The Hot Blog

40 Yr Old Virgin is trying its best to hit that 100mill mark.

It saddens me to see that Lord of War was not handled better by its studio. Nicol's visuals and Cage's performance mark it as one of 2005's great surprises. I have a feeling it will become one of those movies that becomes secret code for moviegoers who know something special that no one else does. Nicol and Cage should be proud.

The ads for Lord of War were pretty good. I don't think the lack of succesful BO is due to that.

Yeah I don't get that either. This was a great marketing job. Saw this movie as very well marketed. Henry Hill, do you work with the film company or something. Get over the denial. The studio came through on this one. The movie is okay at best.. Best... sorry.

No, I don't work for a studio. A buddy of mine told me ads were running like crazy in L.A. The problem is not everyone lives in L.A. I live in Texas where the advertising blitz didn't kick in until about two weeks ago. That seems odd considering it was a Cage "action" movie. Didn't he just come off the hugely successful National Treasure? The ads were great but I would love to know what kind of "awareness" the movie had. I would be surprised to find out if the movie's "tracking" was high.

And you don't know it all.

Any preditions for the Emmys? I would love for Hugh Laurie to win for his great first season work on the best-kept-secret show House. Other than that HBO should win everything.

it's a shame more people won't end up seeing Lord of War. Very impressed, and I had high expectations. Aside from a few contrivances, this was damn fine work. Excellent Cage perf and a terrific voice-over laden script that sets itself up for an awesome ending that makes sense and is satisfying. The opening title sequence is some of the best filmmaking of the year. A BIG step up for Andrew Niccol. I'd buy the dvd for sure. However, it's not the action movie that Lions Gate marketed it as...it's just not a wide audience picture.

I couldn't have said better, cullen.

and i just love that there are more politically-minded films in the future...MUNICH, JARHEAD, SYRIANA, THE GOOD SHEPHERD, ALL THE KING'S MEN...all films with great talent infront and behind the camera.
But one of the best aspects of Lord of War was that it didnt feel (for the most part) like a typical Hollywood account of something edgy and dangerous. I thought of Blow a few times while watching Lord of War, and while the two films share some similar plot structure and delivery methods, Lord of War has to be considered the more ambitious picture. There was a vitality in Lord of War, which was sort of similar to the feeling I got while watching The Constant Gardener. Now, while The Constant Gardener is head and shoulders above Lord of War in terms of overall quality, both films give imapassioned looks--in their own ways--about very topical and important aspects of world wide culture. And doing it with style and smarts.

Don't you people know this yet. Jared Leto = Poison at the Box office.

well I wouldn't call leto poison, just as I wouldn't call Ethan Hawke poison. But they sold the film purely on Cage, since conceptually it wasn't extremely commercial. Cage alone, with no help from concept or co-stars, is not enough to give a film a big opening. Few stars are. Clooney, plus Cube, plus Wahlberg - thats some heat. LoW didn't have that heat.

Wasn't Leto in Panic Room? I believe that made $90 mil.

The amazing thing about Lord of War is its amorality. The character of Yuri Orlov never changes. He never fully realizes the harm he brings to everyone around him. You rarely see that in Hollywood productions, even "edgy" ones. Usually the character would be killed or realize he's living an empty existence. Yuri never realizes this. That's what makes his speech to Hawke's Valentine so chilling: Yuri knows America is on his side.

totally agree. that was the best aspect of the movie...in real life, people DON'T CHANGE. yes, some people do, but more often that not, people are who they are and do the things that they're good at. Cage's character even says that in the movie...he know's he's good at selling guns. That mentality is played out at the film's climax as well. And then the finale with his speech to Hawke...I just loved it all. Dark and true and sharp. I am really impressed the more and more I think of the movie.

HenryHill, you should know better than anyone that Goodfellas works the same way. Liotta's character is cranky at the end of the movie that he can't get good Italian food anymore in witness relocation.

People don't change? Don't sound CYNICAL or anything.

I think what he's saying is that sudden changes to one's being are far, far more common in contrived Hollywood stories than in real life. It's refreshing to see a movie that doesn't end in an unlikely, convenient moral turnaround.

Everything about cinema is contrived. Where else do you get a story in under 2 hours? It would be tremendous boredom if it mirrored real life.

But it has to have a credible basis in real life-- or, at least, recognizable human behavior-- to mean anything whatsoever to the audience. This applies to drama, fantasy films, animation, everything.

Eric's got it.

That is what every character in any story does. They change. They learn lessons. They mature. They experience. If they didn't no one would watch or be entertained by it.
You don't think Henry Hill changed and evolved during Goodfellas? He went from a dumb schmuck kid to gangster to drug addict to government stoolie. Thats some pretty big changes in his life.

I'm not arguing against characters undergoing change. I'm saying that there's a right way and a wrong way for it to happen.

The right way is organic, incremental, and true to the character.

The wrong way, which is what happens so often in these poor movies, is sudden, unnatural, and derived only from the screenwriter's desire to have an emptily happy or pat moral ending.

That's what most movies are unfortunately. You have to tell a story that fits into that time. If you don't have the arcs you won't get your movie made. Very few movies have stories where nothing happens or characters that don't experience. Thats because they're boring.
Movies don't have to be done on a time basis. You can show 70 yrs of a life in 2 hrs. And show that character in all sorts of things. Audiences want to see things happen. They want action. Not many of us want pat endings or every loose end tied up in a neat bow. That is lazy moviemaking.

The thing about Henry Hill is that he didn't really have the stomach for the "life." He wanted the rewards. The only thing that bothered him was the work.

The pre-title sequence marks the moment when guilt started to nag at Henry Hill. The movie then flashes back to the good old days and works it way back to that fateful night in the summer of 1970 when he had to get his hands really dirty. He didn't like the experience. Henry Hill loved the lifestyle too much to get out. After that night his life is filled with dread and guilt. (The cocaine allows him to escape the guilt for awhile. That is, until the paranoia creeps in.)

The amazing thing about Yuri Orlov is that guilt never really gets to him. He sheds a tear for his brother but his death is not enough for him to see the error of his ways.

Lord of War is not perfect. But in its portrayal of such an amoral character it marks the announcement of Andrew Nicol as one of the most vital moviemakers of the year.

I'm with Henry on this one...Niccol has been primed to explode and he really stepped up with Lord of War. I just wish more people would go and see it.

Maybe people didn't want to see Lord of War because it's poster looked like Nicolas Cage was being eaten by bugs.

...that and the fire arms trade business isn't as big of a draw as, say, exorcisms.

And the title Lord Of War really sucks too.
And when a title sucks, I assume the movie will suck as well

The marketing did indeed suck for Lord of War. I asked one friend if he wanted to see it this weekend, and he had no idea about it whatsoever. I asked another, and he responded, "Oh, the one where Cage is the weatherman?"

nicol would be primed to explode if he could write a script without knocking the audience over the head with it. lord of war fades after the halfway point. and i don't think i've ever seen a worse movie than simone.

I had higher expectations of Lord of War but Cage always pulls me in and shows me a good time. A full notch below Goodfellas and Blow if we're comparing the three.

And the poster? I thought it was bugs til I saw a close up at the theatre.

I don't know if I'd be calling Andrew Nicol a vital filmmaker just yet. One decent movie really doesn't make anyone "vital".

Simone did knock him back a few pegs.

If you watched tv for more than a half hour a day you saw a bunch of ads for Lord of War. I didn't think they were that good or anything though. Mainly saw Cage acting frantic and Jared Leto with sunglasses on.

Does anyone really think that proof has a chance in hell of doing any business?

Even the boys at Miramax know they have a dog on their hands with that.

I thought Just Like Heaven was the best romantic comedy this year. Again, thats not saying much.

Looking forward to seeing Walk the Line even more now. A Reese come back!

You can start digging the grave for Proof. It was DOA.

Reese W's box office career is on the line, no pun intended, this fall.

Perhaps I'm being thick or being blinded by my love for the play (which is better than the movie), but a 25K PSA for Proof is certainly not a "DOA." I think a lot of folks were expecting an abysmal PSA, but that was the second-best PSA of the weekend, and was double the third-best PSA of the weekend. It seems to me to be in considerably better shape than Everything is Illuminated and Thumbsucker, and the generally positive reviews and name cast give it more of a shot at playing than your average arthouse fare.

What kind of numbers are you expecting for Proof?

It has a 20mill budget. It will be hard pressed to make half that.

in the right type of movie, paltrow can bring in a crowd. it will do around $20-30, depending on how it holds up in the awards season, could do more. Doesn't feel like a real hit to me though.

Paltrow has never had a hit. I can't see her opening a movie that has gotten bad reviews. She's never done it before.

Yeah, "Shakespeare in Love" was no hit. What's $100 mil and a Best Picture Oscar in today's wintry economic climate?

The talkbackers here are even more obsessed with actors' ability to "open" a picture than studio executives. Were you guys pulling this shit on Steve Carell before "Virgin" opened? Some actors don't open movies...until they do. Vagaries of the business.

Paltrow has had many, many chances. I can roll off her resume of bombs here.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Sylvia, View from the Top, Possesion, Shallow Hal, Bounce, Duets etc.

She is a good actress. Not denying that. But she can't open a movie and she's not A list. The drought since Shakespeare is 7 years. That's an eternity.

If she gets this crappy a film to its budget, it has to be considered a success. There is a reason a film starring two oscar winners and an oscar winning director and a hit stage play is getting dumped.

Gwyn has had more misses at the BO than any other actress out there right now.

Lots of those Paltrow movies were art-house or semi-wide releases where Julia Roberts wouldn't've gotten them over $20 mil.

And Angelus, you're listing some movies that were, in fact, mildly successful. Shallow Hal -- that made like $70 million. Not a good film, or a beloved one, but it probably turned a profit, and was marketed mainly on its two stars. Bounce -- everyone likes to call this a bomb now, post Affleck/Paltrow, but $40 million or so for a little relationship drama is more disappointment than bomb. Royal Tenenbaums made $50 million. Talented Mr. Ripley did like $80 million. That Perfect Murder crap did around $70-80 million.

No, she can't open a movie, and having her in something like Sky Captain isn't a particular asset. But that's true of almost any name actress, save a handful (and, as I said, Julia Roberts or Sandra Bullock wouldn't have made Duets into a big hit) -- Drew Barrymore and

Cut myself off! Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz and Sandra Bullock and Reese ... all have plenty of bombs to their names.

MattM at least owns up to his love of "Proof". The big boys are gearing up plenty of arty stuff to take it down:

WIP ("Everything is Illuminated", "Good Night and Good Luck")

Sony mainstream ("Oliver Twist")

Sony Classics ("Thumbsucker", "Capote")

New Line ("A History of Violence")

Fox mainstream ("Little Manhattan")

Fox Searchlight ("Separate Lies")

DreamWorks ("The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio")

Disney ("The Greatest Game Ever Played" -- one of the Mouse's 2 arthouse/upmarket titles this fall)

Mildly successful? The movies you say were mildly successful? Gwyneth was a supporting character in all of them. Ripley was Damon/Minghella, Tenenbaums was Wes Anderson, Perfect Murder was Michael Douglas, and Bounce was a flat out bomb.

Well, "Illuminated," "Thumbsucker," and "Separate Lies" are, if anything, less mainstream than "Proof" is and had lower PSAs last weekend, which doesn't bode well for them. "Greatest Game" and "Oliver Twist" seems to being marketed as family drama fare, and "History of Violence" is being marketed as a thriller.

Is "Proof" going to make 100M? No. I'd say 12-15M is not out of the question, though, depending on how it's handled and promoted. And while I preferred Mary-Louise Parker's take on the lead role, Hope Davis' work in the movie is (as always) great.

"And the poster? I thought it was bugs til I saw a close up at the theatre."

What exactly is is Bruce? I haven't seen the poster anywhere!

And, A Perfect Murder wasn't just Michael Douglas! It was Michael Douglas wanting to kill Gwyneth Paltrow! She was clearly the co-lead. And Bounce wasn't a bomb! But, yes, Proof is a movie where Gwyneth is the lead. But all of Gwyneth's bomb's have been mainstream 2000+ releases or whatever that weren't actually good. And Sylvia was just mishandled right from the start (why make a biopic on someone you can't even use the work of? It'd be like Walk The Line with no actual songs!).

While it's probably true that Proof won't do any good in wider release, the fact of the matter is that it isn't in wide release and it's doing good for itself. And it DID only cost $20mil (which is not alot in this day and age). A couple of mil in box-office in the US and a bit more overseas plus a good DVD shelf life (a movie like this would probably play better on the small-screen and with Paltrow, Hopkins and Gyllenhaal could be a popular choice) won't put Disney in such an awful position.

The End (I'm tired).

The "Weather Man" trailer linked on MCN confirms what I have always suspected about Michael Caine. Mainly, that he can read anything -- ANYTHING -- and make it sound fresh and funny. Amazing.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: