The meaning of the top 10 so far
Let's take a look at the top 10 films of the year so far and see if we can spot any trends. They are:
1) "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" $402 million
2) "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" $301 million
3) "Up" $292 million
4) "The Hangover" $276 million
5) "Star Trek" $257 million
6) "Monsters vs. Aliens" $198 million
7) "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" $196 million
8) "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" $179 million
9) "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" $177 million
10) "The Proposal" $163 million
Well, first off, it's obvious fantasy still rules. Eight of the top 10 are outright fantasy films. Yep, that's right -- "The Hangover" and "The Proposal" look downright realistic in this group.
It's also obvious that familiarity breeds success, at least some of the time. Six of the top 10 are requels of some sort -- sequels, remakes, etc.
A dark mind might interpret both these things as reflecting a certain amount of fear in moviegoers; in a time of economic upheaval, nuclear proliferation, global climate change and terrorism, we want comfort-food movies. We do not want to be challenged.
The same can be said of any year? Actually, not true, although post 9/11 you might have an argument. But the top movie of 1998 was "Saving Private Ryan." "Jerry Maguire" and "A Time to Kill" were in the top 10 in 1996 and "Apollo 13" and "Seven" were up there in 1995.
I'm not saying they were all perfect films. But at least they had serious dramatic elements at times. These days, we don't want drama, we want pure escape.
Another thing the top 10 tells us is apparently this 3-D thing is working. Three of the top films are animated and all were offered in 3-D, thus boosting box office sales through elevated ticket prices.
And then there's the traditional Hollywood star system, or what's left of it. None of the top seven movies featured a name star, showing packaging and especially concept count more than character these days. Just look at "Transformers."
There's also an argument to be made that neither "Wolverine" nor "Museum" really made enough money to be called hits relative to their cost.
Which means the only film on the list which was a huge success and star-driven is "The Proposal," a modest romantic comedy that showed that the now rare commodity of onscreen chemistry (Sandra Bullock + Ryan Reynolds) can still draw big audiences while surprising the heck out of everybody.
As a critic, the list is somewhat heartening -- I thought seven of the 10 films were actually decent for what they were. None of them will make my year's top 10 list, but they did what they were supposed to and offered fine entertainment. (I didn't like "Wolverine" or "Ice Age.")
And the scariest thing about the list?
That "Transformers" is on top. Like Megan Fox said, a movie made for geniuses, because it would take one to make any sense of the story. Overall a bombastic, noisy, senseless bore.
And the scary thing is, "Transformers" is a full $100 million ahead of its closest competition.
Excuse me while I go find a dark closet in which to stand and shudder for awhile.
Comments
| Jump to bottom |
Response to RussellCooz
I understand your point. I too am in my mid 30s and loved transformers as a child. The cartoon, the toys and yes wished for a live action film. But I must say, I was utterly disappointed by this boring excuse for a transformers movie. I literally fell asleep during an action sequence, it bored me that much and I don't even fall asleep at classical concerts.
The fact that this garbage was the highest grossing movie this year depresses the heck out of me and makes me worry even more about the sad state of humanity and our future.
Defense for Transformers
How can movie critics be so unaware of what makes a movie successful? It is not only plots and big-name talent. In most cases involving the often poo-pooed action/adventure movie genre, it has to do with effects, and target marketing. In the case of Transformers, of course the main merchandising market is kids. But as for the moviegoers, I'll put money on the majority being young adults from the ages of 25 to 35. I myself am 33 years old, with a brother 3 years my junior. We are both intelligent college graduates with families of our own, and we both have very fond memories of coming home from elementary school to watch the Transformers cartoon. Christmas and birthdays brought the anticipation of receiving a new Transformers toy as a gift. Back then, both of us wished for a Transformers live action film, but the special effects didn't exist at the time (and that Masters of the Universe farse with Dolph Lundgren as He-Man was just pathetic). The last two Transformers movies do indeed provide an escape for people my age...an escape back to our childhood, before the stresses of adulthood took hold. My age group is suffering more than any in this economic climate caused by the mistakes, corruption, and greed exhibited by many from our parents' and grandparents' generations. Since it seems most movie critics that bash these movies are from my parents' generation, I guess The Fresh Prince was right back in the day...parents just don't understand.
glad you found escape, just wish it had been higher quality escape...
The meaning of the top 10 so far
Maybe it's too obvious or cliché, but I personally think it can never be emphasized or repeated too much: At least half of the top 10 are family-friendly movies you can take your kids to. And yet Hollywood still keeps pumping out adult-only fare ad nauseam.
absolutely, family films always dominate the box office even though they're generally ignored come awards time. The nice thing I've seen during the course of my career is that family films have improved dramatically, most likely because computer-animation has become both cutting edge and family friendly...
| Jump to top |
