`Transformers': Worst-reviewed $400 million hit?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901195.html

`Transformers': Worst-reviewed $400 million hit?
By DAVID GERMAIN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009

LOS ANGELES -- After just five days, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is halfway to $400 million domestically, a box-office milestone only eight other movies have reached. If it climbs that high, the "Transformers" sequel will be by far the worst-reviewed movie ever to make the $400 million club.

Critics and mainstream crowds often disagree, but "Revenge of the Fallen" sets a new standard for the gulf between what reviewers and mass audiences like.

The movie pulled in $201.2 million since opening Wednesday, the second-best result for a movie in its first five days, just behind "The Dark Knight" with $203.8 million. Even after its whopping $60.6 million opening day, "Revenge of the Fallen" was packing theaters, a sign that unlike critics, who mostly hated the movie, audiences felt they were getting their money's worth and were giving the flick good word of mouth.

Critics "forget what the goal of the movie was. The goal of the movie is to entertain and have fun," said Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount, which is distributing "Transformers" for DreamWorks. "What the audience tells us is, `We couldn't be more entertained and having more fun.' They kind of roll their eyes at the critics and say, `You have no idea what you're talking about.'"

According to Paramount's exit polls, 91 percent of the audience thought the sequel was as good as or better than the first "Transformers," which received far better reviews.

Most of Hollywood's all-time biggest hits are accompanied by either good or at least passable reviews, and some can be among the year's most-acclaimed, such as this year's "Up" and "Star Trek" and last year's "The Dark Knight," "WALL-E" and "Iron Man."

Not so for the new "Transformers." On Rottentomatoes.com, a Web site that compiles critics' opinions, the sequel had only 38 positive reviews out of 187, a lowly 20 percent rating usually reserved for box-office duds.

Many critics who liked the movie had reservations, praising the movie's visual effects and relentless action but generally advising audiences to check their brains at the door.

The critical drubbing was a new low for "Transformers" director Michael Bay, never a favorite among professional movie reviewers. But he has long been a favorite among fans, scoring hits with the first "Transformers" and such flicks as "Armageddon," "Pearl Harbor," "Bad Boys II" and "The Rock."

Like blockbuster maestro Jerry Bruckheimer, who produced many of Bay's movies, the director aims to please audiences, not critics.

"He really had blinders on when it comes to what he believed the picture needs to be, and then he executed it," said Brad Grey, Paramount chairman and chief executive officer. "He's a director who is the definition of blockbuster at this point. His grosses speak for themselves."

Bay's previous worst score on Rottentomatoes was 23 percent for "Bad Boys II," followed by 25 percent for "Pearl Harbor." Even his commercial flop "The Island" rated well above the "Transformers" sequel, with 40 percent positive reviews.

Of the eight movies that have grossed more than $400 million domestically, four scored 90 percent or higher on Rottentomatoes: "The Dark Knight," "Spider-Man," "E.T. the Extra-terrestrial" and "Star Wars." Two others, "Shrek 2" and "Titanic," topped 80 percent.

The other two had mixed reviews but still came in far higher than "Revenge of the Fallen," with "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" scoring 63 percent and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" rating 53 percent.

This year's biggest hits so far had terrific scores, "Up" with 97 percent and "Star Trek" with 95 percent. Both movies have grossed about $250 million, a number the "Transformers" sequel will soar past by next weekend.

On Metacritic.com, a site that assigns ratings of zero to 100 based on movie reviews, "Revenge of the Fallen" received a 36, a lowly score barely above those given to recent box-office duds "Year One" and "Land of the Lost."

Bay has said that if there is a third "Transformers" movie, he would like to come back for it. But his next project could be far quieter than the explosions and action for which he is known.

"I've got to take a little time off from the robot world," Bay said before the movie opened. "I've got to do something totally different. It's enough of this for right now. I keep saying I'm going to do my small movie. I've got one I want to do."
---
On the Net:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com

http://www.metacritic.com
---
Associated Press Entertainment Writer Sandy Cohen contributed to this report

'Monsters vs. Aliens' buzz gives boost to 3D

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/27/3d.monstersvsaliens/

'Monsters vs. Aliens' buzz gives boost to 3D revolution
Story Highlights
Buzz around "Monsters vs. Aliens" adds new momentum to drive for fully 3D industry
Economic slowdown affected introduction of 3D screens and projectors in cinemas
Other 3D films, like James Cameron's sci-fi "Avatar," slated for 2009 release
British film critic, Nick De Semlyen on 3D: "It's a revolution"
By Neil Curry
3-27-9

DreamWorks Animation's 3D movie, "Monsters vs. Aliens" should give Hollywood's new medium of choice a welcome boost in tough economic times.

It is a welcome boost to the 3D schedule: The introduction of special screens and digital projectors into cinemas across the world has have slowed in the last six months along with the economy.

Instead of the 5,000 3D screens expected to roll out, the figure is closer to 2,000, as the cost of installing new technology during the downturn causes pause for thought.

The release of "Monsters vs. Aliens," along with the recent announcement that Pixar 3D animation, "Up" will open the prestigious Cannes Film Festival in May, should give Hollywood's new medium of choice a lift.

"Monsters vs. Aliens," which U.S. movie industry bible, Variety describes as "'Monsters, Inc.' Meets 'War of the Worlds'" features a fight between a collection of well-loved movie monsters ( think 1950s B-movie characters like a 50 ft woman, a friendly amorphous blob, and a genius cockroach scientist) and alien invaders who want to take over Earth.

The brains behind the feature -- which has an all-star cast including Reese Witherspoon and Kiefer Sutherland -- are Rob Letterman, the writer-director of Will Smith animated pic, "Shark Tale" and Conrad Vernon, the director of "Shrek 2."

The film is one of a number of 3D films, like James Cameron's sci-fi "Avatar," already in production that are slated for 2009 and 2010 release.

Of course, 3D is not new: Films like "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" and "It Came from Outer Space" first emerged during the affluent years of the 1950s, but because 3D was quite gimmicky the medium fell into decline and exhibitors turned their attention to other technologies.

"Monsters vs. Aliens" is one of the new breed of 3D movies, projected digitally and very immersive for audiences, that Hollywood is hoping will lure paying audiences out of the comfort of their living rooms and back into cinemas.

"Hollywood is throwing themselves into 3D like never before," said Nick De Semlyen, critic for British movie magazine, Empire.

"All the big directors from Spielberg to Peter Jackson from 'Lord of the Rings,' they are making 3D films and it's looking like pretty much every big film is going to be in 3D in the next couple years ... It's a huge thing, it's a revolution."

"Monsters vs. Aliens" is the first film that DreamWorks Animation, the Hollywood giant behind movies like the "Shrek" franchise, "Madagascar" and last year's "Kung Fu Panda," has designed from scratch as a purely 3D movie.

Dennis Laws is Chief Projectionist at the BFI IMAX, which is home to the UK's biggest cinema screen and also has 3D capability. He told CNN, "It's the first film from DreamWorks that was designed from the very beginning to be in 3D and DreamWorks are very proud of the fact."

DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg is probably 3D's most devoted advocate. He has said that the medium's introduction may be as significant to the movies as sound, and that all DreamWorks animations will be made in 3D from now on.

"Mr Katzenberg was so articulate in explaining what he wanted to do, and it was very different than anything that I had ever heard of before, which was 3-D used as a gimmick in a film," Keifer Sutherland told CNN at the UK premiere of "Monsters vs. Aliens." Watch Kiefer Sutherland talking about "Monsters vs. Aliens"

"He actually wanted to envelope the audience in the movie and make you feel like you were part of the scene.

"That not only knocks down the fourth wall between the movie and the audience but it also furthers telling the story."

With commercial 3D still in its infancy, all eyes are on each new release to take in the advances in the technology, which is moving forward very quickly.

"The technology is growing really fast," De Semlyen told CNN, "It's very exciting."

Mairi Mackay contributed to this story.

"Shrek" a family musical with gay-pride element

http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSTRE4BE0F920081215

"Shrek" a family musical with gay-pride element
Sun Dec 14, 2008
By Frank Scheck

NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - The trend of adapting animated movies to the stage continues with this first attempt by DreamWorks to cut in on the bounty that Disney has enjoyed on Broadway.

Not as transformative as the landmark in the genre, "The Lion King" (to which this production pays playful homage), or as reductive as the mediocre "The Little Mermaid," "Shrek the Musical" is a fun, largely successful musical version of the first installment of the hugely successful film franchise. Only the daunting economic climate could get in the way of this show becoming a family audience Broadway hit.

Plenty of impressive theatrical talent has been assembled here, including director Jason Moore ("Avenue Q"), composer Jeanine Tesori ("Caroline, or Change") and lyricist/book writer David Lindsey Abaire ("Rabbit Hole").

After an opening scene depicting a 7-year-old Shrek being sent off by his parents to fend on his own, the show stays largely faithful to the movie's plot, depicting the love that blossoms between the giant green ogre (Brian d'Arcy James) and the beautiful Princess Fiona (Sutton Foster) while he and his sidekick Donkey (Daniel Breaker) escort her to her impending nuptials with the villainous and very diminutive Lord Farquaad (Christopher Sieber).

Obviously geared for children, the show will not bore their adult chaperones in the least thanks to large doses of the irreverent, often scatological humor that also infused the film and a gay-pride subtext that is exemplified by having the supporting cast of fairy tale characters harmonizing about letting their "Freak Flag" wave. Theater aficionados will enjoy the fleeting references to such shows as "A Chorus Line," "Wicked" and "Dreamgirls," while fans of the movies will appreciate the cameo appearance by Puss 'N Boots.

Tesori's music is more functional than fabulous, but there are plenty of lively uptempo numbers and several affecting ballads. Highlights include "Morning Person," which shows off Foster's physical comic skills as her princess deals rudely with various forest creatures; "I Think I Got You Beat," a hilarious duet between Shrek and Fiona in which they fall in love and compete to see who can produce the grossest bodily functions; and "What's Up, Duloc," in which Sieber, cleverly costumed to convey Farquaad's small stature, performs a raucous dance number almost entirely on his knees.

Director Moore and scenery/costume designer Tim Hatley have infused the proceedings with plenty of clever visual touches -- such as Pinocchio's (John Tartaglia) ever-growing nose, a fawning Magic Mirror (Tartaglia again), a giant puppet dragon (yup, Tartaglia) and a hilarious Gingerbread Man -- that often recall their respective efforts on "Avenue Q" and "Spamalot."

The lead performers deliver beautifully sung and wonderfully comic performances that give the show a winning human dimension: Although Breaker's Donkey was both a little too fey and not quite manic enough, he garners the requisite laughs; Sieber is hysterically hammy as the dwarfish Farquaad; Foster is feminine charm personified as Fiona; and d'Arcy James is utterly endearing as the title character even with the handicap of being unrecognizable beneath his extensive makeup.

DreamWorks to build theme park in Dubai

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hD4vGfiLCxoaS_tgEmMyM5UqPPhQ

DreamWorks to build theme park in Dubai
1-20-8

DUBAI (AFP) — DreamWorks, the US studio behind the hit box-office animated movie "Shrek", is to build a theme park in the booming Gulf emirate of Dubai.

The studio has signed an agreement with Tatweer, a subsidiary of state-owned investment firm Dubai Holding, to develop the project which includes restaurants, hotels and retail outlets, the Khaleej Times newspaper reported on Sunday.

The Western-oriented emirate of Dubai, one of seven that make up the United Arab Emirates, is a leisure hub in the oil-rich Gulf and draws millions of visitors every year.

Under a deal concluded last September, Warner Brothers will also set up a theme park in the UAE capital, Abu Dhabi.

A hotel, several multiplex cinemas and a joint film and computer game development fund will also be created as part of the deal between Warner Brothers, the Abu Dhabi Media Company and real estate developers ALDAR.

Paramount in HD-DVD blow

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea637496-bd8d-11dc-b7e6-0000779fd2ac.html

Paramount in HD-DVD blow
By Matthew Garrahan and Mariko Sanchanta in Las Vegas
Published: January 8 2008

Paramount is poised to drop its support of HD-DVD following Warner Brothers' recent backing of Sony's Blu-ray technology, in a move that could sound the death knell of HD-DVD and bring the home entertainment format war to a definitive end.

Paramount and DreamWorks Animation, which makes the Shrek films, came out in support of HD-DVD last summer, joining General Electric's Universal Studios as the main backers of the Toshiba format.

However, Paramount, which is owned by Viacom, is understood to have a clause in its contract with the HD-DVD camp that would allow it to switch sides in the event of Warner backing Blu-ray, according to people familiar with the situation.

Paramount is set to have a bumper 2008 with several likely blockbusters, including the latest instalment in the Indiana Jones franchise, slated for release.

Paramount joining the Blu-ray camp would leave HD-DVD likely to suffer the same fate as Sony's now obsolete Betamax video technology, which lost out to VHS in a similar format war in the 1980s.

Warner's decision last week to throw its weight behind Blu-ray saw it join Walt Disney, 20th Century Fox and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer as backers of the Sony format.

The Warner move gives Blu-ray about 70 per cent of Hollywood's output, although the format's grip on film content will increase further when Paramount comes aboard.

It is unclear whether DreamWorks Animation has the same get-out clause in its contract with the HD-DVD camp. However, Paramount and DreamWorks have a close relationship, with Paramount distributing DreamWorks Animation films.

The two companies also signed their HD-DVD contracts at the same time.

Meanwhile, Universal has declined to comment on its next- generation DVD plans following the Warner move.

Sir Howard Stringer, chief executive of Sony, yesterday held out an olive branch to its rival in the next-generation DVD format wars following Warner's decision to back Blu-ray.

Sir Howard said the company would be "open to dialogue" with the rival high-definition HD-DVD camp to "grow the market". The move came as new figures showed that Blu-ray had opened up a decisive lead over the rival home entertainment format.

Sir Howard said: "We are not going to push people around. We'll talk to anyone . . . we have a lot of work to do to grow the market. We'll be systematic and open to dialogue at all times."

He added that Sony still had "a lot of work" to do to get Blu-ray "widely accepted" among American consumers.

Who on Earth Would Want to Buy Yahoo?

http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/01/who-on-earth-wo.html

Who on Earth Would Want to Buy Yahoo?
By Betsy Schiffman
January 02, 2008

While pundits yap away about how Yahoo is fresh acquisition meat, we find it hard to believe. The company is pretty pricey, with a market cap of roughly $33.5 billion, and the number of businesses that could actually swing it is minuscule.

We understand why internet industry watchers think Yahoo is in play. At the very least, it's in flux. Former CEO Terry Semel was ousted last spring, management is fleeing the scene in droves, and the stock is drifting.

But even if Yahoo's business has been dwarfed by Google, its revenue is still growing (it grew by about 12 percent in the third quarter); and more importantly, co-founders David Filo and Jerry Yang, who own roughly 10 percent of the company, are dead set on executing on a turnaround plan.

The bigger question is who would want Yahoo? The major media players (Time Warner, News Corp., Viacom) are desperate to build out their online media businesses, but probably not to the tune of $33.5 billion. We asked a slew of analysts to weigh in on the odds of potential acquirers, and here's what they had to say:

NBC - The network, which is owned by conglomerate General Electric, has flailed on the web over the last decade, and while it needs to grow its online business, at least one analyst, who asked not to be named, thinks GE is more likely to sell NBC in the next couple years than it is to grow the business. The upshot? The chances that GE would have any interest in buying Yahoo are slim to none.

Microsoft - It just won't die: For at least a year, gossipers keep rehashing the same old rumor that Microsoft is in talks to buy Yahoo. While the company is one of the few businesses positioned to do it (Microsoft has plenty of cash on hand, a rich market cap, and would have no problem raising additional financing) such a deal would be a total disaster for Microsoft, according to Global Equities Research analyst Trip Chowdhry. "Microsoft has all the pieces it needs to build its Live brand. A Yahoo acquisition will disrupt Microsoft's execution, confuse customers, and dilute -- without repair -- Microsoft's brand," Chowdhry says. "The Live brand is youthful, while Yahoo resonates as an internet site for old people."

News Corp. - Rupert Murdoch is in it to win it, and he's willing to spend exorbitant sums of money to own the internet (as evidenced by his $580 million acquisition of MySpace). Still, an outright acquisition of Yahoo isn't really his style. "I think Rupert's been willing to take minority stakes in companies where he can take control," says Pali Research analyst Richard Greenberg. "I'm skeptical of the portal business in general and with the MySpace acquisition, I think News Corp. has some big opportunities to attack portals' core business."

Time Warner - It's been eight years since AOL announced its bid to buy Time Warner in a $165 billion deal. Since then, the AOL business has deteriorated dramatically, and Time Warner has even toyed with the idea of spinning it off. "We've seen how the AOL Time Warner merger just didn't work," says Greg Gorbatenko, an analyst with Jackson Securities. "Now AOL's dragging Time Warner down. If you were to introduce Yahoo into the mix, it would be like . . . you gotta be kidding me!"

Viacom - Although Viacom is expected to shop around for acquisitions this year, Yahoo is probably not on the shopping list. "We would expect Viacom to be more active in buying online assets in 2008, but these acquisitions would be small-to-medium moderately sized deals. A large acquisition, the size of Yahoo, would surprise us," says Laura Martin, Soleil-Media Metrics analyst. "It's more important for Viacom to get their core business in shape, and resolve issues with DreamWorks."

We're not saying a deal won't happen -- anything is possible -- but it seems a little far fetched to us.

Tom Cruise Had Spielberg's Family Doctor Picketed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/29/tom-cruise-had-spielberg_n_74731.html

Tom Cruise Had Spielberg's Family Doctor Picketed By Scientologists
Katherine Thomson
November 29, 2007

Deep in the December issue of Vanity Fair is an interesting throw-away line about Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg. Bryan Burrough wrote a lengthy article called:

Showdown at Fort Sumner

Two years after Paramount purchased DreamWorks, Hollywood is transfixed by one of the nastiest breakups ever. As Sumner Redstone and David Geffen went to war (over Steven Spielberg?), the author got it from both sides.


The article is online, and on page 3 of the online copy, at the end of a paragraph on Tom Cruise being "fired" by Redstone, is this:

Spielberg felt the actor's antics had hurt his own movie, 2005's War of the Worlds. Far worse, though, had been an episode when Spielberg told Cruise the name of a doctor who had prescribed medication to a relative and the doctor's office was subsequently picketed by Scientologists.

The Cruise dismissal, however, was nothing compared to the sudden firing of Freston as Viacom's C.E.O., two weeks later....


Vanity Fair has stringent fact checkers. To repeat "when Spielberg told Cruise the name of a doctor who had prescribed medication to a relative and the doctor's office was subsequently picketed by Scientologists."

The sentence begs the question, what kind of doctor and medication? Could it be psychiatric? Cruise and Scientology have a well-documented opposition to psychiatry, and now it seems Spielberg has a documented dislike of Cruise.