List of 2012 box office number-one films in Mexico

Transcription

Captain, you in the mood for a whore? Well, not really... but send her in. Wait a minute... you're not a whore, you're early 90's movie star Geena Davis! Call your men, and it's the last sound you make. Ah, so this is a business call. /Nods/ So, what do you want? I've brought my father's map. Oh no no no... if this is about that foolish "Cuttroat Island" film... Here, look what I'm doing. Okay, that's a man's scalp, and that's disgusting. Geena, you've got a period drama... with thousands of costumed extras, expensive stunt work on the open ocean, and no bankable talent. /Prolonged nod/ This isn't worth the effort, the movie will bomb. Then get up and fight, prove me wrong! How about I just review the film instead? This treasure is ours. Sorry sweetheart, this isn't treasure, this is Movie Night! Hello and welcome to Movie Night, in-depth, spoiler-free reviews in five minutes or less, I'm your host, Jonathan Paula. Tonight in our second summer special, we'll take another look at some the worst box office bombs of all time. Some of these failed because they marketed poorly, others due to their over-inflated budgets, and others were just plain bad. In episode #81, we reviewed "Battlefield Earth", "Sahara" and "Stolen"... but tonight we'll take a look at seven more financial disasters, descending from bad to worse. We begin with "Cutthroat Island". This pirate adventure film from director Renny Harlin was released in December of 1995, where it barely made back 10% of its hugely inflated $100-million dollar budget. Famously, this PG-13 rated movie held the title of "biggest box office flop of all time" in the Guinness Book Of World Records during the entirety of that category's existence. The notoriously troubled and chaotic production involved multiple rewrites and casting changes, which spelled the end for the already fledging CarolCo Pictures, who went bankrupt just before the film was released, and never produced another movie again. A steep fall for a company that had released huge hits like Cliffhanger, and Terminator 2 just a few years prior. The quick-moving 124-minute narrative pits a female pirate and her thieving companion against a fierce rival as they race for treasure on a hidden island. After making a name for herself lighter comedies, Geena Davis is horribly miscast in the lead role; unbelievable as a leader of blood-thirsty pirates, and rarely believable in the romantic moments. Her line delivery is so often cringeworthy, it becomes painfully obvious she only secured the job because she was sleeping with the director. Indeed, Harlin's myopic decision to cast his then-wife is perhaps the worst casting decision since John Wayne played Genghis Khan. Opposite her, in a role originally intended for Michael Douglas, is the far less bankable Matthew Modine, who mugs for the camera - functioning only as a poor man's Cary Elwes. The smarmy sidekick is recruited for his knowledge of an ancient language, humorously remarking to Davis in the middle of a firefight, "It is hard to imagine which part of your life would require me to speak Latin." The only noteworthy actor in the cast is Frank Langella, once again playing a treacherous villain, who has no issue murdering his own family to get one step closer to fame and fortune. Constructing hundreds of period-authentic costumes, and city-sized sets is expensive enough, but blowing them up in slow motion requires Donald Trump levels of financial negligence. Seriously, "Cutthroat Island" contains more explosions than a Michael Bay clip-show. That said, the old-fashioned action spectacle and practical effects are reminiscent of classic Hollywood, complete with some impressive stunt work. One particularly fun chase sequence along the Caribbean oceanfront actually seems tailor made for a theme park attraction. Harlin makes ample use of wide shots and helicopter photography to frame all of these gigantic battles, but they occasionally expose some less than convincing background players. The shinning element of this bloated experience has to be John Debney's majestic score... providing some really fantastic themes that boom with full orchestration. Ultimately though, a few action set-pieces and a good soundtrack aren't able to overcome the uninteresting characters, or tensionless battles. A fun ride for all ages, at least for a single viewing - "Cutthroat Island" delivers old fashioned entertainment despite its many disappointments. I thought it was an ALRIGHT movie. Next, another period drama involving swordplay and muskets - "The Alamo". Based on the battle of the Alamo, this John Lee Hancock war film was released in April of 2004, where it failed to earn back even a quarter of its massive $107-million dollar budget. Its $94 million in losses make this picture one of the least successful movies ever made. The drawn-out, 137-minute narrative depicts the true story of Texan frontiersman defending a small church outpost from Santa Anna's invading Mexican forces, during the winter of 1836. The outnumbered militia are led by the headstrong, but disrespected Patrick Wilson as Lieutenant Colonel Travis, Jason Patric as a hot-tempered Jim Bowie in failing health, and Billy Bob Thornton as the folk-hero Davy Crocket, who carries a larger-than-life reputation. Dennis Quaid is featured as Sam Houston rather sparingly in a wraparound story, despite being first billed. With the exception of Patric, who has never been convincing, most of the cast do a fine job with their mutton-chop facial hair, and period-accurate dialogue... it's just a damn shame the lines they're given are so dismally written. Thornton is especially great as the "King Of The Wild Frontier", sharing haunting and cautionary tales of his former exploits with his fellow defenders. The PG-13 rated story seemingly jumps into the plot with no explanation of the players involved, or the politics of the Texas revolution. Director Hancock just foolishly assumes the audience understands all the nuances of a 170-year-old conflict. On a technical level however, "The Alamo" is an extremely well-made production, complete with a patriotic score from Carter Burwell, believable visual effects, solid battle choreography, and wonderful cinematography that frames the old-west sets and locations. In fact, the 51-acre recreation of the titular building and surrounding fortifications was the largest and most expensive set ever built in North America. Sadly though, all of this production effort is wasted on an uninteresting, and poorly structured script - which amounts to nothing more than a well-polished turd. Indeed, individual scenes actually seem to contradict themselves, as characters are made to look incompetent and hesitant with their decisions only to immediately outline a sound strategic plan. The audience is left to interpret these scenes at face value. To that end, the reasons for defending this tiny mission are not adequately explained, making the actions of the Texans seem more foolhardy than brave. I first watched, and even reviewed this film when it came out ten years ago, but despite the film's tag-line, "You will never forget", there wasn't a single scene or moment I actually remembered. When Quaid excitedly musters his troops for a retaliatory strike, he famously yells, "You will remember this battle! But that is for tomorrow, gentlemen. For today, remember the Alamo". What is normally a powerful quote from history resonates instead as ironic, given the lackluster and boring events that preceded it. Ultimately, this is the story of 189 proud individuals who gave their lives defending each other, and fighting for Texan independence... yet this film completely fails to convince the audience to care when every single last one of them is killed. Historians, Texans, and Alamo enthusiasts may enjoy the picture for its reported historical accuracy, but most others should avoid this dreary and forgetful experience. Although barely coherent or even entertaining, "The Alamo" is put together well enough that I'll score it a MEH... For tonight's poll question, which is your favorite film that bombed at the box office? Leave your response as a comment below. From the past to the future, third up tonight is "The Adventures Of Pluto Nash", This Ron Underwood science fiction comedy film performed so poorly when it was released on August 16, 2002, it failed to earn back even 8% of its $100 million dollar budget. In fact, when adjusted for inflation, this PG-13 picture is ranked sixth from the bottom for most losses suffered in a major box office debut. Its abysmal financial reputation notwithstanding, the 95-minute story is decently entertaining, and decidedly unique. In the year 2080, on the surface of a colonized moon, Eddie Murphy leads an all-star cast as a successful nightclub owner who battles the mafia to save his business. The premise definitely has potential, as I could easily see an episodic TV show that follows the misadventures and high-jinks a club owner would get into while living on the moon. There was a time when Murphy was a sharp, vulgar, and hilarious stand-up comedian, and while those days are long behind him, his wide-grin and quick-witted charm is enough to carry the often ridiculous, and fast-moving story. In the hapless sidekick role is Rosario Dawson, who tags along for no discernable reason. From a production standpoint, her inclusion is obviously due to her good looks, but from a story perspective, her involvement makes absolutely no sense... she's a struggling lounge singer who puts herself in constant danger for a guy she literally just met. It's yet another misstep in Dawson's enigmatically successful career, constantly plagued by poor decisions and bad projects. The massive supporting cast also includes Randy Quaid as a creepy looking and intellectually limited android, Joe Pantoliano as a hitman for hire, Jay Mohr as a struggling nightclub act, Luis Guzm�n as a loud-mouthed smuggler, James Rebhorn as, what else - a slimy corporate type, Peter Boyle as a wise retired cop, Burt Young as a considerate bookie, John Cleese as a robot inside a moon car, and Alec Baldwin rounds out the group with a quick cameo as an asshole mob boss. Despite their decades of collective experience this talented cast is unfortunately given little opportunity to make a lasting impression, as few stick around for any significant amount of time. When one of them is unceremoniously whacked, the audience will likely feel nothing for the underdeveloped character, especially since the protagonist barely seems to notice either. Even though there's echoes of comic book flair, the plot is commendably, an original one, penned by Neil Cuthbert over fifteen years prior, which mixes in great references to "Microsoft Avenue", and Hillary Clinton's face on currency. But despite all the robots, human cloning and ray guns... the plot is unfortunately rather pedestrian, unraveling with a great deal of predictability, at least until a surprising twist in the final minutes. Underwood's slower and fluid direction incorporates some nifty movement-matching edits, and showcases the colorful lunar society with beautiful wide shots. The visuals meanwhile are also handled impressively well, from a thrilling hover-car chase through the canyons of the moon, to a hectic shoot-out that sees our heroes bouncing around in the low-gravity environment. When Murphy annoyingly questions how his enemies found him, Cleese retorts, "Obviously, you did something stupid." Containing a certain swashbuckling sensibility to it, John Powell's score is an above-average one, and suits the picture perfectly. Thematically, the movie is about as strong as the moon's gravity, but remains reasonably believable within the confines of its astronomical narrative. Utilizing some cool locations, big-name talent, and capable special effects - this space adventure is certainly better than its Razzie-nominated reputation. But I can understand why people weren't flocking to see a character no one had ever heard of. Overlooked, but still enjoyable, this sci-fi film is worth checking out at least once. "The Adventures Of Pluto Nash" is an under-appreciated, if over-ambitious experience, but an ALRIGHT film. Keeping with this outer-space motif, let's review our fourth box office bomb, "John Carter." This science fiction adventure film rather famously bombed at the box office following its March 2012 release - despite earning more than a $280 million, thanks largely to its strength overseas. Based on the 100-year-old "Barsoom" series of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, this Andrew Stanton film is an ambitious undertaking that blends period-authentic drama with dazzling CGI-action. Indeed, a majority of the picture takes place on the unforgiving surface of an alien planet. Taylor Kitsch stars as a the title character, a Cival War vet who is inadvertently teleported to Mars, where he's quickly embroiled in a interspecies battle for planetary dominance. With few film credits to his name prior to this picture, him being cast in the lead was a risky move, but he proves to be more than capable as a fighter, and adequate as a lover. Lynn Collins is sexy and fierce as the "Princess Of Mars", who falls for our hero both literally and figuratively. Reluctant to help, Kitch remarks that "War is a shameful thing.", to which Collins replies, "Not when a noble cause is taken up by those who can make a difference." Dominic West and Mark Strong portray the movie's two villains, the former is a greedy and impatient warrior, and the latter as a mysterious demi-God with ulterior motives. Samantha Morton, Willem Dafoe, and Bryan Cranston are incorporated with great effectiveness in smaller roles - especially Dafoe's commanding presence as a tall green 'Thark' creature. The 132-minute narrative is told via flashback, in a wraparound plot that provides for some exciting twists and moments of its own. But it's the large-scale action sequences that really set this film apart from other financial failures - at least here, the money was well spent: the visual effects flawlessly integrate a gravity defying hero, lanky six-limbed aliens, with flashy blue energy weapons. One aerial battle plays out like a pirate boarding party, before Kitsch leaps to the rescue, bouncing from deck to deck dispatching enemies with his speed and swordplay. The anamorphic frame thankfully stays mostly wide, making it easy to follow the humans and aliens amidst all the hectic fights. Despite being one of the few live-action Disney productions to receive a PG-13 rating, the film remains light and playful, incorporating a healthy amount of comic relief, mostly provided by a lightning-fast dog-like creature who is eager to assist Kitsch whenever he can. Even though the source material predates "Star Wars" by many decades, echoes of its influence are hard to ignore, especially a gladiator-style deathmatch against a mammoth beast that is extremely reminiscent of the Arena-sequence in "Attack Of The Clones", even including a surprise decapitation. Before foolishly abandoning its original, and more interesting title, "John Carter Of Mars", this production may very well hold the record for longest time spent in "development hell", as plans to adapt the story into a motion picture begin as early as the 1930's. The immensely talented Michael Giacchino continues to impress, contributing a romantic and powerful score that amplifies all the best scenes. The well-paced adventure is believably handled, never boring or uninteresting, and should keep audiences guessing until the final shot. With some genuinely thrilling moments, and unique concepts - it's honestly a shame this film wasn't able to overcome its bloated quarter-billion dollar budget, as it sets up perfectly for future sequels. As a standalone installment though, "John Carter" is an intriguing story with rewatchable swashbuckling fun, I thought it was GREAT. Before we continue, I want to quickly promote Letterboxd - it's a great social media site for film reviewers... which lets you catalog your viewing habits, share wishlists and "top ten" groups, rate and review any film you'd like, and most importantly: connect and interact with other film buffs, like myself. I only discovered this site about a month ago, but I've been loving it ever since. My pro-level account even allowed me to import my old Excel spreadsheet , which means my Letterboxd profile now has a complete history of every movie I've ever seen - so click the link on-screen, or in the description below to check out my profile, where you can find out what film I was watching last night, or even 10 years ago. Plus, you'll get a sneak peak at my written film reviews, some of which I haven't even talked about here on YouTube. The website is easy to use, fun to browse though, and totally free to sign-up, so hopefully I'll see you there, and we can follow each other's accounts. Back to our discussion of film failures, here's my review of "The 13th Warrior" Adjusted for inflation, this historical-fiction action film is the single biggest box office bomb of all time, with estimated losses as high as $182 million, despite earning back 60% of its $100-million production costs. Released in August of 1999, this John McTiernan picture follows a Arab ambassador who is unwittingly embroiled on a quest to vanquish a mysterious beast threatening a Viking village. Wearing a bit too much eye-liner, Antonio Banderas stars as the title character, a confused... but capable fighter who magically learns a foreign language simply by eavesdropping on a series of campfire chats. His twelve companions are nameless meatbags, never given an introduction, explanation, or even a rudimentary personality. In fact, a full half dozen of them don't even speak. Instead, they collectively function as a single character... interchangeably assisting our protagonist as the plot calls for it. When Banderas complains that he cannot lift his large Viking sword, a disposable warrior laughably remarks, "Grow stronger." The only supporting actor worth noting is Omar Sharif in a minor expositional role, who was so disappointed with the finished production, he actually retired from acting temporarily. None of the players are outright awful with their performances, but the R-rated plot is so poorly constructed and confusing, I actually found myself reading the Wikipedia synopsis to follow-along. Even McTiernan's direction is surprisingly bad; impatient with its pacing, and unmotivated with frequent movement. The 103-minute story, based on a novel by the usually capable Michael Crichton, is a rather conventional one, despite its 10th-century setting. All this negativity notwithstanding, a sequence where our Arab hero and his Norsemen buddies fortify their position against an impeding invasion of deadly cavalry is a pretty exciting scene. When the battle finally does arrive however, it's executed with terrible cinematography, bad lighting, and an unseen enemy. Seriously, what good is a big-budget action film without a proper villain? That gigantic misstep mayn't be "The 13th Warriors"'s worst flaw, but it is perhaps the most obvious. In lieu of more ostentatious visual effects, the picture instead relies on believable costumes and set-designs to accomplish its period-accurate narrative. Jerry Goldsmith's loud score deftly incorporates flutes, drums, and a men's choir for a regal sound far better than this film deserves. As we're treated to beautiful landscape shots of what I presume to be the Black Sea, some poignant narration concludes the film. Normally, this would be a meaningful send-off to the characters, but instead you're left discovering the their actual motivation for the first time... with no desire to ever watch it again. A confusing plot, filled with forgettable characters, and uninteresting action... it's a few standout moments and concepts that save it from being a total disaster. At least this picture took a risk though, it may have failed miserably... but it's uniquely set 1,000 years in the past with virtually no American-actors in the cast. With the talented people involved, and a decently fascinating premise, this picture failed to live up to even measured expectations. Despite glimpses of real potential, "The 13th Warrior" is an inconsistent disappointment that bombed for a reason, I thought it was BAD. Now, my review of "Mars Needs Moms", When this science fiction comedy film from director Simon Wells was released in March of 2011, it could only muster a box office take of $39 million, a far cry from its massive $150 million dollar budget. The 88-minute story follows a young boy who hitches a ride to Mars to rescue his mother, who was kidnapped by Martians in the middle of the night. Newcomer Seth Dusky provides the voice of our wide-eyed protagonist, who embodies the angsty and unsure behavior of a rebellious kid perfectly. The PG-rated production is entirely accomplished with 3D motion-captured animation, with Seth Green doing the chroma-suit to provide the movement cues for the lead. Although the two likely had little interaction during production, their performances harmonize perfectly on screen. Joan Cusack, Elisabeth Harnois, and Mindy Sterling provide smaller, but amble voice/motion contributions as well - but the standout performer is Dan Fogler as a wayward human marooned on the red planet for most of his life... developing plenty of humorous eccentricities in the process. When he lays out the titular exposition to Dusky, the confused 10-year-old can only reply, "What the heck does that mean?" A scene where the our tiny protagonist disguises himself as a Martian worker, and attempts to sneak through a security checkpoint is particularly amusing, and structured very well. Robert Zemeckis's mo-cap effects studios, ImageMovers do a wonderful job with the alien environment, filling it with plenty of exotic details, colorful scenery, and inventive character designs - but ultimately, our main characters remain firmly inside the uncanny valley. It's sort of impossible to empathize with our hero when you're constantly creeped out by him. This is one picture that would have benefited from a more cartoon-like appearance, or just a straight-up live action adaptation. John Powell's score has plenty of quiet emotional moments, but it works most effectively in the faster-paced suspense-filled moments. Although this story is a bit too outlandish to take seriously, it's clearly aimed at younger audiences, who should have no problem understanding the themes and morals contained within; preaching importance of valuing your friends and family. An original experience that makes excellent use of its 3D format, this may not be the most exciting or familiar movie, but it should be good fun for families. "Mars Needs Moms" is a GOOD movie with some unique moments. A reminder now to check out the Movie Night Archive channel for an organized collection of all our reviews, and to hear my thoughts on upcoming movies. Last, and unfortunately also least, the biggest box office bomb ever made, "47 Ronin", The most commercially disappointing film ever made was released stateside on Christmas Day in 2013. This fantasy action film actually managed to gross over $150 million, thanks to strong overseas receipts - but that wasn't nearly enough to offset the massive $225-million dollar production budget. Inherently, that's the biggest reason good movies fail... it's not that they're unable to tell an interesting story, and earn money, it's that they spent an unrecoverable amount of cash doing so. Unfortunately for "47 Ronin", stories involving ancient Japanese cultural rarely draw much attention. Despite these insurmountable budgetary issues, the PG-13-rated picture itself is actually a really fun adventure with excellent production value. The 118-minute narrative follows a band of samurais, who reject their dishonorable banishment to avenge the death of their former master. This is the seventh cinematic adaptation of a true story involving forty-seven leaderless samurai, but Carl Rinsch's directorial debut is the first from Hollywood. However, the story is rife with familiar beats, including many instances of classic Japanese tradition obfuscating common sense - which makes the quest for our heroes that much harder. In a curious casting decision, Keanu Reeves stars as the lead, a "half-breed" individual raised and trained by master warriors, but still an outcast himself. Reeves is notorious for his stale delivery, but his mild-mannered character suits his limited acting abilities well. The talented supporting cast includes many Asian-actors who typically get typecast with these sorts of roles, but they all do a splendid job, especially Hiroyuki Sanada, as the lead Ronin, who carries the bulk of the picture's emotional arch with his measured discipline. Motivating his troops before battle, he sternly reminds them, "When a wrong is unavenged, the heavens look down on us in shame." The large-scale period drama is brought to life with absolutely gorgeous camera work, showcasing the lush beauty of early-modern Japan with careful dolly moves, and detailed close-ups. A fierce ambush scene is stylistically shot amongst burning fires, and flying arrows, with all of the swordplay action supported by a intense score from Ilan Eshkeri. The well-paced and smartly structured plot exists on the fringes of reality, where ghosts, witchcraft, and mythical beasts are treated with sincere respect. Capable visual effects make these elements possible, as well as a wonderful trail-effect that flies behind swinging swords during the movie's climactic battle. Although it isn't particularly memorable, this is an entertaining experience that ultimately wins points for its unconventional ending. "47 Ronin" may not have been able to overcome its awful financial difficulties, but it's still an ambitious film worth seeing at least once, I thought it was GOOD. Before we go tonight, let's see what you're saying about new movies currently playing in theaters. If you see a new movie in theaters, Tweet your review with the #JPMN hashtag. When the show returns in October, we'll be kicking off a brand new season of reviews, beginning with a salute to the 10 funniest parodies ever made, "Monty Python & Holy Grai'", "Airplane"!, "This Is Spinal Tap", "Spaceballs", "Naked Gun", "Hot Shots! ", "Austin Powers", "Galaxy Quest", "Dewey Cox", and "They Came Together". Lots of awesome films there, so please share your short reviews on any or all of them in the comments below, or by voting in the polls. The season-six premiere will likely be my biggest episode to date, so let's make it a great one. If you'd like to watch more Movie Night reviews, check out the "related videos" on the right, or click SUBSCRIBE to be notified of future uploads. Also be sure to follow me on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Instagram, or Letterboxd for updates between episodes. Once again, my name is Jonathan Paula, thank you for watching and listening. Until next time, have a good Movie Night!