Not all 3D Animated Flicks are created Equal

One might see this weekend’s Box Office leader Megamind as just another hero triumphing under the cape of 3D CGI Animation. After all, over the past three years, 2 out of 3 of these animated comedic adventures gross at least $200 million dollars, and with production budgets of maybe a quarter that amount, that’s a pretty profitable cape. The similarly super villain themed Despicable Me or How To Train Your Dragon have hit giant $500 million dollar takes. Up and Shrek Forever After posted $750+ mil, and Toy Story 3 grossed over $1 billion worldwide.

3D CGI Animation seems to equal mega B.O. success.

But at second glance, it isn't such a simple formula. The story-telling quality of these animated pics directly correlates to the B.O. success. Paramount/Dreamworks may celebrate Megamind's opening, but the story's shortcomings spell a more limited run than some of Megamind's more profitable counterparts.

This Will Ferrell helmed super villain movie has an amusing premise, in which bad boy Megamind accidentally kills his rival superhero Metroman (Brad Pitt) and ends their battle of good and evil. With no adversary to challenge him, Megamind finds himself bored and alone, until he concocts a plan to create a new hero whom he can battle. Unfortunately, Megamind falls for Metroman's old flame, Roxy Ritchie (Tina Fey), and must battle his new moody adversary for her affection.

It’s a wildly entertaining romp, with some great voice acting and amazing visuals. And it pulls off a very strong first act, bonding the audience to the misunderstood and ostracized Megamind, who has no choice in the beginning but to drift into a life of villainy. But the story falls short in three major areas, which is why the mixed reviews are coming in on Rottentomatoes at 67%.

Where Megamind Falls Short

1. Mild Comedy

First off, most of Megamind's comedy comes from the improv rantings of Will Ferrell, who once again portrays an egotistical man-boy character. Some of the funniest CGI animated movies of the last couple years, like Toy Story 3, Up, or How To Train Your Dragon, derive their humor from the story's conflict. A movie like Toy Story 3 mines all sorts of laughs from the prison break scenario, then builds on those laughs, like those moments with Spanish Buzz and Tortilla Style Mr. Potatohead. Megamind limits itself to dialogue-driven jokes and back-and-forth banter, much like other Will Ferrell-type moments from his live action comedies.

When test audiences request more laughs, often producers race back to recording studios have the actors embellish moments with inserted jokes and improved exchanges. But often, this will slowdown the story, eliciting only more eye rolls and moans. And that's what seems to have happened with our friend, Megamind.

2. Outdated

Megamind also feels dated, with a soundtrack that sports classic songs like Welcome to the Jungle and Michael Jackson's Bad, and fails to relate to its modern audience. Plus, when you are a teenager, and a character delivers several flat jokes, well, they start to remind you of your parents. Megamind and his love interest Roxy just feel old, lacking a hip energy that younger audiences need to relate to the characters.

3. Slow Story

Finally, the story lags at points, and getting into too much analysis of the writing, it tries to do too much in the middle, and doesn’t lock in enough conflict to carry it smoothly to the finish line. Plus the central relationship of the story, that of the romance between Roxy Ritchie and Megamind doesn't live up to Shrek and Fiona or Wall-E and Eva.

Where Does Megamind End Up?

So how does our blue egomaniac stack up to other 3D heroes? Compared to Despicable Me or Monsters vs Aliens, Megamind grossed $10 million less in its first weekend. It had an attendance of less than half that of The Incredibles, which was released during the same November weekend in 2004. A movie like How To Train Your Dragon may have come behind Megamind at the Box Office with $43 million, but amazing reviews and word of mouth gave that Dragon time to fly well over the $500 million mark. Megamind doesn't have those great reviews to keep it going.

And with an expensive production budget of $130 million, and a P&R campaign of probably $50-60 million, one can see how clearing $100 million at the Box Office isn't exactly a winning situation for our evil mastermind. Suddenly those little pitfalls in the story and shortcomings in the comedy prove to be far more expensive then perhaps expected.

Megamind might be celebrating his promising $47.7 million debut, and sure, he’ll be fine in the long run, but someone should have told him once these movies clear $100 million dollars, a little more story quality can bring some to climb into the mega B.O. takes. He might have changed the setting on his story-telling death ray from "Cloudy Meatballs" to "Pixar".

It’s a lesson to all studios out there that a solid premise and some artful CGI animation does not alone equal big bucks. Even past the $100 million dollar successes, there is a lot of gradation that can spell the difference between a small and mega profit margin. Pixar has proven that the extra time and focus on story does equal long term profit, and even though the genre of CGI animation may be safer in the Box Office than most right now, it still requires story-tellers pay some mind to the story.

Wait, Clint Eastwood Directed Hereafter?

It’s Halloween time and the theatres are aghast with spooky films which confronts us with the fear of our own mortality. But amongst these pics, there’s an unlikely contender that’s exploring the same subject matter in a different way. The drama Hereafter explores the issue of life after death through three disparate characters who question their mortality and eventually cross paths to find their answers.

While Matt Damon leads Hereafter through thought-provoking questions of its complex subject matter, it’s receiving a critically mixed bag of reviews. And one of the biggest surprises:

The director is Clint Eastwood.

We expect emotionally charged dramas from Eastwood, like the recent Invictus or Changeling, but Hereafter, a Halloween-released supernatural drama, almost raises the question:

Wait, Clint Eastwood directed this?

Eastwood likes to explore haunted characters in provocative landscapes, but this doesn’t feel like the typical Eastwood fodder. And unfortunately, that disconnect might be taking its toll. Hereafter is Eastwood’s lowest reviewed movie since Blood Work (2002).

A closer look reveals that despite a low box office showing this weekend of $12 million, this $50 million budgeted pic might actually make some bank in the long term. Both Invictus and Changeling, two other Eastwood directed (non-Eastwood acted) movies, with comparable $50 mil budgets, scored under $10 million in their opening weekends and went on to make over $110 million worldwide.

And heck, compared to other 2010 dramas, like Secretariat, The Kids Are All Right, and Extraordinary Measures, none of which went over $40 mil at the Box Office, Eastwood’s latest opus could enjoy a slow boil that delivers it to the head of the table.

There’s no denying the subject matter of death is a touchy one. But if well handled, audiences might be interested to see how Eastwood explores it. However this movie still falls short of classic Eastwood standards. People are going to see it, but only half leave satisfied. What’s the story here?

Well, the problem here is in the story-telling, specifically how it fails to deliver three necessary promises.

1. Who’s the movie about?

The poster shows Matt Damon surrounded by haunting blue, swirling light and behind him a beautiful woman with curly hair. We know from the trailer that Matt Damon can see dead people. So it must be a story about his struggle with his gift. Right? Well, that’s just one of three storylines the movie focuses on. This is one of those stories where three different characters all deal with the same thematic issue and then meet in the end and all find closure. And that’s not what we’re expecting. Which unfortunately leaves some of us disappointed.

2. What's the movie about?

It’s one of the most important rules for the theme. When dealing with that encompassing discussion behind the backdrop of the drama, the filmmakers must explore both sides of the argument. Otherwise the story can fall into a didacticism that threatens to make the story preachy and overly simplistic in the face of life’s greatest challenges.

A Few Good Men explores the complexity of right and wrong, when even after Tom Cruise proves these two soldiers were just following orders, they are found guilty because they didn’t protect the weak and do the right thing. The Hurt Locker shows both the fulfillments and failures that war has on our soldiers.

Now those who firmly believe in an afterlife and seek no meandering viewpoints might be pleased with Hereafter. There's an afterlife. You go there when you die. And Damon can communicate with the dead.

But for the rest of the audience, the one-sided way in which Hereafter handles the topic is disappointing. Mortality is anything but a simple issue. Even those whom believe in an afterlife will differ in their interpretations. But Eastwood and Morgan (screenwriter of The Last King of Scotland and The Queen), deliver a black and white approach and never entertain the issue from any other viewpoint.

We almost get frustrated at the characters for not quickly finding peace in such an obviously presented situation. Other times it seems silly how people in the afterlife are always so apologetic, selfless and aware. Hereafter lacks the poise and dimension that this subject matter deserved.

3. Where's the movie going?

The story opens with a French journalist, played by Cecile De France, who searches for answers after her near-death experience during the horrific Southeast Asian tsunami. Then an English boy, Marcus, loses his twin brother in a car accident and struggles to find peace at being alone. Finally we see Matt Damon, playing George, a psychic who can see dead people, but doesn’t want to practice his gift anymore. Three characters searching for clarity in the issue of death.

Now there’s a point in the beginning of any movie where you say to yourself, I know where this movie is going. But in Hereafter, the story coasts along without that direction because of one simple problem. How can such an abstract element as clarity over mortality be dramatized? It isn’t, and by the end of the film, two of the three storylines falls short of satisfying conclusions, especially Damon’s.

All in all, nobody can question Eastwood’s ability to craft moving moments, get amazing performances out of his actors, and craft very worthy films deserving of attention. But in Hereafter, it seems he failed to consider just how intricate his audiences view this touchy subject matter. Let’s hope in Eastwood delivers some more complexity in his next film, Hoover, a biopic with a cross-dressing Dicaprio as the CIA’s J Edgar Hoover.