In this morning’s roundup of movie news ‘n’ notes from around the web, Focus makes money, Harry Potter ages, and the opening weekend of “Shrek” might or might not mean something.
New York magazine’s Vulture blog wonders exactly what’s to blame for the underwhelming opening of “Shrek Forever After,” which prompted a subsequent 10 percent drop in the stock price for DreamWorks Animation. Claude Brodesser-Akner suspects that it’s not entirely due to dissatisfaction with Jeffrey Katzenberg’s milk-every-franchise business model – instead, he points out that analysts might be missing the point when they say the opening is especially disappointing because of the premiums theaters charge for 3D: “Most likely, the fourth ‘Shrek’ fell precisely because of those huge 3D surcharges.” And he says that studios – which legally can’t tell theaters what to charge – are not happy about 3D surcharges of $3, $4 and more scaring off moviegoers “just in time for the release of all the pricey 3D blockbusters that they green-lit after ‘Avatar.’” (Vulture)
Not so fast, Vulture: David Poland says that anybody who calls the “Shrek” opening disappointing might be a moron. And anybody who writes that it shows how people feel about 3D pricing might be a moron. But I guess that phrase “might be” allows for some valuable wiggle room, because then he adds that not everybody who disagrees with him is a fool. At any rate, his main point is that you can’t jump to conclusions about boxoffice success or failure without letting things play out over the course of a film’s entire run. (The Hot Blog)
“Focus Features has been consistently profitable over its eight-year history,” writes Claudia Eller about one of the few specialty film companies owned by a major studio. She looks at the money side of Focus, and the rumors that Universal might sell the company if it gets a big enough offer – but Uni president Ron Meyer denies that Focus is being shopped or downsized, and Focus’ James Schamus says he’s happy where he is even though the rumors of a big-money sale are flattering. (Los Angeles Times)
What would entertainment writers do without lists? The One-Line Review has already compiled a list of the greatest films ever made (with “Citizen Kane,” “Vertigo” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” occupying the top three slots), and then a second “Beyond the Canon” list after One-Line Review’s Iain Stott disqualified about 300 films that were too well-known. (“Eyes Wide Shut” topped this poll, which kind of invalidates the whole thing in my book.) And now there’s part three: “The Obscure, the Forgotten and the Unloved.” Budd Boetticher’s 1959 Western “Ride Lonesome” is number one, Leo McCarey’s “Make Way for Tomorrow” number two, and recent Cannes winner Abbas Kiarostami’s “And Life Goes On … ” number three. And the rest of the list is strange and fascinating and completely obsure. Jeffrey M. Anderson sums it up for Cinematical: “The main trouble is that most of these titles are fairly hard to find, and the list tends to look like a bunch of critics showing off. Nonetheless, perhaps the list will bring some attention to these great films.” (One-Line Review)
Kyle Buchanan looks at “spy photographs” from the set of the last Harry Potter movie, and announces that for the film’s epilogue – which flashes forward almost 20 years, to when a married Harry is sending his own son off to Hogwarts for the first time – the production has used makeup to make Daniel Radcliffe look like “a middle-aged Lesbian.” (Actually, that’s what the headline says. Buchanan’s text says the makeup shows “just how unfabulous middle age can be.”) If they’d waited much longer to make the last Potter film, they wouldn’t have needed much makeup … (Movieline) The full set of spy photos, incidentally, is at Galeria oclumencia, which appears to be a Spanish Harry Potter fansite.
