Top Movies of the Summer

[bjornolf]

I noticed you didn't include GI Joe in the list of summer movies to vote on. Is that cause it's too late in the season, or cause it you think it'll suck. I just saw a Yahoo article saying it was pretty good:

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/take5.html

Also, for those Toy Story lovers out there, if you scroll down, there's some news.

[JasonEvans]

With the 3+ million it earned over the weekend, Harry Potter 6 has moved past Up into 2nd place for the summer. That means we now have our final order:

1. Transformers 2 - $398 million. It should just barely inch past $400 million before closing in the next couple weeks.
2. Harry Potter 6 - $290 million. Looks like it will end up finishing just shy of $300 million, but could maybe pass that mark. Will finish as the 2nd most successful film in the Harry Potter franchise history.
3. UP - $288 million. Seems to pretty much be done. Has no more than a million or so of boxoffice left in it. 2nd biggest film in Pixar history, though when adjusted for inflation is just in the middle - lower end of the Pixar pack.
4. The Hangover - $268 million. The stunner of the summer with incredible legs that made it a boxoffice power for months. Probably has about $8 million or so of ticket sales still to go. Will likely be a huge, huge hit on DVD this holiday season.
5. Star Trek - $256 million. Pretty much done with meaningful ticket sales. Great results considering the no-name cast. Highly successful reboot of the franchise and cements JJ Abrams as one of the major creative and bankable talents in Hollywood.

6th place went to Ice Age, which is at $192 million and will likely fall a couple million short of $200 million. Looks like X-Men: Wolverine ($179 mil) will barely hold off Night at Museum 2 ($176 mill) for 7th place. GI Joe did better than most had anticipated and is at $120 million after 3 weeks but I don't think it has $50 million more in ticket sales left in it (probably more like $25-35 million).

One final note-- Inglorious Basterds had a fabulous debut this weekend with $37 million. That's a huge number for a war-themed, adult-skewing, blood-soaked comedy. In fact, it is the best opening ever for a Tarantino film. There is no way Basterds will threaten the $170+ million of the top movies of summer -- not with a late-August release, but this is certainly going to be regarded as a hit and a strong success. Add in the fact that the film's budget was a relatively mild (by Hollywood standards) $70 million and this movie is going to make Quentin and the Weinstein Bros. a lot of money, I suspect.

Also, District 9 had really good legs for a sci-fi flick, only dropping 49% from last week. There appears to be great word of mouth on this film and, even though it will also pose no threat to the top movies of the summer, it also appears that it will go down as a significant August success.

--Jason "if Dist 9 or Basterds had gotten a May-June release, I think they could have been 'players' in the summer race" Evans

[InSpades]

Last night on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" there was a question about which movie had the top US gross as of August 1st. The options were Up, Star Trek, Hangover and Transformers. Having read this thread I immediately knew the answer... the contestant was obviously not as well-read . He used a lifeline to get him 2 guesses and picked Star Trek and Up.

[weezie]

Fantastic film. Hasn't it already doubled expenses in the first week? Just terrific! Outstanding acting all around; each part was beautifully played. Really, Tarantino has hit it out of the park!!!

[A-Tex Devil]

Fantastic film. Hasn't it already doubled expenses in the first week? Just terrific! Outstanding acting all around; each part was beautifully played. Really, Tarantino has hit it out of the park!!!

Agreed. Saw it at Alamo Drafthouse in Austin to see it (best independent film theater in the USA!) and when the theater scene began with the propoganda film, they unfurled nazi flags in the sides of the theater we were sitting in too as if we were at the same theater. Kind of weird, but they go to great lengths at the Drafthouse.

Plus I got to drink an Arrogant Bastard Ale on draft which was on special in conjunction with the movie.

[Jim3k]

Inglourious Basterds. Fantastic film. Hasn't it already doubled expenses in the first week? Just terrific! Outstanding acting all around; each part was beautifully played. Really, Tarantino has hit it out of the park!!!

Agreed. Saw it at Alamo Drafthouse in Austin to see it (best independent film theater in the USA!) and when the theater scene began with the propoganda film, they unfurled nazi flags in the sides of the theater we were sitting in too as if we were at the same theater. Kind of weird, but they go to great lengths at the Drafthouse.

Plus I got to drink an Arrogant Bastard Ale on draft which was on special in conjunction with the movie.

Well, A-Tex, I’m glad you got a good beer to go along with it. It needs something to wash it down. I’m going to disagree with both of you about Inglourious Basterds. I thought it was pretty bad.

My principal concern is its utter disregard with anything approaching historical fact. Sure, there have been plenty of WWII movies which are largely fiction. But they often fall into the category of high adventure (Guns of Navaronne) or having an anti-war message (Enemy Below), where a discrete piece of the war can be fabricated for the author’s story or purpose. The audience never has a doubt that these stories use the war as a backdrop to another purpose.

Plus there are some WWII movies that are generally true, but fall fairly within the historical fiction category (Battle Cry, Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan). These are built about things known to be generally true, allowing the real history to serve as means of telling a fictional story which could well have been as true as the surrounding event.

Inglourious Basterds junks those kinds of approaches and tries another: An entirely fictional scenario, built upon the conjunction of two separate efforts to kill Hitler in Paris after the June 1944 invasion. The problem with this is that Hitler was never in Paris in 1944. Not only does Tarantino falsify that fact, but he also falsifies what Paris was like in August as the Allies began to move rapidly north. That truth is well understood from Is Paris Burning?, a movie which has a great deal of historical accuracy.

Against that, Tarantino’s creation of a Sgt. York-like soldier turned propaganda movie star seems far too contrived to warrant a viewer’s suspension of belief. The same can also be said for the cartoonish Basterds. Even The Dirty Dozen did a better job of character development than Tarantino does with the Basterds here. And then, for the Basterds and the survivor of the early Jewish massacre to suddenly happen upon the same opportunity, is beyond acceptable as a credible circumstance. Finally, of course, is the inglorious fire at the end – one which Tarantino wishes actually happened because he thinks the war should have ended with it -- but which is so absurd that it defies any sense of truth.

Tarantino gets no reprieve from me for his excellent camera work, his actors or even his funny dialogue. He lied to us in the beginning and never stopped, giving no heed to the intelligence of his audience.

This movie would have been better served if it had never been connected to WWII – perhaps as a fantasy, say some kind of a science fiction world.

[A-Tex Devil]

Tarantino gets no reprieve from me for his excellent camera work, his actors or even his funny dialogue. He lied to us in the beginning and never stopped, giving no heed to the intelligence of his audience.

This movie would have been better served if it had never been connected to WWII – perhaps as a fantasy, say some kind of a science fiction world.

Can't really respond with out potential spoliers so stop reading if you don't want to be spoiled.

_______________

I guess you went into this movie with completely different expectations then I did. Was the fact that it was historically inaccurate and even rewrote history really bother you? I thought the liberties taken with historical fact were more than expected, and a bit more ballsy then even anticipated. We all know there wasn't a group of Jewish soldiers in France pre-D-Day causing havoc. I also doubt Hitler was ever in France during 1944 or 1945. But did it even need to be historically accurate?

This was a grindhouse style movie set in WWII. The dialogue was great, the acting was great, the direction was great. I can handle (and I even enjoyed) the alternate history this movie wrote, and don't understand how the audience is "lied to" any more than any other peice of fiction. Tarantino never claimed to be making Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List or Midway here. This was an over the top, fun movie with a bad guy we can all agree on.

I will agree, however, that I was disappointed in the character development of the Basterds, but other than that, I loved it.

[Indoor66]

I saw Basterds yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. It is, maybe, Tarantino's best. I thought the character development was appropriate. The bizarre treatment of history fit the bizarre nature of the tale being told. Thoroughly enjoyable.

Quintessential Tarantino.

[UVaAmbassador]

Well, A-Tex, I’m glad you got a good beer to go along with it. It needs something to wash it down. I’m going to disagree with both of you about Inglourious Basterds. I thought it was pretty bad.

My principal concern is its utter disregard with anything approaching historical fact. Sure, there have been plenty of WWII movies which are largely fiction. But they often fall into the category of high adventure (Guns of Navaronne) or having an anti-war message (Enemy Below), where a discrete piece of the war can be fabricated for the author’s story or purpose. The audience never has a doubt that these stories use the war as a backdrop to another purpose.

Plus there are some WWII movies that are generally true, but fall fairly within the historical fiction category (Battle Cry, Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan). These are built about things known to be generally true, allowing the real history to serve as means of telling a fictional story which could well have been as true as the surrounding event.

Inglourious Basterds junks those kinds of approaches and tries another: An entirely fictional scenario, built upon the conjunction of two separate efforts to kill Hitler in Paris after the June 1944 invasion. The problem with this is that Hitler was never in Paris in 1944. Not only does Tarantino falsify that fact, but he also falsifies what Paris was like in August as the Allies began to move rapidly north. That truth is well understood from Is Paris Burning?, a movie which has a great deal of historical accuracy.

Against that, Tarantino’s creation of a Sgt. York-like soldier turned propaganda movie star seems far too contrived to warrant a viewer’s suspension of belief. The same can also be said for the cartoonish Basterds. Even The Dirty Dozen did a better job of character development than Tarantino does with the Basterds here. And then, for the Basterds and the survivor of the early Jewish massacre to suddenly happen upon the same opportunity, is beyond acceptable as a credible circumstance. Finally, of course, is the inglorious fire at the end – one which Tarantino wishes actually happened because he thinks the war should have ended with it -- but which is so absurd that it defies any sense of truth.

Tarantino gets no reprieve from me for his excellent camera work, his actors or even his funny dialogue. He lied to us in the beginning and never stopped, giving no heed to the intelligence of his audience.

This movie would have been better served if it had never been connected to WWII – perhaps as a fantasy, say some kind of a science fiction world.

You missed the entire point of the movie. This wasn't meant to be even remotely historical. It was meant to be a WWII allied soldier's revenge fantasy. My only problem with the movie is that QT is becoming increasingly self indulgent in his style with each passing film.

[Jim3k]

I understand the disagreements.

But keep this in mind: A movie, to be taken seriously, has to provide a sense of plausibility within its own framework. This movie makes no attempt to do so.

I understand that QT was trying to modernize the concept of the spaghetti western. But, IMO, he fails to do even that. Sergio Leone had stories that hung together, even if the Eastwood character had exaggerated strength and a peculiar sense of morality. Neither Eastwood nor his villains are realistic. And I'm not seeking that. Plus, we all understand the good-guy/bad-guy mythology of the western, spaghetti or otherwise.

I simply want to see a story that fits the premise. This does not fit the premise of WWII.

And, I am in full agreement with UVaA -- QT is simply being self-indulgent, what with his industry inside jokes and references. Those things are for him, not for the audience. I am the audience and that stuff doesn't reach me.

But the main thing is lack of plausibility on any level.

And yes. I am offended by his history re-write. He's taken a slant on WWII and its icons that is disrespectful of the Allies' war effort. He treats Churchill well, but from the beginning the movie goes off in a direction that Churchill would never have countenanced. Devaluing the war's purpose as Tarantino does, changing it into a revenge fantasy, is part of the falsity. Unlike the western, there is no advance common understanding of the premise the director wants to present. Most WWII premises would somehow accept the premise that the European theater had nothing to with revenge fantasies, but everything to do with freeing Europe from its Nazi-imposed chains. Tarantino does not allow the audience to do that.

Even so, revenge could have been a decent premise if the rest of the movie, particularly the ending, entirely self-indulgent, could be reconciled with history.

QT fans may think his re-write is okay for artistic purposes. I find myself unable to agree and am admittedly offended.

[darthur]

And yes. I am offended by his history re-write. He's taken a slant on WWII and its icons that is disrespectful of the Allies' war effort.

This is just my opinion, but I find a full rewrite like this to be much more innocuous than either of the following:

- Movies that take the name of a book but have literally nothing to do with the book (e.g. I, Robot)
- Historical movies that are accurate enough or obscure enough that the audience might believe them, but that seriously alter key events or characters (e.g. The Patriot)

With Basterds, at least everyone in the audience knows the story and events are completely unfaithful to what really happened, and can treat them as such.

[JasonEvans]

Question for the critics-- would Basterd have worked better if the "bad guy" had been named Alfie Hister? That way we all would have known who he was but there would have been no implication that this was in any way historically based?

--Jason "personally, I would have liked Vakyrie a lot more if it had ended differently too " Evans

[Indoor66]

Question for the critics-- would Basterd have worked better if the "bad guy" had been named Alfie Hister? That way we all would have known who he was but there would have been no implication that this was in any way historically based?

--Jason "personally, I would have liked Vakyrie a lot more if it had ended differently too " Evans

If one is so ignorant of history as to believe the story is a portrayal of history, no modification would help. The whole thing is a spoof on reality. If there were and attempt at historical accuracy there would have been no movie.

It is a fairy tail set in WWII!

[A-Tex Devil]

But keep this in mind: A movie, to be taken seriously, has to provide a sense of plausibility within its own framework. This movie makes no attempt to do so.

In all seriousness, I am intrigued by this statement, and I either don't agree with the premise, or think that Basterds was plausible within its own framework... or both. I can't decide which it is yet.

[Jim3k]

Question for the critics-- would Basterd have worked better if the "bad guy" had been named Alfie Hister? That way we all would have known who he was but there would have been no implication that this was in any way historically based?

--Jason "personally, I would have liked Vakyrie a lot more if it had ended differently too " Evans

I'm not sure what you are asking here. (Particularly since I don't get your Alfie Hister reference.)

However, if you are suggesting that the farmhouse scene should not have set forth a realistic scenario, which ultimately misleads the audience wrt QT's actual purpose, I agree. If he wanted the audience to accept the movie as a revenge fantasy, the fantasy premise should have been more up front somehow, rather than presented as believable savagery. Maybe that could have been done by turning Walz (Col. Landa) into a clown instead of a sociopath, I don't know. But setting this film on its course with an atrocity is not the premise for a fantasy. Actual revenge, yes; fantasy or fairy tale, no.

(BTW, Jason, I'm with you on Valkyrie. But at least it was generally true to the July 20, 1944 plot. I do, however, refer you to Black Book (2006) for an outstanding WWII Jewish revenge movie which blends fiction and history extremely well.) (I reviewed Black Book here.)

[boxofmess2244]

Was Inglorious Basterds even good? I've heard mixed feelings on the movie