That's a strange article. There certainly are cycles to genres, but I don't know if I buy the examples he's using.
28 Days Later made $10 million in its opening weekend. 28 Weeks Later made... $9.8 million. I'm sure they hoped it would do better, but that's not exactly a shocking decline, especially when there were 4 years between the two movies.
Hostel came out in the dead zone of January. A year later, they gambled and released the sequel against summer blockbusters. They lost.
Whereas Saw and its sequels all came out in late October. So did The Ring, and The Grudge, and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and some other horror movies that made a lot of money because, hello, it's October. If the next Saw does badly, I'd be more convinced that there's been a real change in what audiences want to see. Disturbia's PG13, and I think more suspense/horror, but it's still going strong after 2 months.
I know that freaky J-horror inspired Messengers movie has an entire wall of rented-out empty boxes at my local chain video store. That doesn't say the genre is falling out of favor to me.
Yes, specifically the ghost-themed scarefests relying on suspense rather than scaly monsters that have been coming out of Japan since Ringu.
Looks like ABC will be showing the first three Harry Potter films from 7/6-7/8, and during the breaks will be showing little tidbits from OotP. They'll most likely be online at the main HP websites (Mugglenet, Leaky Cauldron, etc.) soon afterwards.
My final word on Hostel part II is that it was a good movie I'd rather not have seen.
Yes, specifically the ghost-themed scarefests relying on suspense rather than scaly monsters that have been coming out of Japan since Ringu.
More specifically, the American remake cycle of same that THE RING (as opposed to RINGU) made so profitable.
As for the rows of empty rented-out boxes means people are probably saying "I can wait for home viewing" since I don't think MESSANGERS did all that well the box office (apart from maybe the first week). That's a whole other discussion there (the wait for DVD phenom).
Just saw
Waitress
and really enjoyed it. Both Keri Russell and Nathan Fillion (yum!) were fantastic, of course, and Adrienne Shelly was just luminous. I loved
every scene with Jenna's waitress friends, from "Earl, we just think your hair is super-attractive!" to their sweet little made-up song about Jenna's baby.
The one thing that I wasn't sure about was
Earl, who seemed a little too one-dimensional to me. At least, I'd like to believe the character was a stereotype rather than a realistic portrayal; he was so childish and irrational and quick to anger, it made my skin crawl to watch him. The moment when Jenna tells him, calmly and firmly, to get out of her life for good, was triumphant, a great scene.
And ITA with Matt's comments above:
I wanted Jenna and Dr. Pomitter to be together, but I was also happy, in the end, that Jenna broke off the affair because of his wife. It made me sad, because it was clear that they had a real connection (I mean, she called him her best friend!) and I wanted those crazy kids to make it work. But I also think one theme of the movie was about choosing the kind of person you want to be, and I like that Jenna chose to be the kind of person who wouldn't ruin someone else's marriage. Though I do wonder about why Dr. Pomitter's marriage -- why did he get involved with Jenna, was he happy in his marriage, and if not, was he going to break it off anyway? I would have liked to see more of a resolution to that storyline, but in the end, it wasn't his story; the movie belonged to Jenna and Lulu.
Now I think I want some pie.
Waitress:
I really liked the way they portrayed the husband:
completely unlikeable, unsympathetic, and yet, pathetic. He wasn't evil; he was a spoiled little boy throwing tantrums. He wasn't a stock "Bad Husband" character. I liked his depiction because he never beat her. He got physically violent a couple times, but he never hurt her. It's an important distinction, to me, because so many women - and their friends and family - convince themselves that abuse isn't happening because no one's being beaten. Only physical abuse, physical hurt, "counts". I've heard it said: "Well, does he hit you? Has he hurt you? No? Well, then, it can't be that bad, can it? Maybe you need to be nicer to him." This movie, and the actors, did an excellent job of showing the damage caused by emotional abuse. I'm hoping it will show some people who need to get the idea what psychological abuse is.
Earl was indeed
a realistic portrayal; take my word for it. That was basically my ex. I loved it when Jenna told him to get out, but I don't believe for a second that he would actually have left her alone. But Earl stalking Jenna would have skewed off into a very different movie, so I understand why they left it alone.
I also thought I would
hate the affair aspect, but I didn't; I agree that it was about Jenna learning how to be loved, and in the end, his marriage made it easier for her to choose to leave him, to go and live her own life. It also made their love affair equitable: if she had been cheating and he had not, there would have been inequality between them.
Japanese ghost-story horror movies
scare the living fuck out of me.
Oh, a friend of mine told me something about PotC3 that may be important (I haven't yet seen it):
He said they cut out some important exposition about how if your love waits for you for ten years, you're free of the curse and become mortal again.
Does that make sense in the context of the movie? He said it made a big difference in understanding what characters were doing, and that it was dumb to cut it out.
It doesn't so much make a difference as it does recast the ending. I think they changed the story (deliberately or no) by not having that made clear.
