10: 'Ninja Turtles' Takes Down 'Guardians' With $65 Million

The new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie came in strong this weekend, well above expectations actually, pulling in $65 million despite dreadful reviews (of course that never really matters when your audience is mostly kids) and earning a "B" Cinemascore. People under 25 gave it an "A" though, and since that audience was about 45% of its demo, it explains the big haul. Paramount has already greenlit a sequel, set to come out in 2016.

Guardians fell to second place, dropping 56% and earning $41.5 million, which is about the normal drop for a Marvel movie. It's already made $175 million so far (over $300 million worldwide) and will probably end up being one of the biggest movies of the year in the end. With no real competitors on the horizon it may end up passing Captain America for the title, since it only has to cross $250 to do so. Into the Storm came in third with $18 million while Disney's The Hundred Foot Journey grossed $11 million, and received an "A" Cinemascore, so it's possible that ends up holding nicely the rest of the summer. Lucy rounded out the top five with $9 million, while the final new release, Step Up All In, debuted with just $6.6 million, the lowest opening in the series.

Top 5:

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles- $65 million
Guardians of the Galaxy- $41.5 million
Into the Storm- $18 million
The Hundred Foot Journey- $11.1 million
Lucy- $9.3 million

In limited release world, A Most Wanted Man and Boyhood both crossed the $10 million milestone, while the Daniel Radcliffe/Zoe Kazan romantic comedy What If grossed $130k from 20 screens. Next week it's The Expendables 3, Let's Be Cops and The Giver, while new indies Frank and The Trip to Italy make their limited debuts. See you then!

REVIEW: "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" (2014) Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone. Dir. Marc Webb

When you see a lot of superhero movies every year (as is now the case every single year) even the tiniest variation on the well worn formula is welcome, no matter how slight the movie or even how much better made the typical formula driven film might be conceived. Yes, this is another dig at Marvel Studios, which has now succeeded in every one of their movies having the same tone, the same plot, the same character beats at the same moments in the script, and even the same jokes occasionally. This serves to make the superhero flicks that come from simply another studio (this one's Sony) feel at least something like a different movie, and for that I'm kinda grateful for The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Which is not to say this is a great movie by any means. The script is filled with contrivances and all the extraneous subplots are a bit of a mess when forced together, but even when it fails, it fails in a different way than the Marvel Studios movies, which are all starting to feel like they're drafted by committee and directed on an assembly line. But here, to start with the good stuff, let's take the character of Spider-Man himself. Like Batman and Superman, he's simply a more compelling hero than many of the Avengers. As played by Andrew Garfield especially, Spidey is witty, personable and fun to be around, both in costume and out. We see him actually saving citizens from everyday crimes, interacting with the people in the city, including cops and various firefighters, and swinging as always through the skyscrapers that he uses as his own personal jungle gym. He's a hero you'd actually want to hang out with. And with Emma Stone back as Peter Parker's girlfriend Gwen Stacy, the romance is front and center in this film, which is another factor that makes it stand out from these other movies, where love interests are tossed in and just as easily cast aside. Not so here, as real life couple Garfield and Stone have an easy, sexy chemistry and really seem to be in love on screen, making some of the best parts of this movie the bantering between them, and it's not negligible. Rather, it's portrayed as the most important part of the film.

Spider-Man's particular drama has always come from how he balances his personal problems with his crime fighting life, and I also much prefer Sally Field's Aunt May to Rosemary Harris's, because she has good chemistry with Garfield as well, making the bond between them feel more human and relatable. The movie may be worth seeing just for Peter's relationships with Gwen and Aunt May, but on the other hand, what's not so good in this movie is pretty much the rest of it. The villains in this film are unfortunately extremely lame. Electro, as played by Jamie Foxx, is thinly sketched out and actually not given much to do until the end of the film, and the screenplay really has to stretch to setup the complicated back story of the new Green Goblin. He's Harry Osborn, played by Dane DeHaan in a very distracting Titanic-era Leo Dicaprio hairstyle. I couldn't decide if DeHaan was giving a bad performance or not, as his hamminess might have worked in another role, but was borderline laughable in some scenes here (especially when you see him in full Green Goblin getup at the end- ask yourself which version of this ridiculous costume is sillier, this guy's or Willem Dafoe's from the Sam Raimi movie? That is one tough choice).

Believe it or not, there's also another subplot that takes up way too much screentime, involving the mystery of the deaths of Peter's parents. There is zero payoff to this contrived storyline and no real reason for it to exist at all, especially in a film which is already a bit too long as it is. Still, there's a decent movie in here somewhere and it does provide some hope for the future of the franchise, as long as Andrew Garfield continues to play the lead, because he really is an utterly appealing and perfectly cast Spider-Man, inhabiting the role (especially in costume) much better than Tobey Maguire ever did. But then again, the original Spider-Man 2 from 2004 is still the best entry in the series, the only one that struck the perfect balance between Peter's personal life and relationships contrasted with a great setup for the villain, along with some spectacular action scenes. I still remember that train fight from ten years ago, whereas I struggle even now to think of the action in this film, and I just saw it yesterday. It's a mixed bag overall, but if you're a huge Spider-Man fan you can definitely find things to like here. I just hope they trim the fat off the script next time and put in a little more work on those villains. I mean, green eye makeup and hair spray? Really? Come on guys, little kid's Halloween costumes are more sophisticated than that.

* * 1/2

TRAILER: "Camp X-Ray"

This movie got mostly mixed reviews out of Sundance, but some critics did praise Kristen Stewart's performance as the lead. It's tough for me to believe though, since to me she's never been anything other than mopey, hostile and unappealing in every single movie I've seen her in. The only one where it worked was Adventureland because that's exactly what her character was supposed to be. What makes it even worse is that appears to be her personality in real life as well, so I have no idea how she made it as an actress at all. I think she's one of those people who just got really, really lucky.

TRAILER: "The Book of Life"

Guillermo del Toro has turned into quite the mega producer, having his hand in all kinds of projects, some that get made and others that don't. Here's one that did make the cut, a new animated feature from Reel FX Creative Studios, coming out October 17th. Channing Tatum and Zoe Saldana are the leads, although it might have been nice, given the setting, if they had maybe gotten an all Hispanic cast of voice actors. But I guess it doesn't matter, since these things are dubbed in whatever country they come out in anyway. At least the animation style looks a bit different in this one.

TRAILER: "Left Behind"

Nicolas Cage stars in this apocalyptic thriller about the rapture, coming out October 3rd. Looks pretty lame, but it's based on a series of NY Times bestsellers, with two sequels planned already. Frankly, it's embarrassing to still be reminding people he's an Academy Award winner when advertizing Nic Cage's role in a movie. The guy makes so many bad movies now it's kind of a joke simply to see him show up in things. It's hard to believe he was once known for movies like Leaving Las Vegas and Adaptation.

TRAILER: "The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"

After The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel became such a big surprise hit a couple of years ago, here comes the sequel, reuniting the original cast plus Richard Gere. It's pretty rare for these kinds of movies to get sequels, and they even got director John Madden back for it too, so I suppose fans of the original can at least expect it to be on the level of the first. What a lame title though. Seriously, they couldn't come up with something better than that? It's coming out next March.

REVIEW: "Guardians of the Galaxy" (2014) Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana. Dir. James Gunn

Marvel's latest offering comes from a property that was mostly unknown to all but the most rabid comic book fans, and here they attempt to turn a motley crew of otherworldly galaxy dwellers into a ragtag group of lovable crusaders. To that end it's a fairly enjoyable film, but it's still saddled with the problem of plugging any hint of unique weirdness into a formula that is so familiar and predictable by now that any audience member who's seen every one of these movies could write the script in their sleep.

It's frustrating because in this movie there are things to like, and qualities that make an attempt to distinguish it from the other franchises. It starts off pretty routine, with a young boy whose mother is dying in 1988, running away from the hospital only to be abducted by some space aliens, who then raise him to become an outlaw crusader in another universe. The outlaw becomes thirtysomething Chris Pratt, making his bid for stardom here as "Starlord," a name he gave himself as he hops to different planets, stealing various items for profit. His real name's Peter Quill, and he's a charismatic, goofy manchild who dances to his mom's old cassettes that she gave him, the "awesome mix" that certainly lives up to its name by containing a playlist of 70's hits that Quill grooves to as he scavenges for treasures to steal. That playlist gives the movie a nostalgic sense of fun (who doesn't love 70's oldies, right?) but I couldn't help but think a lot of these songs are in here to distract from the formulaic plot and story that could really be taken from any other Marvel movie.

Quill eventually has to team up with other outlaws and petty criminals which include Gamora (Zoe Saldana once again covered entirely in alien makeup, this time green) the daughter of future Avengers villain Thanos (barely seen here as Josh Brolin), a talking raccoon named Rocket (alternating between a mildly irritating/mildly endearing Bradley Cooper as his voice), a CGI tree plant called Groot who only ever says, you guessed it, "I am Groot" (Vin Diesel says it, although don't ask me why- they certainly could have gotten anybody for that thankless task- you gotta wonder how much he was paid for that) and another outlaw by the name of Drax the Destroyer, played by pro wrestler Dave Bautista. The group as formed desperately wants you to like them and think they're hilarious together, which is demonstrated by the constant wisecracking and snarky one-liners being thrown around, but the problem for me was that all this "hilarious" banter was just not all that hilarious. Very little, if any of the dialogue is more than mildly clever, and if you ask me it's a pale attempt to imitate the natural flow and rhythm that was easily on display in The Avengers (or even the new Star Trek movies, which as far as space opera goes, really do everything this movie tries to do and better). The colorful world of other universes are observed but never really explored in this movie, and every single scene with Ronan the Accuser (yet another utterly forgettable Marvel villain) took me back to the dark place I was in as I sat through the Asgard schlock in the Thor movies.

There are moments of strangeness and interaction between the cast that show how there might be some potential to do an utterly wacked out space movie with possibly these same characters, but none of it is allowed to last very long as any moment of unique oddity is always interrupted to send us back into the predictable plot of saving the world by stopping the "orb" that will destroy everything it touches, blah blah blah. I'm sick of it, and this same exact plot has been done way too many times to keep giving it a pass. The action scenes are similarly serviceable at best, and once again nothing we haven't seen before (and done better in both Star Trek and The Avengers). Perhaps I'm being a little too grumpy here, as the movie manages to be amusing at times (how it could it not succeed at least once or twice at that when it's trying this hard?) but there just isn't anything in it that's original enough to place it above the standard summer action romp. It's not bad, but it's also not good enough, and just being okay is no longer up to par when there are a million of these movies coming out every year to contend with. Unfortunately, given the way Marvel Studios has perfected their brand with the same formula driven success over and over again, I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more of this in the future. Which is too bad, because maybe this passes muster when you see relatively few movies a year, but what I crave is something truly different, and this one just isn't up to snuff in that department.

* * 1/2

TRAILER: "The Theory of Everything"

Focus Features makes its Oscar play this year with a biopic about Stephen Hawking, starring Eddie Redmayne as the famous scientist. This mainly looks to me to be an acting showcase for the two leads (Felicity Jones plays his wife, and was in last year's The Invisible Woman). It does look pretty good, but it will probably have to compete for attention with the other British biopic coming out at the same time, The Imitation Game, which centers on Alan Turing. Theory comes out in November.

REVIEW: "Locke" (2014) Tom Hardy. Dir. Steven Knight

If I described this movie to you as a man driving home in his car, having conversations over the phone in real time, and that's virtually it for the premise, you'd be tempted to skip this one altogether. But if you do you'd be missing out on what turns out to be quite a feat in experimental filmmaking, and trust me, it's much more compelling than you'd think.

Tom Hardy stars in this film as Ivan Locke, a construction supervisor (or builder, as they call them in the U.K.) who makes a decision not to go home after work one night, and as he drives to his intended destination (which will conveniently take about 90 minutes) he must deal with and confront the various personal and professional consequences of this decision with all those who are immediately affected. This means he must juggle impending and varying phone calls with his boss, colleagues, wife, son and one other person who is the cause of Ivan's problems on this night, but whose role in the plot is so crucial that I can't spoil it for you here. We hear the voices over the phone as Ivan interacts with these people, although we never see them, and it's incredible how impactful it is just to hear them and piece together through the fragments of each ongoing conversation what their relationship is to Ivan and what crisis his decision has subsequently caused in their lives. The screenplay by writer-director Steven Knight is constructed in such a way that Ivan doesn't need to drift into any expository dialogue with these people- indeed, much of it sounds like possible improv and never anything less than their real and immediate emotions are conveyed at every moment.

Speaking of Steven Knight, the script might be tight as a drum, set to reveal certain pieces of Ivan's life at just the right moments, but as for direction in a film like this, you'd think there might be very minimal work for him to do, other than direct Tom Hardy's performance. But that hardly seems to need it, as the British character actor who's been making a splash these last few years in supporting parts (probably best known as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises) once again gives a totally chameleon-like, fully realized turn as a man who we come to know first as a stranger and then as intimately as if he were our closest friend. This is a one-man show for an hour and a half, and Hardy gives it his all without once crossing over into showboating or gimmicky mannerisms. This is a guy who's driving home in his car, trying to take control of his life, determined to fix the mistakes he's made, and just through certain cadences of voice and subtle physical movements are we able to tell quickly just what kind of a man he is, and how he's used to and able to getting what he wants by dealing with and compartmentalizing the different facets of his inner circle, whether it's at home or at work. It's really quite a feat of acting here, and if there's any justice Hardy would be recognized for this performance at the end of the year (although I wouldn't count on it, given how small a release this movie was given in theaters).

As for the direction of the film aside from the performance (which is what carries the movie here), it is essentially a gimmick to see if filming what amounts to a one act, one man play can be done. Knight tries to move the camera to different angles outside the car, but it falls almost entirely on Hardy's shoulders to involve us in this man's small universe inside the car. Which I'm happy to say he does, completely. It's a small triumph of a movie in that way, and it will stick with you as you ponder the effect of getting to know a man through his conversations and monologues (a very stage-y affectation that Hardy pulls off just as well) in such a short period of time. It's the wonder of moviemaking on the smallest possible scale and the fact that it's actually done so well is a testament to the limits of our imagination.

* * *

FIRST LOOK: Amy Adams in "Big Eyes"

The Weinstein Co. has released two pictures of Amy Adams in Tim Burton's Big Eyes, coming out in December. Big Eyes is a biopic about Margaret Keane, the 1950's painter who painted children with notoriously "big eyes" that were taken credit for by her husband (played by Christoph Waltz) for years. Hopefully it's another good leading role for Amy Adams, who's already amassed five Oscar nominations and is starting to be seen as overdue for the win.

BOX OFFICE 8/01-8/03: 'Guardians' Stuns With $94 Million

Marvel has created yet another mega-franchise, as Guardians of the Galaxy opened to an amazing $94 million, the biggest August opener ever (the record had been held by The Bourne Ultimatum with $69 million). It's also the third biggest opening of the year, behind Transformers and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and what it really shows is that as a brand, Marvel can sell just about anything. This was an obscure comic book property with no big name stars in it, and it still made nearly $100 million on its opening weekend. It was helped by great reviews (91% Rotten Tomatoes) and it got a terrific "A" Cinemascore, so it could make a play for the biggest movie of the year, which so far hasn't seen any film reach $250 million. But with no real competition for weeks ahead and great word of mouth, this might be the one.

The other new release this week was Get On Up, the well-reviewed James Brown biopic starring Chadwick Boseman (whose performance was highly praised and reportedly Oscar-worthy), but it only opened in third place to $14 million, lower than past August openers The Help and The Butler, so it could be considered a bit disappointing. It did get another "A" Cinemascore though, so it may be able to hold in the coming weeks. Last week's champ Lucy fell to No. 2, with a 60% drop, but has already earned $79 million and will easily cross $100 million for its star Scarlett Johansson (who now with her newly proven box office prowess, along with Marvel's capability to sell absolutely anything, should at least be given her own Black Widow movie, don't you think?). The rest of the top five was filled out by Hercules, which came in fourth with $10 million, and Dawn of the Apes in fifth with $8.7.

Top 5:

Guardians of the Galaxy- $94 million
Lucy- $18.3 million
Get On Up- $14 million
Hercules- $10.7 million
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes- $8.7 million

In limited release, A Most Wanted Man continued to do well, expanding to 700 screens and pulling in another $3.3 million, while Boyhood took in $2.5, bringing its total to $7.5 million as it continues its slow rollout. Magic in the Moonlight also did fairly well this weekend, earning another $700k for the Woody Allen comedy. Next week it's the big TMNT movie, which will have to compete with Guardians' word of mouth, plus Helen Mirren in The Hundred Foot Journey and the disaster flick Into the Storm (which seems like it's been advertizing for months now).

REVIEW: "Life Itself" (2014) Dir. Steve James

Life Itself, like the memoir it's based on, is a very personal and moving tribute to the beloved film critic Roger Ebert. Steve James, the director of Hoop Dreams (which happened to be one of Ebert's most championed films) pours his heart into this project, and Ebert would have been proud of the result, which gives audiences a complete portrait of America's most famous movie critic, and does so without descending into hagiography. For me it meant a lot to see the life of one of my own biggest influences celebrated in such a way, for as anyone who aspires to write about film would know, Ebert- both on television and especially later when he brought his voice almost entirely online- provided the framework and model for what the internet can be to a writer.

Steve James filmed his documentary at a time when Roger Ebert was in the last stages of his life, when he had been struggling with cancer that had destroyed his jaw and left him with no ability to speak. He'd been fighting this battle for the last 6 years and was likely approaching the end, as he even admits to in the film. Still, his own belief was in full disclosure, a principle he seemed to have embraced in light of Gene Siskel's death in 1999, when he had hidden the severity of his own illness from nearly everyone who knew him, including Ebert. The suddenness of Siskel's death from a brain tumor seemed to shake Roger to his core, and he vowed at the time that if anything similar ever happened to himself, he'd be open and honest about everything. Unfortunately it did happen, and not so many years later. Ebert allows the cameras to get up close and personal as we are let in on his struggle to rehabilitate after a recent hip injury, and his daily battles with the practices of simple tasks like eating and drinking. His devoted wife Chaz seems to be more uncomfortable with this kind of exposure than he is, and it may be a bit tough to watch at times, but you are never any less than admiring of his eternal bravery, even as he knows the end is near.

These hospital and rehab set sections of the film make up just a part of the documentary overall, as James goes back to the beginning to document Roger's upbringing and childhood, and goes on to relay how he got his start, almost accidentally, as the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times. You get to know his personality, his politics, and his ideals through his own words from his autobiography and from interviews with his friends, colleagues and admirers. It doesn't shy away from personal demons like his alcoholism, or even the negative traits that plague just about everyone (Roger was often full of himself and argumentative, although regarding the latter, I mean, come on- he was a critic, after all). But some of the most interesting bits come from his relationship with Gene Siskel and how the two of them created the forum for movie criticism that pre-dated the future of film blogging and social media. When we hear from admirers and current critics who point directly to their influence it's hard to imagine any of the online world that exists today in that area without their contribution. Many of the tidbits about their famous and hilariously testy collaboration are probably well known to Ebert fans in general, but they do provide for some of the most entertaining segments in the documentary.

The other area the film serves to highlight is the depth to which Ebert as a critic encouraged new filmmakers and writers to pursue their own dreams, and the fame and influence that he had as a writer regarding the way people think about movies cannot be overstated. It's a real loss to the industry to lose such a figure who was able to champion lesser known films (the most important role a critic can serve, as Ratatouille spelled out for us) and who held the kind of megaphone that he held. His voice was a loud and powerful one, even when he lost the ability to project it, and it is very likely to be irreplaceable since his fame came in an era where there were far fewer critics and aggregation sites like Rotten Tomatoes were unimaginable. He encouraged discussion and argument from everyone (even his twitter followers) about movies because he loved them so much, and he had that kind of rare voice that was able to reach both the common moviegoer as well as the elite film snob. As a critic, his influence was deeply felt in his field, and as a man, his optimism, his intrepid determination in the face of his illness, and his willingness to embrace innovation and challenge his mind no matter how sick he got, will only make you admire him more. And even though he's physically gone, his words remain, his thousands of reviews there for anyone to discover, and in that fashion, his legacy lives on. Like the films he loved so much that keep stars and directors immortal in a certain kind of way, so too has his own voice cemented his status as such in the eyes of the millions of movie lovers he so inspired.

* * * 1/2