Dacey's Movie Blog

Summer movie season is coming, and you know what that means, right?

Actually, I don't know what it means.

With no one to blame aside from myself, I have completely let this blog die. I had so many ideas for it. So many things that I wanted to write about. But, for the most part, I've been do lazy to bother with them.

I also severely miss posting my box office predictions on the Disney boards. I'm honestly not sure if very many people cared for them or not, but I liked doing them there. Also, judging by the number of hits that the topics got, I seemed to at least have a fairly good audience. Truth be told, I have no idea how many people bother to read through this blog, other than the people who subscribe to it.

Do I want to continue doing this? Yes. Will I follow through with doing it? I'm not sure. For now, I just need to think about things. But to those who have taken the time to read my posts here, I am very sorry for my lack of updates.

Have a good day.

Taken from imdb.com...

The American Medical Association Alliance, a unit of the AMA, has told the New York Times that it plans to dispatch a complaint to Warner Brothers and corporate parent Time Warner, over the display of cigarette packages showing specific brand names in the movie He's Just Not That Into You, the New York Times reported today (Thursday). "There is absolutely zero artistic justification for this," Melissa Walters, head of the AMAA's effort to reduce teenage smoking, told the newspaper. The Times article pointed out, however, that the movie itself does not show anyone smoking and that one of the characters leaves her husband because he lied about smoking. And although one of the products shown is Natural American Spirit Lights, the brand's producer, Santa Fe Tobacco, insisted that it did not pay to have it featured in several scenes of the movie. A spokesman told the Times: "We have to agree that our cigarettes should not be shown in films," said Mark Smith, a spokesman for Santa Fe Tobacco. "It is something we absolutely do not condone. ... We were never contacted about using our brand in this film, and we sent no product."

Okay, as someone who has SEEN this movie, I can safely say that it does NOT encourage audiences to smoke. In addition to what is mentioned in the article above, a character even mentions that her father DIED of LUNG CANCER. Yep, that definately makes me want to pick up a pack of Joe Camels.

Quite honestly, this whole "no smoking in movies" is starting to get out of control.

Well, this blog has been dead for...a really, really, really long time. And what better day to bring it back than today? Without further adu, here are Dacey's highly anticipated (not) Oscar predictions for the major categories:

BEST PICTURE: Remember back when you always knew what was going to win this Oscar based on the number of nominations that the movie recieved? Alas, those days are long behind us, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this year's winner for Best Picture *won't* be "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." Why? Because many people are saying that the movie is too "Oscar friendly" for its own good. Also, don't look for "Frost/Nixon" to be taking home the statue either, despite the fact that many are naming it Ron Howard's best film to date. Mr. Oscar loves nominationg political movies, but he doesn't always like giving them the prize, so I'm not expecting "Milk" to win for the same reasons. This leaves us with what I see as the big two: "Slumdog Millionaire" and "The Reader." While "Slumdog" is clearly the favorite, "The Reader" is a deep, dark, serious, depressing movie with a lot of sex scenes in it, and it has two of the best actors alive in it, so it could easily prove to be a dark horse this year. Having said that, I have absolutely no idea when it comes to which one of them will win. Let me go find a coin to flip...

BEST ACTOR: Frank Langella for "Frost/Nixon." Yes, I'm aware that it's a big gamble for me to be saying that in a race as close as this one, but the way that I see it, Langella's compelling portrayal of Richard Nixon is enough to win an Oscar voter over. If it's not him, then I'm looking at a score for Mickey Rourke. Can't say that I'm expecting Sean Penn to win, even though I'm aware that he's considered the favorite in some circles. Penn has always had, how shall we put it, "anger management" issues, and while they aren't as bad as Russel Crowe's (or, for that matter, Christian Bale's), they are still going to be used against him tonight, regardless of how good his performance was. And as for Brad Pitt, there are those of us believe that he should've been nominated for his hysterical turn in "Burn After Reading" instead.

BEST ACTRESS: Kate Winslet for "The Reader." For crying out loud, the woman's been nominated 6 times! It's high time that she finally won. As for Meryl Streep, she's won before, and Anne Hathaway is probably too young to win in Oscar's eyes. As far as I'm concerned, all bets are on Winslet tonight!

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Heath Ledger will win. The end.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: This one is a toughie. Some people are saying that Viola Davis is the favorite tonight, while others are leaning towards Ms. Cruz. But why is no one noticing Amy Adams for her excellent performance in "Doubt"? Shouldn't she get more credit than Davis, who had only 11 minutes of screen time? Oh, well. Look for Cruz to win, but Davis is getting a *lot* of support, so it's really a coin toss between the two of them.

BEST DIRECTOR: Danny Bowle for "Slumdog Millonaire." That is a complete guess, by the way. I can't even remember who any of the other nominations in this category are.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: Almost everyone is expecting "Wall-E" to win tonight, although, to be honest, I don't think that the little robot is completely invincible. "Kung Fu Panda" swept the Annies, and is easily DreamWorks' best reviewed animated film in years. Don't get me wrong. I *am* anticipating another victory for Pixar tonight. But don't underestimate the power of the panda.

And...that's all for now. Time for me to shut up and give you all something better to do than hear me blab. ;)

Five character posters for the upcoming "G.I. Joe" movie were revealed online today. Here are a few of them:





The rest of the posters can be found here:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=52320

Wait a minute. I thought that "G.I. Joe" was just a silly line of toys. When was it allowed to become awesome?!?

I mean, man, those look like posters for a new "Matrix" film or something, rather than seeming like ads for a two hour toy commercial.

Then again, my hopes for this movie were boosted big time when it was announced that Ray Park, aka Darth Maul, would be playing "the world's greatest ninja."

More to come on Sunday when the first TV spot for the film is (supposedly) shown during the Super Bowl.

Anyway, I'm aware that I've been neglecting this blog. I'm not sure why. I've just lost track of it. My intention from the start was to make this thing as cool as possible, but I feel like I've basically been boring here for the most part. I'll try to do better.

I said that I was expecting a sleeper hit from "Paul Blart: Mall Cop." But I *never* expected it to open on top...

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/

Life is full of surprises.

I have to keep this quick, since there are a LOT of movies coming out this weekend, and I don't have a lot of time to cover them.

"My Bloody Valentine 3-D" is exactly what it sounds like. There's blood! There's a naked woman in a cage! There's more blood! There's sex! There's still more blood! And, at select theaters, it's all in 3-D! Hmmmmmm. Personally, I think I'll pass on this one. However, the 3-D factor is bound to attract a crowd, so I'm giving "Valentine" an opening weekend of about $16M.

"Hotel for Dogs" is a kiddie flick that you've almost certainly seen previews for by now about two kids who band together to rescue stray pooches from the street. Doesn't look too bad, but it doesn't look too good, either. Still, there's no point in denying that those doggies are cute. I'm looking at an opening of $14M.

I'll admit it. I did laugh a bit during the trailer for "Paul Blart: Mall Cop." Say what you will about me, but I'm just being honest. Having said that, I don't really intend on seeing it, but this does look like the sort of movie that could be a possible sleeper. Give it an opening of $7M, but it could do a lot better than that if "Hotel for Dogs" bombs.

Also opening this weekend: "Notorious," which tells the true story of a rapper. And "Defiance" and "Last Chance Harvey," two movies that have been playing in limited release, expand their number of venues.

So, my predictions are:

"My Bloody Valentine 3-D": $16M
"Hotel for Dogs": $14M
"Notorious": $10M
"Paul Blart: Mall Cop": $7M
"Defiance": $6M
"Last Chance Harvey": $4M

We'll see what happens.

So, it's been a lllooooooonnnnggg time since I last posted a prediction here. But, here I go...

Three movies open wide across America this week, but none of them seem like they're going to have audiences especially excited. This is January, after all, when studios ship out the films that hope will make a quick buck before they release their more profitable movies later on in the year. However, if we are going to choose a winner for the weekend, my money would be on "The Unborn," a horror movie about a girl who's chased by the ghost of her unborn brother. Or something. For my own reasons, I will be steering clear of this movie, but people appear to be at least somewhat interested in this one, and scary films are fairly dependable no matter when they're released. Look for an opening of about $12M.

"Bride Wars" stars Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson. I wish that I could stop there, so as not to humiliate these two actresses any more than they already have by making this movie, but alas, it is my duty to continue. As you already know if you've seen the trailer, "Bride Wars" tells the story of two best friends who become sworn enemies when they're forced to share the same wedding day with each other. Eh...what? Women, you don't really act like this, do you? I mean, it's just a wedding, right? Is it really worth tanning Anne Hathaway's face orange over? Further more, if a movie such as this one is to be enjoyed at all, shouldn't it go all out with the jokes and get a PG-13 rating? All of those quibbles aside, both Hudson and Hathaway are quite popular for the time being, so "Bride Wars" should open fairly well with about $9M.

Finally, there's "Not Easily Broken." I know absolutely nothing about this movie, so I'll give it $4M for the weekend.

So, my predictions are:

"The Unborn": $12M
"Bride Wars": $9M
"Not Easily Broken" $4M

We'll see what happens.

The People's Choice Awards are TONIGHT at 9:00PM est time on CBS. Traditionally, these awards tend to be fairly predictable, but they're usually fun to watch all the same.

Let's just hope that this year's ceremony is more enjoyable than last year's, when Queen Latifah had to awkwardly handle everything all by herself because of the Writers Strike.

As you've possibly heard by now, DreamWorks Animation has bought a major time slot during the Super Bowl to market their upcoming "Monsters Vs. Aliens"...and in 3-D no less!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g6n1it06OeR4Gav-VGOu2p5DwvpQD95GM27G0

Now, I'm not a man of busniess or anything like that, but there seem to be a number of things wrong here...

First off, why 90 seconds? A 30-second TV spot during the Super Bowl reportedly costs roughly $2M. By that logic, we can fairly assume that the trailer alone is going to cost *at least* $6M, which is already an alraming ammount of money to spend on a commercial.

Secondly, why give out 150 million pairs of 3-D glasses? If memory serves, that many people have *never* watched the Super Bowl (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). It seems to me as though a lot of glasses are going to be ending up in garbage dumps. Talk about a waste!

Thirdly, why "Monsters Vs. Aliens"? This is a movie that has been tracking pretty well so far, and it's one that will almost certainly clean up the box office when it opens at the end of March. Why spend this kind of money to market a film that doesn't seem to be in danger of flopping?

And why go to such an effort to market the 3-D aspect of this film when many people, myself included, *still* don't have theaters that are capable of showing it in their area? If everyone thinks that MVA (as DreamWorks is calling it) absolutely must be seen in 3-D, are they going to even bother with it in traditional cinemas?

And...why? Why on earth would anyone spend "tens of millions" of dollars to market a movie that's coming out *in the spring*?!?! Even if the movie ends up being the huge hit that I'm expecting it to be, will it be able to earn enough back its marketing costs?

It just doesn't make any sense at all to me.

Now, please excuse me while I go fetch myself a pair of those nifty 3-D glasses. I need to make sure that I have them before the Super Bowl.

The first teaser trailer for "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" is now online...exclusively at happymeal.com!

http://www.happymeal.com/en_US/index.html#Video_page_Trailer

Honestly, as far as a know, this is a first. I seriosuly can't remember the last time that a fast food chain was allowed to launch a trailer.

Needless to say, McDonald's will be selling Happy Meal toys to tie in with the movie's release in May. Sadly, I'll probably end up collecting them, since they're bound to be cute.

As for the trailer itself, I can't currently watch it on my computer, so I'll have to wait until it shows up on Youtube or something.

Well, that's all for now. Have a good day, everyone.

I'm too days late with this, but the Golden Globe nominations were announced last Thursday, and as always, there were a lot of surprises, the least of which not being "Milk" and "Doubt" both being left out of the Best Picture race. Instead, they fared strongly in the acting categories, with Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Amy Adams and Phillip Seymore Hoffman all getting nods.

Another surprise was Clint Eastwood not recieving a nomination for his performance in "Gran Torino," which is something that I think almost everyone was expecting for him to get. "Gran Torino" was also left out of the Best Picture race.

Still, there were some things that happened exactly as people thought that they would. Heath Ledger got a Best Supporting Actor nomination for "The Dark Knight," something that he will almost certainly win. "Bolt," "Kung Fu Panda" and "Wall-E" all got nods in the Best Animated Feature category, and if I do say so myself, all three films deserve to be there. And "Frost/Nixon" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," considerd to be the two biggest Oscar contenders of the years, both did very well with the Globes, earning several nominations in the top categories.

Now, speaking of awards, the host for the 2009 Oscars has finally been announced, and it's none other than Wolverine himself. That's right, Hugh Jackman is going to host the Oscars. While I am *very* surprised by this choice, as I'm sure that many people are, I must say that I'm incredibly happy with the decision. Jackman is one of my favorite actors, and what's more, he's not a comedian. It'll be really interesting to see how he can handle hosting an awards show. I for one have a feeling that he'll be able to pull it off.

And speaking of Hugh Jackman, the first trailer for "Wolverine" has finally been revealed to the world, playing exclusively with "The Day the Earth Stood Still" in theaters. Long story short, the preview is spectacular, although I think that some people might complain about the movie looking too serious. We always knew that Wolverine's past wasn't very pretty, but boy, this seems like it might end up being darker than "The Dark Knight." Not that I have a problem with that, of course. But if you're looking for classic Wolverine wisecracks, you're not going to find them here.

Well, I'm done rambling for now. Have a good afternoon, guys.

"The Dark Knight," as you probably know, arrives on DVD store shelves today. It is the biggest box office hit of the year by far, and the second-highest grossing movie of all time. It won critical acclaim unlike any seen before for a superhero film.  And, of course, it immortalized the late Heath Ledger with the iconic role of the villainous Joker.

But here's the question that's in some people's minds: Can "The Dark Knight" do still more than that?

My short answer: Not likely.

Shortly after "The Dark Knight" broke about every box office record in history with its opening weekend, buzz started to build that a Best Picture nomination might actually be in the future for the film. 94% of the nation's critics gave the film a good review, according to rottentomatoes.com, and the praise was anything but lukewarm. Some even went as far as to say that "The Dark Knight" could be ranked along with "The Departed" and "The Godfather" as the greatest crime dramas in cinema history. If it could accomplish all of that, why would the Oscars be a problem for it?

Realisticly speaking, however, the Oscars are going to be a big problem for it. Among the number of things going against it when it comes to getting a Best Picture nomination...

* It's too big. Gone are the days when blockbusters such as "Star Wars" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" would be blessed with Best Picture nominations. Yes, I'm aware that "The Lord of the Rings" won the top prize five years ago, but that was a rare case. It seems as though most members of the Academy are likely to just see "The Dark Knight," as a movie with a lot of explossions, one that's too loud and too fast to earn major Oscar attention.

* It's a superhero movie. A superhero movie has NEVER been nominated for Best Picture. Even if many people see it as the greatest movie ever made in the genre, that's all that the Academy may see it as. The best in the genre. Not the best of the year.

* It came out in July. Most major Oscar contenders, as I'm sure that you know, tend to come out in October, November and December. With "Milk" earning seemingly endless praise, and with "Doubt," "Gran Torino," "Revolutionary Road" and "Benjamin Button" all still coming our way in the next few weeks, it seems as though Oscar's plate is getting pretty full as it is.

* Finally, it's a sequel. Very bad thing going for it. Again, I'm aware that "The Lord of the Rings" won five years ago, but again, that was a very rare case.

Okay, Dacey's done being negative for now. Let's talk about what *could* happen for "The Dark Knight" at the Oscars this year...

* Heath Ledger getting an Oscar nomination. There's been so much of a push for it by people. and this the last time that they can nominate him. It seems very unlikely that he won't be on the final ballot, and if he's not, you can bet that there will be a lot of very angry fans.

* Technical award nominations. This is a no-brainer. Sound effects. Visual effects. Possibly film editing, if it's lucky.

* It *might* get a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay. I can't say that it will happen for certain, but "The Dark Knight's" script recieved praise from almost everybody who enjoyed the film. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it actually happened.

On a completely random note, the news just got out that we won't be getting a trailer for "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" until February. BOO! HISS! I was hoping for a trailer by the end of the year, although I guess that was never very likely, given that the majority of the film's special effects have yet to be done. It's just going to be very hard for me to wait that long.

Well, I'll talk to you guys later. Bye for now.

The news has officially gotten out that the next trailer for "Terminator Salvation" will be attached to "The Day the Earth Stood Still" when it opens in theaters next Friday. Before that, the preview will be shown during "Entertainment Tonight" on Tuesday.

All I can say so far about "Terminator Salvation" is that it looks like one of the most promising movies of 2009. Visually, it seems to be a unique combination of "Children of Men" and "Transformers," which is pretty darn cool. And besides, it stars Batman! I seriously don't see how this film's not going to rock.

Anyway, I'm aware that I've really been neglecting this blog lately. I'll try to update more often in the future. Once I'm done with finals next week, posting here shouldn't be a problem at all.

When all was said and one, "Twilight" made an extremely strong $69M over the weekend, enough money to make the studio already greenlight a sequel. The second book in the series, "New Moon," will be made into a movie sometime in 2010.

What will happen this weekend, though? Will "Twilight" cling on to its top spot? Will "Bolt" end up taking away its crown? Or will something else happen?

We have three newcomers this weekend. The first is "Four Christmases," which appears to be a fairly standard holiday comedy. However, this one also happens to star Reese Whiterspoon, a critical darling and arguably one of the most appealing actresses in Hollywood today. It also features Vince Vaugn, although he seems to be doing his usual brand of comedy here (and he wasn't enough to make last year's "Fred Claus" into a big hit, either). But really, all that matters is that this movie is coming out at just the right time. Opening just in time for Thanksgiving, "Four Christmasas" seems like a reasonably safe bet, one that could be making money for quite some time if audiences respond to it properly. I'll give it a good debut of $28M.

Next up, there's "Transporter 3." I sort of hate to say it, but I really, really want to see "Transporter 3." I know, I know, it looks like a big, loud and possibly quite stupid action movie. But every now and then, a big, loud and possibly quite stupid action movie is more than enough to satsify me. And besides, it stars Jason  Stratham, who is always quite good, even though his movies usually aren't (exception to this: "The Bank Job"). Look for "Transporter 3" to zoom away with $24M for the weekend.

Finally, there's "Australia". As I said in an earlier entry, this movie looks FANTASTIC, but I'm not sure if it's going to be a hit or not. For one thing, it looks a little depressing. For another, it's supposed to be very, very long. On a holiday weekend, those things aren't going to help you out at the box office. I'm going to give "Australia" an opening of about $14M, although I hope that it makes a lot more than that.

So, my predictions are:

"Four Christmasas": $28M
"Transporter 3": $24M
"Australia": $14M

We'll see what happens.
 

No one knew what it was going to do at the box office this weekend, but "Twilight" ended up making a massive $35M yesterday, proving that fans weren't scared away by some negative buzz surrounding the film. If things hold up the way that they have been, we're looking at a debut of at least $70M here. Not bad at all when you consider the movie's reasonably low reported production budget of about $36M.

What remains to be seen, however, is whether "Twilight" is going to just be a one weekend wonder or a true blockbuster with legs. It could go either way at this point, but as far as I can tell anyway, the future of this movie depends on audience reaction. If people end up hating this film with a passion, it could all be downhill from here.

So far, the critics haven't been especially kind to "Twilight," with many of them claiming that it's not much more than an overblown soap opera with fangs. The same can't be said for this weekend's other opener, Disney's animated "Bolt," which has somehow become one of the best reviewed movies of the year. That film opened to $7M, which may on the surface seem like a small sum, but I'm guessing that this film is going to pick up speed very quickly over the next few days, especially with a major holiday weekend coming up.

Here's a link to Friday's numbers, for those who are interested:

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/

Have a good evening, all.

After seeing the newest trailer for "Star Trek" at "Quantum of Solace" the other day, I've simply been dying to talk about how I felt about it. However, due to the fact that only bootleg copies of the preview have been available online for the last couple of days, I decided that it was best to keep my peace until Paramount officially put the trailer up on their website. Now that they have finally done so, here are my quick thoughts...

This. Looks. Seriously. Awesome.

I know that the Trekkies (or Trekkers?) are going to cry bloody murder over some of the stuff that's being done here, but honestly, a full reboot was the only way to keep "Star Trek" alive at this point. Everything about the new trailer, at least as far as my movie tastes are concerned, looks completely fresh and original. The visuals are great, the cast seems good and the action sequences look extremely impressive.

Now, if you're like me, you might be asking yourself where you've seen actor Chris Pine before. Chances are that you most likely last saw him in "The Princess Diaries 2," his only box office hit to date. And if Spock reminds you of someone you know, he's being played by Zachary Quinto, who you've possibly seen as the evil Sylar on "Heroes."

In completely different news, the first photo of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter in Tim Burton's upcoming "Alice in Wonderland" has leaked online, thanks to a fansite called Johnny-Depp.org:



He looks scary!

Anyway, I gottta fly for now. I'll see you guys later.
 

As almost anyone reading this will probably know, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" was originally supposed to be released in theaters this coming Friday, but in a shocking turn of events, Warner Bros. pushed the movie back to next summer. This was done, supposedly, because the studio felt that it didn't have enough big releases set up for 2009. It was a controversial decision, one met with much uproar from fans, but it's at times like this when even I have to remind myself that Hollywood is a business, and sometimes that means that movies are going to be moved around according to how the company sees fit to do so.

Still, I must say that it's quite...curious that Warner Bros. has decided to release a new trailer for the movie this week, the very week that fans had been expecting to see the actual movie.

It's a good trailer, showing lots of new clips that hadn't been seen before now. In fact, those who have read the book might be a little surprised by how much the trailer does show. There are scenes from virtually every important moment of the story shown here. Watching the preview, it becomes quite evident that the movie is indeed finished, especially since it showcases so many visual effects shots. And with a trailer this detailed already out, one has to how Warner Bros. is going to handle the marketing of the film for the next eight months before the movie is finally released in July.

Three more days until "Twilight" comes to theaters!

Have a good day, all.
 

Here are Friday's numbers:

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/

From the looks of things, "Quantum" is going to have the biggest opening in the franchise's history.

And the film deserves to be a hit. Although it's not better than 2006's "Casino Royale," the newest James Bond movie is still quite good. Yes, there are a few problems with it, incuding a far too obvious referrence to "Goldfinger" that really isn't needed, but overall, it's a very entertaining addition to the franchise.  I look forward to seeing it again sometime.

Five more days until "Twilight" comes to theaters!

Have a good afternoon, everyone.

I promise that this will be my last post about "Watchmen" here for a while, but I just have to make a quick comment about how ABSOLUTELY AMAZING that the new trailer that appeared on the internet tonight is.

Seriously, wow. The look of this film. It looks *exactly* like a comic book. It just...blows my mind.

And it also looks like everything else has been completely nailed here, right down to the incredibly dark tone of the graphic novel. Between this and what hid did on "300," I'm tempted to call director Zack Snyder a genius. But I won't give him that honor just yet.

Seven more days until "Twilight" comes to theaters!

Have a good night, everyone.
 

There is only one movie coming out this weekend, so my prediction should be pretty easy.

"Quantum of Solace" sounds like some sort of migraine medication, but as you probably know by now, it's actually the title of a James Bond film. A direct sequel to 2006's "Casino Royale", this movie finds agent 007 on a violent to mission to bring down the organization that killed the first woman he ever truly loved. 

Coming from the director of "Finding Neverland," "Quantum" has a few challenges facing it, the least of which not being that it's said to be far and away the most intense movie in the franchise so far. Some have accused it off taking way too much inspiration from the Jason Bourne films, and others are upset about classic characters like Q and Moneypenny still being absent from the screen.

But let's be realistic here; "Quantum" has already been making a *lot* of money internationally, and I'm guessing that its success is going to continue here in the US, at least in its first weekend of release. I'm looking at a strong debut of $38M.



So, my prediction is:

"Quantum of Solace": $38M

We'll see what happens.