and the Independent Film Channel Jon Hamm thriller, "Stolen". Oh AT&T U-Verse, why do you not carry IFC On Demand?

Scott Mendelson

Damned if you do/if you don't. Kick-Ass red-band trailers.

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:02:41 -0500

My take is the whole manufactured controversy over Lionsgate's red-band Kick-Ass trailers is pretty simple. At the end of the day, trailers are supposed to give you an accurate look at what kind of movie you're going to be seeing. Granted, not every trailer accomplishes this, and many are quite deceptive, but that's the general idea. At the end of the day, red-band trailers for R-rated movies are more likely to be accurate in regards to tone and content than an all-ages green-band trailer. So, one could argue, that studios make red-band trailers to best advertise the kind of movie that they are selling. And, they do take certain steps to make sure that said previews are not easily viewed by those who otherwise wouldn't be allowed to see such films. Of course kids will invariably get around these barriers, but that's the nature of childhood.

But here's the issue: Let's say that Lionsgate didn't put out these R-rated trailers, specifically for a film that could easily be advertised as a family-friendly PG-13 superhero comedy about teenagers becoming costumed vigilantes. Frankly, profanity and violence aside, the film feels aimed at ten-year old boys anyway. Which is why, slight digression, even if it's as stupid as it looks, I'll probably be less offended by it than Wanted, which presumed itself to be intelligent, quasi-feminist, adult entertainment. Anyway, we all know that even with these trailers available online, there are still going to be any number of clueless parents who take their kids to see Kick-Ass over opening weekend fully expecting a feel-good teen comedy variation on Spider-Man. It happened with South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut and it'll happen here too.

At least Lionsgate can now state with complete honesty that they have made age-appropriate marketing materials that accurately reflect the content of this specific film. It may be a bullshit excuse, but it's a truthful and relevant one. Lionsgate is taking heat for making R-rated trailers and not doing enough to restrict access to young eyeballs. But had they just marketed the picture in the most homogeneous, blandly appealing fashion possible, they'd be criticized for not creating a truthful marketing campaign. At least this way, they can be theoretically more responsible and drum up some free publicity. The story here is not "Movie Mom" Nell Minow's perfectly understandable objections (that I don't entirely agree with) , but the fact that The New York Times (and Brook Barnes yet again) has basically taken the protests of one (in this case) knowledgeable and intelligent person and turned it into a finger-wagging trend story. Kick-Ass, a film that probably no one outside the geek set has ever heard of, just got front-page attention in the The New York Times. Lionsgate had best send them a lovely basket of chocolates, flowers, and balloons.

Scott Mendelson