Review: Carell shines in fine ‘Dan in Real Life’

Saturday, October 27th, 2007 - No Comments »

40 year old virginBy Tom Charity
Special to CNN

(CNN) — So far as I can see, Steve Carell is a rather unremarkable fellow — which makes him quite an unusual movie star.

He’s short and slight and a square. Save for the Old Testament look he tried on in “Evan Almighty,” he’s maintained the same boring businessman haircut for as long as he’s been in the public eye (and well before that, I’ll bet).

He’s not a prankster like Jim Carrey or a crack-up like Robin Williams; he’s more the Jack Lemmon type (it’s easy to imagine him in a remake of “The Apartment”). His awkward, inadequate ordinariness is his selling point. He’s the fool who suffers frustration, humiliation and rejection on our behalf, and the joke is always on him.

If Carell looked swamped in “Evan Almighty,” he’s firmly back in his comfort zone in “Dan in Real Life.” This is his most assured and rounded performance to date.

In the opening few minutes we watch Dan dispensing sage parenting tips in print — the movie’s title is also the name of his advice column — and keeping a too-tight rein on his three growing daughters. A widower, he’s working his socks off to keep it all together.

It sounds like the setup for a sitcom, but never mind. No sooner has Dan driven the kids to Poppy and Nana’s house for the annual family get-together in off-season Rhode Island than he’s meeting cute with Juliette Binoche in a secondhand bookstore.

Binoche in a secondhand bookstore: that nails the audience for Peter Hedges’ movie right there. This is not Judd Apatow raunch we’re talking about. Hedges had a minor Sundance hit with “Pieces of April” some years ago, and is best remembered for his screenplay “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?” Like those films, “Dan in Real Life” coats melancholy observation in gentle character comedy and a soupcon of farce.

Binoche — Marie, naturellement — is “the One.” Or in Dan’s case, I guess, the “second One.” He feels it, and even though she’s barely gotten a word in edgewise, we’re given to understand she feels it too.

Unfortunately, she has a boyfriend. And wouldn’t you know — he turns out to be Dan’s younger brother Mitch (Dane Cook), a reformed skirt-chaser who announces himself besotted. Too decent do the dirty on his own kin, Dan tries to keep his infatuation to himself. The results are every bit as rueful as you would hope.

Indeed, Dan scarcely makes a good decision in the entire movie. He’s rude and ridiculous and miserable. But you have to feel for the guy. He’s in love.

Anyway, what’s the alternative? Root for Dane Cook? I don’t think so, not even when he’s underplaying as sweetly as he does here. Cook and Binoche — that’s like a Camembert and peanut butter sandwich. Some things just aren’t meant to be.

A braver movie might have scrapped the meet-cute (easily the silliest and least convincing scene in the picture) and allowed Marie and Dan to fall in love with full knowledge of their impossible situation. Binoche did something equally untoward in Louis Malle’s “Damage” — not a laugh riot, admittedly.

But if Hedges is pulling his punches just a little, he’s only prepared to flirt with the farcical aspects of Dan’s predicament without sacrificing the character’s credibility. It’s Dan’s — that is, Carell’s — forlorn attempt to keep some modicum of self-respect that’s so endearing.

There’s enough going on between Carell and Binoche — she’s a deliciously expressive actress — that the film works as a mature romance and not just as another formulaic comedy. This time, the last laugh goes to Mr. Carell. And well deserved, too.

“Dan in Real Life” is rated PG-13 and runs 98 minutes. For Entertainment Weekly’s take,

Highest-Grossing Scary Movies Of All Time

Thursday, October 25th, 2007 - 1 Comment »

jaws

Few horror flicks achieve blockbuster status, but plenty make frightfully good coin.

Scary movies have been around since a German vampire named Nosferatu made his silent-screen debut in 1922. Thanks to their generally low production costs and freakishly devoted audiences, many of these shock fests are goldmines, especially for smaller studios looking to build a rep.

The Halloween spirit helps too. Two weeks ago, stylish vamp flick 30 Days of Night, brainchild of Ghost House Pictures and Sony (nyse: SNE - news - people ) Entertainment, was the box-office leader with $16 million in ticket sales–trumping Ben Affleck’s directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone ($6 million) and the Rendition ($4.1 million), starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Reese Witherspoon, both of which opened the same weekend.

“Horror is the genre that small distributors exploit to build their studio, like New Line in the 1980s [with The Nightmare On Elm Street franchise] and LionsGate now,” says Brandon Gray, founder and president of Box Office Mojo, a movie-research company.

In Pictures: Highest Grossing Scary Movies Of All Time

While eight of the 10 highest-grossing horror movies appeared before 1980, studios are still gleefully butchering. One of them, LionsGate Entertainment, has made some 20 horror movies since 2000, including the grisly Hostel and Saw series. The fourth Saw installment is due out Oct. 26.

Most horror movies don’t break the $100 million mark at the domestic box office, but they do appear quite profitable. “It doesn’t cost a lot of money to create scares, and [the studios] don’t have to higher elite talent,” says Gray.

According to Box Office Mojo, the Saw movies have brought in $228 million in ticket sales so far, though the films only cost $15.7 million to produce (all dollars adjusted to current prices). Hostel has nabbed $64.9 million in receipts on just $15.1 million in production costs.

Production does not include marketing expenses, which could be a fraction of–or in the extreme, slightly more than–the production costs. That still leaves a heap behind. Throw in aftermarket sales from rentals and DVDs and many horror flicks look like cash cauldrons.

The profit equation tends to hold for sequels, too. While box office receipts generally fall with each new installment, so do the marketing dollars.

That’s why in August Dimension Films (part of the Weinstein Company) was willing to release a remake of the original Halloween (the ninth movie in that franchise), even though it brought in just $57 million at the box office, vs. $132 million (adjusted to present dollars) for the original classic in 1978. Production costs for the original: a mere $1 million.

So, which flicks have carved up the competition at the box office over the years?

Topping the list: Jaws, released in 1975 and directed by Steven Spielberg. Everyone’s favorite great white shark pulled in $842 million at the theaters. Jaws 2, the only sequel to make the top 10 on this list, came in at No. 7 with $228 million. (All figures are adjusted to current average prices, or $6.58 per ticket.)

The Exorcist earned the No. 2 spot with $727 million at the box office back in 1973. M. Night Shyamalan’s ghost-thriller The Sixth Sense curled its dead fingers around the No. 3 spot, with $378 million, while his Signs, about spooky crop circles, came in at No. 6.

The original House of Wax, released in 1953, hit No. 4, followed by Hitchcock’s Psycho at No. 5, the original Amityville Horror (No. 8), Alien (No. 9) and Silence Of The Lambs (No. 10).

movies post

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007 - No Comments »

test movies

Page 19 of 19« First...«1516171819