With my review and claim that Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a near-masterpiece, I don’t believe it’s possible to get more hyperbolic about this film. Perhaps my fourth viewing, which will inevitably take place soon, could make that happen. Why such grand enthusiasm for a slow-burn “thriller” that’s splitting plenty of folks? Well, go see for yourself.

Thankfully for you lot, director Tomas Alfredson‘s film is expanding into 800 theaters today. To further urge you wise readers to go see the film, Focus Features was kind enough to give us these exclusive behind-the-scenes shots of Alfredson shooting the breeze and working with Gary Oldman and John Hurt on set. They’re black and white, meaning they’re all prestigious and such.

If you want more info on Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, make sure to give our interviews with Mark Strong and Gary Oldman and Tomas Alfredson a read. To learn even more, I also highly recommend checking out a behind-the-scenes video the Matt Patches posted on Hollywood.com, which gives insight into one of the film’s best scenes.

Oh, James Franco, you make the most fun decisions! According to THR, actor-author-writer-director-unsatisfied Oscar host-student-man about town-seeker-performance artist-soap star Franco is in negotiations to star in MGM’s adaptation of Neil Strauss‘s The Game, a “part memoir, part how-to guide” on how to land chicks. Not content to stay in any sort of performance box at all, Franco won’t be starring as the Strauss surrogate, but as Mystery.

You know Mystery. Even if you don’t know Mystery, you know Mystery. Mystery is better known as “The Pick-Up Artist,” the self-declared title he uses to shill his lady-getting techniques, the very same that he taught Strauss on his mystical, magical journey to be a dude in demand. Mystery even had his own VH1 reality show! Called, you guessed it, The Pick-Up Artist! Oh, also, he’s not attractive in the least and looks as if he shops almost exclusively at Spencer’s Gifts. I know that men bemoan that they don’t know what women want, but I can clearly declare, as a woman, I don’t want Mystery. But what I may want is Franco in the role, because it sounds just a little bit too funny and too perfect.

Brian Koppelman and David Levien (Ocean’s Thirteen, The Girlfriend Experience, Rounders) are writing and directing the film. The film has been bounced around Hollywood – first at Columbia with Chris Weitz to direct, then it went over to Spyglass with D.B. Weiss scripting, until it went to Lionsgate for Rawson Marshall Thurber (if you can dodge a terrible project, you can dodge a ball), before almost going to Fox Searchlight. It’s now at MGM, with Chris and Paul Weitz down to produce it, along with Paul Schiff and Andrew Miano.

For some fun Mystery action, check out his “indicators of interest” chat below. Sorry, Mystery, I am not interested.

This week, Fat Guy Kevin Carr looks at his list of New Year’s resolutions. However, since he was a little drunk when he wrote them and his handwriting is sloppy, he thinks it reads to “exorcise more” instead of “exercise more.” So, he hops a plane to Rome and sneaks out to the theater late at night to check out the latest first-of-the-year release, The Devil Inside. After waking up from a quick nap in the theater as a result, Kevin heads back to the states to catch some last-minute award films in limited release.

Want to hear what Kevin has to say on the Fat Guys at the Movies podcast? Click here to listen as Kevin is joined by Rudie Obias from The AuteurCast and ShockYa to bemoan the January release.

THE DEVIL INSIDE
Studio: Paramount Insurge

Rated: R for disturbing violent content and grisly images, and for language including some sexual references

Starring: Fernanda Andrade, Simon Quarterman, Evan Helmuth, Ionut Grama and Suzan Crowley

Directed by: William Brent Bell

What it’s about: In 1989, a woman killed three members of the Catholic clergy who were giving her an exorcism. Years later, she was taken to Rome to be institutionalized. In 2009, her daughter tries to determine if she is in fact possessed and needs another exorcism.

What makes the grade: Not much. In situations like this, I often say, “Well, at least it was in focus.” Unfortunately, this movie isn’t. I like a good exorcism movie (like the original The Exorcist) now and then. Heck, I like a lame exorcism movie (like last year’s January release The Rite) now and then. But I never like a bad exorcism movie (like this one).

What fails: It’s clear that Paramount is trying to recreate the lightning in a bottle that resulted from the Parnormal Activity franchise with this new found footage film. Not only is this genre getting tedious and overwrought, The Devil Inside doesn’t even strive for any sort of cinéma vérité realism.

The bulk of the film takes place in Rome, but few people actually speak Italian, rather they use bad Italian accents and speak English. There’s a scene where a teenage girl has been possessed for some time, contorting and writhing under the demon’s influence, yet she has immaculately shaved arm pits. The priests involved tend to be real exorcists, but they just stand around the body screaming and pressing religious objects to her head.

Then there’s the filmmaking style, which is supposedly shot by an experience documentary filmmaker. However, even though he has a steady rig set up, the picture wobbles more than behind-the-scenes footage shot by Disney Channel stars with a FlipCam. Making things even more nauseating, the camera zooms in and out constantly, going in and out of focus every few seconds.

Finally, there’s the ending, which is quickly become notorious for being booed by audiences around the country, not because it’s offensive or upsetting but because it’s so weak. I won’t spoil anything for you masochists out there who want to experience it for themselves, but it’s a stinker, let me tell you.

Who is gonna like this movie: People who never have seen a good exorcism movie and don’t mind a terrible ending.

THE IRON LADY
Studio: The Weinstein Company

Rated: PG-13 for some violent images and brief nudity

Starring: Meryl Streep, Harry Lloyd, Richard E. Grant, Jim Broadbent and Anthony Head

Directed by: Phyllida Lloyd

What it’s about: Meryl Streep really wants an Oscar, so she plays Margaret Thatcher in this new biopic about her life from a young politician to a fallen British leader.

What makes the grade: Each award season, there’s a rash of films that serve little purpose beyond being an acting spotlight for a star. The best example from recent years that comes to mind is A Single Man, which wasn’t a bad flick but clearly made so Colin Firth would have a chance at winning an Oscar.

Similarly, The Iron Lady exists to get some awards and accolades for Meryl Streep. As expected, her performance as Margaret Thatcher is quite good, and she manages the difficult task of not making her a caricature. So kudos to Streep for playing the role well. I suppose those interested in Thatcher’s life will enjoy this film quite a bit.

What fails: However, the rest of the film seems rather pointless to me. Considering the fact that the BBC recently aired The Rise and Fall of Margaret Thatcher which examines this lady’s life in greater detail and more cohesion, the movie seems unnecessary.

Anyone unfamiliar with the day-to-day working of British government or the historical context behind Thatcher’s reign might find much of the film obtuse and hard to follow. Additionally, a certain amount of pre-knowledge is needed to know who is who in the Thatcher family. So big, dumb Americans like myself might be a little lost or bored.

Oh, and it also inspired a political ad for Michele Bachmann in the Republican primaries. That can’t be good.

Who is gonna like this movie: Fans of Meryl Streep and those who know the historical context.

PARIAH
Studio: Focus Features

Rated: R for sexual content and language

Starring: Kim Wayans, Stephanie Andujar, Nina Daniels, Aasha Davis and Charles Parnell

Directed by: Dee Rees

What it’s about: Alike is a high school girl in Brooklyn struggling with the understanding that she is a lesbian. Facing discrimination at school, casual sexual encounters and reject from her parents, she has to come to terms with her own identity.

What makes the grade: A forgotten little film that got buried during the award season push, Pariah is a honest and frank portrayal of identity and sexuality. It does not fetishize lesbians (which is often the case in Hollywood), but rather shows how someone comes to terms with herself.

Not being a woman, lesbian or poor African American living in Brooklyn, there was little that I can relate to in this movie, but its triumph is getting someone like me to find a certain connection the with character. It’s not a perfect film, but it opens up some issues that are otherwise ignored by an industry that thinks it’s so progressive but is really quite stuffy and hung up.

What fails: The biggest hurdle Pariah has is the aforementioned problem it has at times connecting completely with an audience. It’s made about and for a very narrow segment of society, which will limit is exposure, I’m sure. That’s not necessarily a complaint about the film but rather an observation about why you haven’t heard much about this movie before now.

Also, I question certain aspects of this movie, particularly how easy it is to find lesbians trolling around the Fort Green area of Brooklyn. After all, while Alike has consistent trouble finding anyone to relate to in her neighborhood, she runs into lesbians all over the place. Correct me if I’m wrong on this one. Like I said before, I’m not a woman, lesbian or poor African American living in Brooklyn.

Finally, as realistic and heartbreaking it is to see the outright rejection from the family, Pariah does lay things on a bit thick, threatening at times to become a caricature of itself.

Who is gonna like this movie: Fans of the micro-budget, urban character study.

What is Movie News After Dark? If you have to ask, then maybe it’s not for you.

We begin this evening with a shot of Noomi Rapace in Prometheus. The former Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is going interstellar for director Ridley Scott, whose return to big sci-fi has made my own 5 most anticipated of 2012 short list when I delivered such picks on this week’s Reject Radio. It seems a fitting start to the final News After Dark of the week.

The folks at Den of Geek have an interesting take on last week’s episode of Sherlock, which featured Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock going up against Lara Pulver’s Irene Adler. It was a sizzler of an episode, one that brings Steven Moffat’s series back into the forefront of international television. No mystery there. It’s just well-written.

Seth Rogen has been threatening to make a full-length movie about Jay and Seth vs. the Apocalypse, a popular short he made with Jay Baruchel. Now Rogen will make his directorial debut with the film, according to Collider.

We feature art tonight courtesy of F**k Yeah Movie Posters, a site that has sprung from the lurid halls of Tumblr to be a daily read for yours truly. In this edition, we get a poster for Wrong, the upcoming film from Rubber director Quentin Dupieux. The oddball filmmaker will debut his latest gem at Sundance later this month, where we will undoubtedly review it. Yes, we’re appropriately excited.

“Community has not been canceled. It will definitely be back this spring.” That’s NBC’s Bob Greenblatt talking about the future of everyone’s favorite show. To his credit, he expressed an interest in finding a way to bring the show back for a fourth season. But much of that will depend on you, dear readers. Get whatever friends, family and others who own TV sets to watch it when it comes back. Do it.

“I was just discussing becoming the creative director for the Jetson movie and someone on the call yelled out.. you should do a Jetsons tour!” Kanye West to do something with a Jetsons movie. Even after reading his entire Twitter tirade, I have no idea what that means. I was simply surprised to find out that someone still wants to do a Jetsons movie.

One of more lovely ladies on the web, Loquacious Muse presents her 10 Best Films of 2011. I’m not one to publicize others’ lists, but I’ve got a bit of a crush on this one. You should too, as she makes some good picks. What?… Get your minds out of the gutter.

The Onion gets it, as always. This time it’s the spirit of independent film.

The folks over at the delightful young culture blog We Love Cult have an interview with Portlandia co-writer/director Jonathan Krisel, whose show comes back this week. Raise your hand if you can’t wait! (Note: I am now typing with one hand.)

We close this evening’s brief but scintillating News After Dark with the trailer for the 84th Annual Academy Awards show. This year’s Oscar trailer involves digging up Billy Crystal, as only the stars of Transformers: Dark of the Moon can. Goddamn Fichtner makes everything work.

The other day the venerable Cole Abaius reported on a rumor that Matt Damon was no longer going to be making his directorial debut on an upcoming project about a sales executive who has his life changed when he travels to a small town. The reason Damon was backing off the project was said to be “script issues,” but this sounded absurd because Damon is a co-writer on the film and he still intends on starring in it. So how could he possibly have issues with the script that would preclude him from directing?

Deadline Scranton has some more information about the conflict. It turns out the real reason Damon is stepping back from directing the film is because his busy schedule just isn’t going to allow him to get the job done right. So what is one to do when you’re this far along on a project that you can no longer direct? If you’re Matt Damon you just call up your old buddy Gus Van Sant. If you recall, Van Sant was the director of Good Will Hunting, the first film that Damon co-wrote and the one he got an Oscar for.

Apparently Van Sant was the first director Damon and his co-writer John Krasinski took the script to, and he has already agreed to come on board; so that problem is taken care of. But Damon is going to have to wait for another day if he wants to add the title of director to his resume. Somewhere Ben Affleck must be laughing maniacally.

It’s been a long time since we’ve talked about producer Dan Jinks trying to get a live action version of Pinocchio together over at Warner Bros. So long that many people probably assumed that the project was dead. That’s not the case though. As a matter of fact, it’s probably about to get quite a bit of attention. THR is reporting that none other than Tim F’n Burton has taken an interest in the Pinocchio script, which was written by Pushing Daisies creator Bryan Fuller.

And I know what you’re thinking already…who wants to see a version of Pinocchio starring Johnny Depp as the puppet and Helena Bonham Carter as Geppetto in drag? Don’t be so quick to judge. Early reports don’t say anything about Depp or Carter at all. As a matter of fact, apparently Burton wants Robert Downey Jr. to come on board to be his Italian puppeteer. How’s that for a switch?

Don’t go writing this all in stone though. While talks have begun, neither Burton nor Downey yet have deals with Warners, and whether or not they get made is going to come down to everybody’s schedules synching up. These guys are super busy and Warners reportedly wants to get this movie made as soon as possible, so there is still a chance that it could be moved in a different direction.

Personally, I’m rooting for it all to come together. Say what you will about things like Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood, but I’ve grown tired of the Burton and Depp pairing, and I would be really interested to see if working with another high profile actor got Burton’s creative juices flowing in any different directions. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. And also, there’s still probably a really good chance that Depp will just play Pinocchio.

Why Watch? Because everyone deserves to have a little fun now and then. And guest week here on Short Film of the Day is going to start with just that. While Cole Abaius is off battling large blonde men for the right to have high speed internet in Germany, we are filling your lives with good ole’ American ingenuity. As in, we will be planning Short Films at the very last moment every single day.

We begin our week with a hefty dose of nerdity It’s something in which the folks behind the How It Should Have Ended short series specialize in the most dastardly of ways. They’ve made some semblance of a living taking high geek properties and spinning them in unique ways that always have internet commentators saying, “I’ve been saying that for years! LOLz” This particular offering is like a bowl full of Ben & Jerry’s Nerd Bait ice cream topped with whipped dork cream, chocolate geek sauce and well, a simple cherry. And as gross as that actually sounds, you know you’d eat it — especially if it was all part of a clash between the Terminator and Back to the Future franchises. Come with us if you want to live… At least for the next 150 seconds.

What does it cost? Just two minutes and thirty seconds of your otherwise mundane Monday.

Admit it. You’ve got time to watch more Short Films.

The Devil Inside is the talk of the town for two reasons: number one, it made around $35 million in its opening weekend, which is big no matter what qualifier you tack on, but when that qualifier is a reported $1 million acquisition cost, it’s gigantic. Number two (heheh), it sucks. It sucks bad.

That’s nothing new, really, as everything about The Devil Inside screams shitty movie. First of all, it’s from the team that brought you Stay Alive. Second, it’s found footage. Third, it’s an exorcism movie. I’m surprised that people went to see it, because you list those three qualities and I am about as far from interested as possible.

But rather than just throw another voice on the “what the fuck” bonfire, I wanted to take a few minutes and examine what we can learn from this situation.

First, CinemaScore is apparently both useless and broken. For those of you that don’t know, CinemaScore is market research firm that uses test audiences to grade movies and then predict their box office. The Devil Inside accomplished the rare feat of being granted a CinemaScore of F. CinemaScore says that any film getting a C is generally going to be a failure, while films that achieve the F rating are disasters that shouldn’t even be released. The Devil Inside marks only the sixth time a film has been given an F rating.

Clearly, we can see that the CinemaScore is not always accurate; you don’t finish first with over $34 million if your film is a failure that shouldn’t have been released in the first place. Further, when the grade breakdown was revealed, mathematically speaking The Devil Inside seemed that it should have been ranked somewhere around a C. Now, what exactly goes into the decision of the final grade we don’t know, but it would seem that this system is far from perfect.

We also learn from this experience that audiences love horror, but more narrowly, audiences love original or new horror. It doesn’t matter that The Devil Inside is just another in a long line of shitty exorcism movies because it is, at least, not a sequel, prequel, or remake. Horror movies traditionally make good money at the box office, especially original movies which tend to be lower budget, as their margin for success is considerably lower. If you look at the career of Rob Zombie, his small films come in under $10 million and generally make more than $12 million domestically. I find this relevant as his small films don’t have wide audiences and are a bit off kilter, yet people want original horror. You can contrast this with a bigger budget prequel/remake from 2011, The Thing, which opened around $8 million and finished near $16 million with a production budget of almost $40 million.

I think it would be smart to take away from this that original movies fare better than remakes or sequels and that smaller budgets can generate good returns. In the case of The Devil Inside, the minuscule budget is unknown, but it’s said that it was acquired for a price of $1 million. If I were a gambling man, I’d say that puts the filming costs of the film below $250,000. Obviously a fair bit of money was spent in the advertising, which paid off to the tune of $34 million. No matter what accounting method you use, this film is in the black already.

Unfortunately, another lesson that we learned is that for some reason found footage movies are not shooing away audiences. This one I don’t get as I’m not a fan of a single one. I dug Cloverfield, but think it would have been far better as a regular movie. The Blair Witch Project didn’t blow me away, but it was pretty effective and among the best of the genre would probably be [REC]. Still, I generally think “found footage” is a gimmick that no one falls for – no one thinks this is real, so why do? I’m not just a fan of the method of story telling, I think it looks shitty and doesn’t make sense. In a movie like Cloverfield, why the fuck would anyone spend time getting reaction shots or point the camera away from the giant awesome monster tearing up the city? Found footage blows, but apparently it still earns.

I guess congratulations are in order to those involved with the movie – they pulled one off here, against all odds, this pile of shit won the weekend and made a lot of cash. There are valuable lessons to be learned from failure and success and the success of failures. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of films that are more deserving of an audience this wide and the fact that those films don’t get the support they need and the exposure causes me to projectile vomit my  boiling point all over a holy man.

Click here for more Boiling Point

After sitting through the snoozefest ball-kick that was The Devil Inside (refresh your memory of my disdain by giving my review another look), a large part of me hoped that I would never need to think (or write) about the film ever again. Of course, that was before the “found footage” (fauxtage! fauxtage!) flick won the box office for the weekend, despite that F CinemaScore and some of the worst buzz surrounding a film ever. Of course such insipid, uninspired filmmaking would be rewarded! And how, as director and co-writer William Brent Bell has already been signed to direct a new film for Warner Bros.

You will be shocked to learn that the film will be called The Vatican, and that it will also employ the found footage style that The Devil Inside used, though it’s described as “a hybrid.” I, too, am utterly shocked! The film is still in pitch format, and Deadline Atrani describes it as “a conspiracy driven thriller” that will be penned by David Cohen.

Man, William Brent Bell must really hate the Holy See.

But while the attachment of Bell is enough to send me back over to Fure’s Boiling Point from this morning to give my anger a name and a place to rest, it’s possible that The Vatican will not be a total flop. Cohen is a Black List screenwriter, with his Subject Zero garnering a place on the list last year. His No One Lives is also currently in post-production, and was directed by Ryuhei Kitamura (The Midnight Meat Train).

While that’s not enough to give this project a pass (the Black List is not what it used to be and Cohen has yet to see a film of his open in theaters), it’s at least mildly heartening and the one tiny ray of sunshine in a story that proves that cinematic unoriginality and a complete lack of respect for audiences are still rewarded in ol’ Hollywood.

Last week the news broke that Bridesmaids co-writer/star Kristen Wiig doesn’t intend on making a sequel to the film, and is instead focusing on other projects. This is a potential problem, because Bridesmaids made a lot of money, which is going to make it pretty tempting for Universal to go ahead and cobble together some sort of shoddy sequel regardless. It was my opinion that the only way this could work is if they got a great script and shifted Melissa McCarthy’s character to the lead role…but now it’s looking like that strategy probably won’t work out either.

Recently, E! confronted McCarthy about the potential sequel at the Palm Springs International Film Festival and got some pretty choice comments. At one point she tried to go the Judd Apatow route and be diplomatic by saying, “I don’t know anything about it. But I know that nobody wants to do it unless it’s great. If it is, I will show up wherever those ladies are.” That might sound like a willingness on McCarthy’s part to pick up the franchise and run with it, but I think it was more just a brush off answer meant to not limit any possibilities.

The good bit happened when she was asked more specifically about doing the sequel without Wiig involved. “God, I wouldn’t want to,” McCarthy said. “I would never want to. I think it’s a terrible idea.” If McCarthy sticks to her guns, then it sounds to me like a Bridesmaids 2 will probably happen in a direct to video format that we can all just easily ignore. Is that a bullet dodged or an even more depressing eventuality?

Apparently sometimes you can’t go back to that well too many times. Despite critics claiming it’s filled with the same old stuff, audiences weren’t scared enough to avoid The Devil Inside this weekend. In fact, not only did the film hit at #1, it’s generated the third biggest opening in January history behind Cloverfield ($40m in 2008) and Star Wars Special Edition ($35.9m in 1997). The Devil Inside showed a huge upturn in box office for exorcism movies, shadowing recent films like The Rite ($14.7m opening weekend) and The Last Exorcism ($20.3m opening weekend), both of which were PG-13 films. The Devil Inside was struck with an R rating. But we shouldn’t look to that for the reasoning behind such a lucrative opening.

Instead, we have to look at the film’s ending. More so, we have to look at the buzz that was generated late last week because of The Devil Inside‘s ending. Test audiences were angry. Some even booed and yelled expletives at the screen when the film ended. A lot of this buzz came late Thursday night, and people who weren’t planning to see the movie may have changed their mind just to find out what the hell everyone was up in arms about. No, that can’t account for all of The Devil Inside‘s number. Some of that came from fans of the genre who wanted a good scare this weekend, but it had to have been a factor in some capacity. Paramount’s decision to shock people more with an abrupt ending than with anything in the actual context of the movie has seemed to paid off greatly.

Much of the rest of the the weekend was business per usual. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows had decent drops here in their third and fourth weekend in wide release, respectively. Ghost Protocol continues to shine overseas, as well, pulling an additional $287.9m so far in foreign markets on top of the $170m it’s made here in the states. Just under $90m from overtaking Mission: Impossible II’s $546.4m worldwide take, this fourth outing could end up being the biggest one of the franchise and a clear sign for Paramount – man, they’re winning all over right now – to continue with a part five. Who knows? They may even be able to convince Tom Cruise to come back for one last adventure before handing the series over to Jeremy Renner.

It was a good expansion for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, which had a healthy $7,129 per theater average on 809 screens. The mass expansion of the Oscar hopefuls has officially begun with We Need to Talk About Kevin, A Dangerous Method, and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close all continuing to grow in theater count over the course of the month. Not all of them will be successful both in terms of box office as well as Oscar nominations, but it’s easy to pick out the movies studios think they have a shot with.

Here’s how the weekend broke down:

1. The Devil Inside – $34.5m NEW
2. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol – $20.5m (-30.3%) $170.2m total
3. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows – $14m (-32.7%) $157.4m total
4. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo – $11.3m (-23.8%) $76.8m total
5. Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked – $9.5m (-42%) $111.5m total
6. War Horse – $8.6m (-40.4%) $56.8m total
7. We Bought a Zoo – $8.4m (-36.2%) $56.5m total
8. The Adventures of Tintin – $6.6m (-42.3%) $61.8m total
9. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy – $5.7m (+431.3%) $10.4m total
10. New Year’s Eve – $3.2m (-48.5%) $52m total

We can definitely thank The Devil Inside and Paramount for the $122.3m the top 10 made this weekend. That’s up from the first weekend January 2011 when True Grit was topping in its third weekend out. The year before that we had Avatar knocking down every tree in the forest of its competition, so it’s going to take a serious blockbuster to ever overtake that. But what we should be looking at is the positive. Going in, we were expecting the weekend to be the worst in more than a decade, and thanks in large part to Paramount deciding to stir controversy, we have a decent weekend on our hands. Evidently, January doesn’t have to be a graveyard as long as there’s a healthy dose of faux enthusiasm.

Nothing faux about next weekend. At least not with Dolly Parton. She’s au naturale, right? Our first multi-film weekend of the year hits with Joyful Noise, Contraband, and a Beauty and the Beast re-release in 3-D. Judging by how well The Lion King did this past September we might be looking at another bank day for Disney. But don’t underestimate Queen Latifah. Don’t ever underestimate Queen Latifah. That motto has kept me alive for 33 years.

We’ll be back later in the week to see how the weekend is shaping up.

Despite the fact that it seemed like a pipe dream when the idea was first kicked around, development on a feature film version of the failed Starz sitcom Party Down seems to be chugging along steadily and assuredly. First the movie was just a twinkle in its creators eyes, then things started looking better as everyone involved began synching up their schedules, and now the whole thing appears to be a done deal. At least according to Megan Mullally.

At a recent press tour, Mullally answered questions about what she has coming up by saying, “I will be doing the Party Down movie. John [Enbom] is writing it right now.” That’s not exactly new news in itself, we already knew that work was being done on the script; but some of Mullally’s other comments make things sound further along than the last time this project was talked about. First off, Mullally knows some details about where her character is going. She added, “I think we’re going to see Lydia’s ex-husband – Ed I think is name (sic) – who was really racist and a misogynist.” Also, it sounds like financing for the film is all taken care of. Before Enbom started work writing the script proper, Mullally says that he turned in an outline to investors that was “enthusiastically approved.”

So, all systems seem to be a go on this one. Usually I’m not much of a fan of failed shows continuing on as movies, but I think a Party Down film could really work. The episodes were more self-contained mini-movies than anything else, they’ve already shown an ability to get big name actors to guest star in the Party Down universe, and some of the principle actors have gotten more visible since that show went down in flames.

Plus, this isn’t a concept that would call for a very inflated budget. As long as they just sell this thing as a funny comedy and not the continuation of a failed show that nobody knows about, they might have a chance to make the Party Down movie a success, and that would be very encouraging. Fans of failed TV shows need all the reassurance that the apocalypse isn’t coming they can get. [THR]

The proposed live action Akira being developed over at Warner Bros. is slowly and steadily becoming the most talked-about film project of all time. The ups and downs of bringing this beloved story to the big screen have been well documented, but the most recent news made it look like this project might finally be ending its wild ride. Reports came in last week that all work on the film had been halted, the entire thing was being rethought, and maybe it could get scrapped indefinitely. But that was last week.

This week, Variety is reporting that a new strategy for resuscitating director Jaume Collet-Serra’s project is being hatched. It sure didn’t take long to get the roller coaster going again.

Last week’s reports said that the main reason for Akira being halted was that it needed to, yet again, go through some budget cuts. But according to a source that talked to Variety, that’s not exactly the case. While trimming some more fat from the budget is certainly something that Collet-Serra and his producers are looking at, mainly the reason the film is being re-tooled is just that there are still problems with the script they’re working with. Reportedly there are still questions about some character elements and the film’s look. And that’s after this thing has already received rewrites from the likes of Steve Kloves and David James Kelly.

The two names Collet-Serra and company are looking at to come on and once again give this one a going over are Jonathan Nolan or Michael Green. Nolan, as you probably know, is the brother of director Christopher Nolan and has co-written several of his brother’s projects, including The Dark Knight. Michael Green you might not know, but he was a co-writer on last year’s abysmal Green Lantern.

I don’t think there’s much question as to who I believe would be a better choice for pulling this project back from the brink, but I have to say, I still think that this is one that Warner Bros. needs to let go. Why divert this many of your resources toward reviving a property that mainstream audiences haven’t heard of and niche audiences are going to crucify you for touching? Especially when it’s a project that will need so many expensive visual effects to be appropriately adapted. Whether it’s Nolan, or Green, or somebody else, I still think that Akira has box office bomb written all over it.

With a bit of kerfuffle already surrounding even the possibility of a Bridesmaids sequel, and his recent dropping of Bridget Jones 3, comedy director Paul Feig has signed on for what will be his first post-Bridesmaids feature. Feig will next direct The Better Woman, a comedy being set up at Universal (Bridesmaids’ home) that has been penned by Gilmore Girls creator Amy Sherman-Palladino (from an idea by Ron Bass and Jen Smolka). The attachment of both Feig and Sherman-Palladino gets me excited for a film that sounds somewhat basic, as both of them are original talents who have a real knack for elevating material (legions of Gilmore Girls fans can certainly speak to that for Sherman-Palladino, and Feig’s turn with Bridesmaids catapulted the industry veteran into the limelight).

The Better Woman “follows a high-powered young executive who is dumped by her boyfriend for an older woman. She befriends the woman to discover why her boyfriend chose her, and rediscovers herself in the process.” At one point, Reese Witherspoon was attached to the project, but is apparently no longer involved, but that does give us an idea of the sort of plucky young lady the film might be looking at for the lead role.

Interestingly, The Better Woman will be Sherman-Palladino’s first shot at a film screenplay, as her resume is rounded out with lots of other television beyond just Gilmore Girls, including work on Roseanne and Veronica’s Closet. She’s currently working on a new show, Bunheads, that has been picked up by ABC Family.

Feig also cut his teeth with TV, most famously creating Freaks and Geeks, along with directing gigs for The Office, Parks and Recreation, Mad Men, and Nurse Jackie. In terms of feature work, he’s reportedly also developing something for Bridesmaids stand-out Melissa McCarthy. But, for me, he will always be Stanley with the supersweet moves from Ski Patrol:

[Variety, via /Film]

Somehow, I just knew that our “52 Most Anticipated Movies of 2012″ would pay off! You know, eventually. Included on that massive list is 50/50 director Jonathan Levine‘s next film, and while the idea of a sexy zombie story about teens might turn some of you off, I beg you to give it a chance. Based on Isaac Marion‘s 2011 novel of the same name, the film follows young zombie R (Nicholas Hoult) as he grapples with a new twist on the classic zombie story – he’s not dealing with the fall-out of turning into a zombie, he’s trying to come to terms with becoming a human (again).

Young R has been a zombie for, well, he doesn’t even know how long (but not too long, he’s still got meat on his bones), and everything else pre-zombification is just weird memory ether. It’s not there. But all that changes when a beautiful human girl (Teresa Palmer) and some weird happenings begin to dull the desire for brains and blood in R, while also awakening the human that might still lurk inside him. R’s change has not only personal implications, but effects on human-zombie relations at large. That may seem somewhat hard to picture, which is why I’m glad we get our first look at Hoult in his zombie get-up today. Readers of Marion’s excellent book will surely approve of his look, as it matches up with the author’s description of R quite handily.

Check out the full look at Hoult after the break, along with the film’s official synopsis (and some pieces that appear to be missing, as if the body of the book has had a few bites taken out of it by a totally metaphorical zombie).

The full synopsis of Warm Bodies is below. Readers of the book will notice that there’s something missing here – a somewhat essential element of the story, which I’ll discuss a bit after the synopsis, for those spoiler-adverse.

“Zombies love people, especially their brains. But R (Nicholas Hoult) is different. He’s alive inside, unlike the hundreds of other grunting, drooling undead—all victims of a recent plague that drove the remaining survivors into a heavily guarded city. Now the Zombies roam about an airport terminal, searching for human prey and living in fear of the vicious Boneys, the next undead incarnation.

One day, R and his best friend M lumber toward the city in search of food. There, R first sets his eyes on JULIE (Teresa Palmer), a beautiful human. Determined to save her—first from the other Zombies and then from the Boneys—R hides her in his home, a cluttered 747 aircraft. Julie is terrified, and R’s grunted assurances of “Not…eat” do little to calm her. But when R begins to act more human than Zombie, coming to her defense, refusing to eat human flesh, and even speaking in full sentences, Julie realizes that R is special.

After a few close calls with the Boneys, and with her father mounting an armed search for her, Julie realizes she can’t hide forever. So she sneaks back home, leaving R broken-hearted. Desperate to see her, R decides to comb his hair, stand a little straighter, and impersonate a human long enough to get past the city guards. If only he can prove to the humans that Zombies can change, maybe R and Julie’s love might stand a chance. But with the rampaging Boneys heading toward the city and Julie’s father intent on killing R and his Zombie friends, the stage is set for an all-out battle between the living and the undead.

A genre-bending tale of love and transformation, WARM BODIES is a story about a boy who loves a girl…for more than just her body.”

If you’ve read Marion’s book (and I have), you’ll know that R’s transformation doesn’t happen just because of the lovely Julie – it’s aided immeasurably by an unfortunate (and previously unrecorded) side effect of his chowing down on human flesh. R first meets Julie during an intimate battle between R and his friend M (to be played in the film by Rob Corddry, a weird but intriguing choice for the role) and a pack of young humans. During the battle, R takes a bite out of Perry Kelvin, who oops! just so happens to be Julie’s longtime boyfriend. What happens after the feeding shocks R to his core – he begins to experience Perry’s memories and emotions, memories and emotions that allow R to feel some very human feelings, most of them directed at Julie.

Makes a touch more sense, right? But while the exclusion of that plot point (and one that has not been hidden in the marketing of the book) from the official synopsis seems a bit weird, with Dave Franco cast in the role of Perry, I think we’ll be seeing (or feeling) the character more often than not.

Oh, and Perry, the former suitor? And R, the lovestruck new gentleman caller? And Julie, the beautiful young lady? And, well, you wouldn’t be surprised if I told you there was a balcony scene in Warm Bodies, would you? Because there is.

Warm Bodies opens August 10. [Collider]

As I suspect that most reports of this news will fall on the side of snark with a side of pleading with a holy entity to explain why this is befalling humanity, I have chosen to present this news as straight as possible. Otherwise, I might combust. New Line Cinema has hired a director to reboot the Police Academy franchise, a series of seven films from the 80s and 90s that followed the humorous disasters that befell a group of unsuitable police trainees. Because, obviously, there is nothing funnier than the concept of morons, idiots, and losers serving and protecting their community. The series most notably starred Steve Guttenberg and that one guy who made all those sounds.

The reboot was apparently announced back in February, but it appears that I’ve blocked that memory from my mind, because it was simply too heinous and bizarre to remember. New Line has picked Scott Zabielski to direct what we can only assume is the first film in a new franchise, marking Zabielski’s first foray into feature directing. Zabielski’s primary directing credit is as helmer of fifty-one episodes of Comedy Central’s Tosh.0, a job that apparently proves his ability to direct an offering that is almost totally regurgitated clips and jokes. So, somewhat perfect.

Of course, Zabielski comes with another little something to his name that might offer a strange level of veracity to his take on the epic Police Academy story – he’s a cop, too! Oh, that’s too rich. Actually, Zabielski completed his own training in a police academy (though, one most likely lacking in the Gutt), and is a reserve police officer in West Hollywood. Cute, right?

But that doesn’t answer the primary question at the heart of this reboot – who the hell wants a new Police Academy? [Deadline Moscow, via Cinema Blend]

Why Watch? Well, for one thing, you’ll never again see something so closely aligned with the world of octopi that you will call “adorable.” Also because Guest Week here on Short Film of the Day means we’ll be squeezing in a few great animated shorts. Why? Because I love animated shorts.

This particular short was recommended to me by a friend and animator who is an authority on things that are adorable, so it was hard to pass up the opportunity to feature it. Then I sat down and watched it and absolutely fell in love. Oktapodi is a 2009 Oscar nominated short that follows the frantic escape of two Octo-friends from the clutches of an evil mastermind seafood delivery driver. As they fly through the streets of a coastal town, all sorts of ink-laden hijinks ensue. And there’s so much delightful personality in all of it, from the frenetic score to the beautifully rendered, big bulging eyes of our octopi heroes. Behold and be delighted, dear friends.

What will it cost? Just two minutes and 26 seconds of your tumultuous Tuesday.

The answer is yes. You do have more time for Short Films.

Welcome back to This Week In DVD! Not a big or high profile week of releases, but there are some solid titles just the same. And there’s even a theme! Of sorts. More than a few of the titles below far exceeded my expectations including HBO’s Boardwalk Empire which I feared would be little more than a period piece Sopranos, Anna Faris’ latest comedy (What’s Your Number?) that I never expected to be so damn funny and charming, and my pick of the week about the accounting behind the business of baseball. Because seriously, how could that not be boring as dirt?

As always, if you see something you like, click on the image to buy it.

Moneyball

Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), the general manager of the Oakland A’s, tries to end his team’s losing streak with an unorthodox mathematical approach to picking and playing his players. We all know baseball is the most boring team-based sport in the world, so it would seem to follow that a two-hour plus movie about the behind the scenes management of a baseball team would be a complete and utter snooze-fest. But Moneyball is a fascinating watch even when Pitt and Jonah Hill are just bouncing stats back and forth and comparing players. The end feels a bit underwhelming, but getting there is far more interesting and engaging than any baseball game.

Boardwalk Empire: The Complete First Season

Pitch: I wish I’d stop confusing Paz Vega with Paz de la Huerta. It’s just not fair to Paz…

Why Buy? Atlantic City, 1920. Prohibition has made the production, transportation and sale of alcohol an illegal act. It also makes a handful of men very, very rich when they do just that. HBO’s epic series follows the local politicians, gangsters, immigrants, gunmen and more and creates a rich, character driven drama with violence and sex-filled punctuations. Fantastic characters and performances abound, but the four highlights are Steve Buscemi, Michael Pitt, Kelly Macdonald and Michael Stuhlbarg. The DVD is loaded with bonus features too meaning you get a lot of bang for your buck.

1911

Pitch: Jackie Chan’s 100th film takes place the year he was born…

Why Rent? The early 20th century saw China’s grand Qing Dynasty overthrown and the founding of the nation’s new republic take place. It’s a source of great pride in the Communist country, and film goers were treated to a few renditions of the event last year on the 100 year anniversary. Jackie Chan’s 100th film dove-tailed nicely with it all, and he directs and stars in this historical action/drama. The war violence is solid, but it’s a bit too easy to get lost amidst the events, characters and motivations of it all. Still, Chan is as engaging as always and you can never, I repeat never, go wrong with Bing Bing Li.

Answer This!

Pitch: I’ll take generic straight to DVD comedies for $100 Alex…

Why Rent? A college TA (Christopher Gorham) on the fast track to a career and guaranteed tenure (due his father’s place at the university) finds himself at a crossroads between following the expected path and forging a new one. The lovely and big-cheeked Arielle Kebbel plays the “only in the movies” hot girl who is immediately attracted to the trivia-loving geek. This is a harmless and mildly entertaining comedic diversion that you won’t regret watching… even if it is because you’ll almost immediately forget watching it. It’s also advertised as being from “the producer of ‘Funny or Die!’” as if that should mean something to anyone. But in case you’re curious, no, Will Ferrell is not in this movie.

GI Joe: Series 2- Season 1

Pitch: “Got to get tough! Yo Joe! Got to get tough! Yo Joe…”

Why Rent? Shout! Factory continues to fight the good fight with this release of all 24 episodes from the 1989 second series including the 5-part miniseries, “Operation Dragonfire.” The animation is a bit dodgy compared to the first series, but it’s still a fun show for fans who remember playing with the action figures and vehicles. And President Obama could learn a lesson from the episode “General Confusion” which sees the Joes’ budget cut when their costs are viewed as excessive and unnecessary. Can they defeat the liberal bean counters in time to defeat COBRA?

What’s Your Number?

Pitch: Of all the sexist double standards this is most definitely one of them…

Why Rent? A woman (Anna Faris) discovers she’s slept with almost twice the average number of men American women have been with and decides she can’t add any more to the list. So she begins to go back through her dating history in the hopes of finding an ex to marry since they won’t add to her double digit number. But uh oh… she may not be able to resist the charms and pecs of her equally slutty neighbor (Chris Evans)! Both leads are funny here, and they’re joined by several small, supporting performances that also bring the laughs including Joel McHale, Chris Pratt, Andy Samberg, Martin Freeman and more. You probably won’t agree, but I found this to be a far funnier and more “pro-female comedy” than Bridesmaids.

A Darker Reality

Pitch: “You know what scrotum tastes like? I got lots of friends in here…”

Why Avoid? A pair of crazies kidnap and torture women then send clues to a cop and a criminal psychologist. This is an ugly film both in tone and technical style, but while the former can be forgiven in the face of talent the latter proves there’s no talent to be found. Daniel Baldwin, the brother with the lowest self esteem, stars as one of the psychosWhen the highlight of your movie is the possible sighting of an uncredited John Murray (one of Bill’s younger brothers) it really doesn’t bode well for the rest. Skip it and go watch Homicide: Life On the Street instead.

Killer Elite

Pitch: Guns don’t kill people. These guys kill people with guns…

Why Avoid? When Danny’s (Jason Statham) mentor (Robert De Niro) in the espionage game is kidnapped he’s forced to carry out a series of final missions in order to win the old man’s freedom. Clive Owen stars as his mustachioed enemy, and he’s also the only reason for watching the movie. So why is it in the Avoid section? Because there isn’t nearly enough of him in this near six hour long flick. Well, it feels like six hours anyway. It’s reportedly based on a true story, but the action scenes, while underwhelming, still feel far removed from reality. Skip it and go watch The Killer Elite instead.

There Be Dragons

Pitch: Where’s a bald Matthew McConaughey when you need him…

Why Avoid? A journalist (Dougray Scott) is tasked with covering the story of a priest up for sainthood, but his investigation reveals his own father shared a past with the man that included drama, betrayal and the horrors of the Spanish civil war. Director Roland Joffe makes visually attractive films, of which this is one, but unfortunately that’s the only positive this time. The story is a slow slog that moves between the son’s present and his father’s past, but the events never add up to anything of real weight. And you know it’s a lost cause when even Olga Kurylenko can’t save a movie. Skip it and go watch Reign of Fire instead.

Also out this week, but I haven’t seen the movie/TV show, review material was unavailable, and I have no blind opinion:

Arrietty (UK)
Attenberg (UK)
Australia After Dark
Film Socialisme
The Hellstrom Chronicle
Project Nim (UK)

Read More: This Week in DVD

What are you buying on DVD this week?

In a recent article from The Atlantic, business journalist Derek Thompson poses several compelling questions about the business model of contemporary theatrical distribution. Why, he asks, must we pay the same for Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol as we do for Young Adult at our local multiplex? Wouldn’t it make more sense if the comparably underperforming film, Young Adult, were distributed with lower ticket prices in order to cultivate greater competition against wintertime blockbusters, and thereby (perhaps) gain a slightly greater audience for a film whose appeal is limited by comparison? After all, movie studios don’t so much “give audiences what they want” as much as they calculate degrees success (if you don’t believe me, go ask your local AMC to bring A Separation or Carnage to your theater), so why don’t ticket prices reflect this already-transcribed fate?

It’s an interesting scenario to imagine, but one that becomes more difficult to envision once one parses through the details. As the author points out in his #4 reason why we have “uniform pricing,” varied pricing would likely create an unwarranted stigma against less expensive films, much like straight-to-DVD films have. That said, two other assumptions informing Thompson’s provocative question warrant further exploration: 1) we as consumers already have varied pricing, and we have developed patterns of determining a film’s “worth” in our choosing of where and in what conditions we see a film, and 2) movies would largely benefit if the perceived value of the opening weekend lessened significantly.

The Post-Theatrical

The uniquely American capitalist-democratic notion that we all “vote with our dollar” in our freedom to choose amongst a competing variety of options is simply not the case when it comes to the average local movie screen. On the sixteen or so screens offered at your typical multiplex, a small fraction of the 100-plus movies in current theatrical distribution are actually made available, and most of these are the biggest of studio films. The top-20 performing films at the box office each weekend, then, debut with the stench of pre-determination.

Fortunately, the movie theater isn’t the only place to go to see a movie. On December 28, the start of the weekend before Thompson’s analysis, the most-watched movie of the day from the titles available via Netflix’s Instant Streaming library was Abbas Kiarostami’s Certified Copy, a movie whose widest release was a mere 57 theaters. A film’s weekly theatrical performance may provide the most visible means of understanding a movie’s competition and performance, but it’s only the first chapter in an ongoing story of that film’s exhibition. Streaming options and home video delivery systems have actually given consumers a freedom of choice largely independent of their regional locale, or a chain theater’s pre-determination of what’s most profitable.

I’d say we now vote with our dollar through such alternatives, but that dollar is incredibly variant: less than two dollars on Redbox, $3.99 or so to rent on iTunes, and monthly fees on Netflix and other services. With all of these post-theatrical options, and with audiences’ continued preference to them since the end of the last decade, why do we still hold theatrical box office as the ultimate signpost of a film’s worth? Well, because it’s the most visible indicator, one that studios have poised as the stock exchange of Hollywood (there’s no Box Office Mojo for streaming, or pirating for that matter). But to apply so much worth to the weekend box office so unquestioningly is to falsely assume that movies die once they’re out of theaters.

Furthermore, Thompson’s analysis largely ignores or overlooks the fact that audiences have developed skills, rituals, and routines in which they apply different dollars to different films based on their assumed worth. That is to say, theatrical moviegoing doesn’t exactly involve uniform pricing as is. Thompson mentions matinees and parenthetically references “added value” screening modes like 3D – and, as his main object of study is MI4, I would add IMAX – but these viewing patterns are essential in not only predetermining a movie’s performance (you can’t pay $14 to see Young Adult in IMAX 3D), but also provide consumers several more ways of deciding how much to spend on a movie besides $12 for this or $12 for that. Even before the large web of post-theatrical exhibition developed, whether to see a movie at night or during the day, at a smaller theater a few weeks later, renting it from a local video store, or deciding which movie to use that coupon on was motivated by the worth assumed in association with a film that one had not yet seen.

Venue matters, and non-uniform pricing does exist. It’s one of the theatrical movie customer’s few avenues of choice.

Beyond the Opening Weekend

One of the great mistakes in placing undue importance on a movie’s box office is the assumption that this is the central, or primary means to determine a movie’s worth or success. The relationship between films and individual consumers is as close of a return to the solitary, pre-theatrical experience of the nickelodeon as a post-theatrical cinematic landscape can be. And even since the initial consolidation of film studios and established prominence of the theatrical experience since the nickelodeon, going to a movie theater in America has hardly been a uniform experience throughout 20^th century history. It wasn’t until 1960, with Alfred Hitchcock’s desire to not spoil the first-act surprise death in Psycho, that a standard developed requiring patrons to actually enter a movie theater when it starts and leave when it ends. That means, within the parameters of the program chosen by the theater, until 1960 it was up to consumers to decide the exact worth of their dollar based on the time they decided to spend between an array of cartoons, newsreels, and occasional second bills.

Thompson cites the release of The Godfather as the moment in which uniform prices were dictated, thus creating a common, “fair” ground by which a film’s financial performance can be compared and judged. Yet The Godfather, not unlike a certain Han Solo-starring late-70s feature that would come to define the modern blockbuster, was a word-of-mouth success. Today, one might even call it a “sleeper” hit. It was a film that the studio felt, at best, uncertain about. It was not a movie whose success could be predicted by its opening weekend.

Thompson states his #2 reason theaters and studios don’t switch from uniform pricing thusly:

“You can’t consistently cut prices after a successful opening weekend. If people knew that ticket prices would fall after a big opening, many more would wait until the second or third weekend to see it, which would, ironically, destroy the meaning of opening weekends.”

Thompson’s right. Non-uniform pricing would completely mess up the way we evaluate a movie’s initial performance. Young Adult would no doubt still make less money than Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol if non-uniform pricing existed, but, if the proposed benefit of non-uniform pricing actually worked, their attendance numbers would be closer together. The assumed relationship between enthusiasm, attendance, and monetary performance would be broken.

That is, if such an assumption weren’t false in the first place.

One of the examples for comparison Thompson uses is The Iron Lady, a film that, as of the author’s writing, played on 4 screens in opposition to, say, MI4’s 3,448. That weekend, The Iron Lady’s per-screen average was $86,074, while MI4’s was $13,521 the same weekend. How can Thompson say that The Iron Lady should be the “cheaper” option when it receives such an exclusive platform release? Uniform pricing would never work, then, because there is no uniform term for a film’s success. The same currency is used, but it means radically different things for different films. And it’s in the realm of the per screen average (where the totals don’t matter as much, and where context is essential) in which the presumed ultimate arbiter of a film’s fate, the opening weekend, is having its only significant battle.

Thompson historically situates 1972 as somehow irreparably forming what we understand today as the weekend-by-weekend box-office battle. But the alleged importance of the opening weekend is actually a pretty recent phenomena. Look at any weekend-by-weekend charts of the early 1990s, and you’ll see more-consistent week-to-week grosses and a competitive field in which various films can make their way up and down on the chart, rather than predominantly “trickling down” after the last weekend. The studios’ placement of such immense importance on the opening weekend is, historically-speaking, a post-home-video phenomenon. It’s hardly something set in stone, or essential to the theatrical distribution model. Around the time of The Godfather (and before and for a short time after), seeing a movie in theaters was the only way to see it – thus, films had a longer theatrical lifespan. Now, as Certified Copy shows, many movies have a longer total lifespan.

It’s ironic that, in an information era in which the movie theater only represents the first chapter in a long life of exhibition and distribution, the furthest into the future that studios can see for their films numbers no more than three days. If non-uniform pricing would destroy the false importance placed on the opening weekend (and theatrical box-office in general), then bring it on – that is, if non-uniform pricing didn’t already exist.

Lucky for you, it’s free to read more Culture Warrior

One big action release on DVD and Blu-ray this week features Jason Statham, Robert De Niro, Clive Owen and Clive Owen’s mustache. The film Killer Elite is based on a true story about a secret agency that arranged assassinations in the early 80s. It also features a lot of 80s porno-era facial hair, which should be a treat for everyone.

While the film misses the chance to have Jason Statham and Clive Owen have a street race to see whether the Transporter or BMW’s The Driver is better behind the wheel, but at least it gives “tough guy” movie fans a chance to see some icons together on the same screen. For everyone else, it offers a great chance to participate in a drinking game.

And now, to cover our butts… This game is only for people over the age of 21. Please drink responsibly, and mess with Clive Owen or his ‘stache.

TAKE A DRINK WHEN…

• A car is damaged
• Someone is killed
• There’s a flashback
• People have a secret meeting

TAKE A DRINK WHEN YOU SEE…

• An explosion
• A photograph
• A title on the screen
• A close-up on a cigarette or a close shot of someone smoking

TAKE A DRINK WHEN SOMEONE SAYS…

• “SAS”
• “kiddo”
• “sheikh”
• The name of a city or country

CHUG YOUR DRINK WHEN…

• Someone is hit by a car or truck

Click here for more Drinking Games