What's your fantasy?
Chiiiiiillllll, it's a rhetorical question
“I wish I had stayed too. Now I wish I had stayed.
I wish I had done a lot of things.
I wish I had… I wish I had stayed.
I do.”
Sometimes we talk about things here which require revisiting. This is one of those times. Because AMC, North America’s largest theater chain, in a bit of a “this is kind of a big deal” moment (as dictated by “everyone” picking it up, see: NPR, NYT etc.), decided to go all in on charging different prices for different seats. Not different times or days, but same showing, different prices, depending on which seat you choose. They’re calling it Sightline and the gist is that you’ll pay more for the middle seats and less for the front row - “more” or “less” compared to the rest of the theater, which will be a sort of middle ground price (i.e. what you pay now).
I talked about this about a year ago when AMC did a few pricing tests with The Batman.
It's something that's been talked about for a long time, but hasn't been done much in the States (AMC did some weekday vs weekend stuff a couple years ago, but that seems akin to matinees vs night showings). Although apparently the theater chain has been doing it for a while in Europe. It sounds like something people might get a bit annoyed and huffy about if they knew it was happening, but said as a person who sees a decent amount of movies in theaters, it does kinda make sense. I'm not saying I want to be forced to pay more for the best seats, but I guess I might not mind if "less good" seats were cheaper relative the others then too? Although not sure that's guaranteed to be the case.
And people did indeed get a bit huffy about it. Outlets picked up a tweet by Elijah Wood who basically said the decision is an affront to movie going in general. In Wood’s opinion, it’ll exacerbate the issues that are already out there with income. Another point I talked about…
But even further, it relates to the basic supply and demand issue. If lots of people wanna watch The Batman opening weekend, why not let them pay for it? And those who care less, can wait*. It's sort of what happens in concerts, where tickets cost more for more desirable bands - e.g. Drake concert tickets demand > demand for tickets to my one man musical I'm Me and That's All I Can Be (opening soon - stay tuned for announcements). But obviously with that situation, there are far fewer shows (although I'll perform for you anytime). *this doesn't really get at issues around people who can afford to or not, but that's a larger discussion.
And whereas I understand (albeit a bit hurt by) the interest in my talents may be less than that of international superstar Audrey "Drake" Graham, movie studios are likely to be a bit less accommodating. Sure, you raise prices on the hit The Batman, or the next Marvel movie, but do you then decrease the price on a movie that's showing weak interest in order to get people to show up? Are you then "devaluing" the product? Theaters might not think so, but they're the ones selling the popcorn...
And while the above gets into movie v movie vs the seating discussion, funny enough, the idea of movie value also came directly into play just last weekend with another pricing event that got a bit less attention. Paramount and theater owners agreed to charge matinee prices, no matter the showtime, for the studio’s movie 80 for Brady. Why? Because they assumed their target audience, “older” women, might value going to the theater less, so they priced the movie accordingly. And you know what, it kinda worked! It performed above expectations in terms of box office receipts and more people went to see it than Knock at the Cabin, even thought the latter made more money.
And while reading some of the initial feedback, you can see a lot of people saying they’re going to abandon AMC and go to the other theater chains. But if this works, I imagine the others will follow. Hell, they might let AMC take a little heat and then start doing it before we know if it’s a success. And can you blame them? “The bullshit” was obviously brutal to theaters and they’re going to try some stuff to keep their businesses alive. Maybe stuff they should’ve tried a long time ago?
Extra Credit Movie(s):
Titanic - it’s… (a rerelease of) Titanic. And while 25 is sure less than 84 years, that’s how long it’s been since Rose and Jack’s adventure was unleashed unto unsuspecting parents, whose wallets were drained by their children begging to see the movie for the 15th time. And even with that much time gone by (or maybe because of it) you’re sure to sob all over your popcorn yet again. Reviews? You don’t need no stinkin’ reviews, all you need is an open heart. Returning to Theaters this Friday.
Somebody I Used to Know - Dave Franco directs his wife Allison Brie (they co-wrote together) in another iteration of the go back to the ol’ hometown and rediscover who you are bit. In this instance she rediscovers her former flame as well as his… fiancée?! Not really unexpected, but how the movie treats it might be. No real reviews yet, but it looks competent enough. Streaming on Amazon Prime this Friday.
Sharper - Producer and star Julianne Moore (as well as cast mates that include John Lithgow, Sebastian Stan and Justice Smith) look to be doing a kind of thriller-y version of Succession in movie form. The reviews are not ecstatic, but some do love how the twists that are played out, even if a few too many critics thought it was more “sharp” than sharper. 🥁-tss Playing in Limited Theaters and available on Apple TV+ this Friday.
This might be a little awkward - and call me Ludacris if you want - but uh, what’s your fantasy?
I know, that’s a bit of a personal question and you don’t have to answer it. Plus, it was meant to be rhetorical1. But it is an interesting query. One that we often don't have to ask because people's actions reflect what's inside their minds. But based on the success of the franchise, Magic Mike was the fantasy for a loooooot of people. Describing the "why" can be kind of hard, but I thought this was a good description of the character as we've come to know and love him...
“He’s a self-aware sex object, masculinity without the toxicity, and a basic wish fulfillment: someone both smoking hot and solicitous.” - from the Vulture review of Magic Mike’s Last Dance
But that description is based on the previous movies. The movies, which yes, are loosely based on Channing Tatum’s time as an actual stripper, that allowed (largely, but not solely) straight women to experience something they might not even known they were missing. But once they realized…? 🤯
So it’s with some disappointment I have to report that while Magic Mike is back, he’s apparently a little less, well, magical. Or maybe it’s better to say the movie suppresses his wizardy.
Whereas the previous movies dove into the somewhat easy going dream come true pool, No Diving signs be damned, reviews say Last Dance dries itself a little too much and tries to be more of a proper romance. One that gets a bit too talk-y and not enough hot shirtless guy dance-y. Which you can understand why writer Reid Carolin and Steven Soderbergh (who directed the original, but not the sequel) went in this direction. You have to evolve… right?? But by trying to progress the character, the movie apparently eschews, or at least obscures, the parts people enjoyed most about the first two - including Mike’s co-dancers which only get a cameo via video call.
But let’s be clear, there is still going to be hot dance sequences, especially one in the beginning, which as she describes it, almost killed Selma Hayek. But it’s also apparently somewhat of an ad for the live show (so much so that they used the same choreography from that show in the movie). Which, if it’s any consolation, is a show that still has a lot of ripped, half-naked suggestively gyrating men. 🤷♂️
Out: Friday
Where: Theaters
1 hr 52 mins | R | 🍅: 58%
Maybe more than most, this movie feels more like an obligation than an excited pass along. I know, I know, that sounds like hater talk. And it kind of is, but it just all feels a bit… Magoo!! Here’s the movie’s official description:
“Debbie (Reese Witherspoon) and Peter (Ashton Kutcher) are best friends and total opposites. She craves routine with her son in LA; he thrives on change in NY. When they swap houses and lives for a week they discover what they think they want might not be what they really need.”
They’re total opposites and gosh darn it, what they think they want might not be what they really need. You don’t say! But hey, when you describe most rom-coms they come across as a little trite and a bit flavorless. And I swear I don’t hate romantic comedies in totality. Sure, maybe it’s blasphemous to say I think Love Actually is a bit cringey (although Emma Thompson’s storyline is lovingly bittersweet), but I’ve very recently expressed my love for Just Friends here (although maybe technically more of a comedy??) and I thought Definitely, Maybe was a fun twist on the genre. Jesus dude, we get it, you’re obsessed with Ryan Reynolds. 🙄 You’re obsessed with… *mumbles* What’s that??? Nothing… 😔
I also love me some When Harry Met Sally, I quote Pretty Woman regularly, and that 10 Things I Hate About You stadium scene? Come on.
Point is, I don’t want to be a downer here and I’m not trying to be. Reese Witherspoon and Ashton Kutcher are solid “movie star” actors who I’m sure work their heinies’ off. And they’re pretty. And there’s nothing wrong with watching pretty people do pretty people stuff. It’s just… I honestly don’t have much to say. In part because Netflix holds reviews closer to release than most theatrical outings so I can’t give you much of a read on the critical response. But when has that stopped someone from watching a rom-com? And to be fair to The Flix, it’s been the largest proponent of the genre for a while now (The Half Of It was one of their more solid efforts).
So yeah, go ahead and watch Witherspoon and Kutcher realize that they *little shock* *small gasp* in fact do love each other. Here’s hoping the supporting cast - namely Steve Zahn and Tig Notaro - are able to add a little spice to the milquetoast.
Out: Friday
Where: Netflix
1 hr 49 mins | PG-13 | 🍅: TBD
Today in Trailers! we’re describing each movie by starting with the phrase, “It’s basically…”
Strays. It’s basically… Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey but like, naughty.
Paint. It’s basically… a Bob Ross biopic2 laced with acid.
The Covenant. It’s basically… Guy Ritchie proving he can direct *air quotes* serious stuff3.
White Men Can’t Jump. It’s basically… a remake because the 90’s are so hot right now.
although if therapy is too expensive and you’re looking for a judgement free zone…
but not an actual biopic
trust he’s still gonna make sure to get that action in there