The Hot Blog

From the looks of Showbizdata, Pirates is going to do over $35 mill, this weekend, very impressive! I don't think there is any doubt that this film is going to crack $400 million, at this point.

Monster House did solid with about $23 million, but to be honest, I thought it would do more.

Looks like Lady in the Water won't even crack $20 million and Clerks is going to struggle to break $10 million. So you have two filmmakers that are struggling enough to even fall below their own respective box office ceilings. I enjoy his movies, but is there a more well-known filmmaker than Kevin Smith whose films gross so consistently low? I swear, I think Woody Allen's films gross more on a consistent basis than his does.

Ok, one that I can think of....Lars Von Trier. And don't give me Spike Lee, now, Inside Man did pretty well.

WOW, sunday was bad for every one except Pirates.....where's Wreck? Wreck, I owe you a coke. That's a horrible number for Monster House and really surprising, to me at least.

I'll bet Spike is one of those directors (like Dennis Quaid is one of those actors) whose films do well in ancillary markets for extended periods. But I actually was surpised to see that, after "Inside man," "Malcolm X" and "The Original Kings of Comedy," the fourth highest-grosing Lee movie has ever made was.... "Jungle Fever." I would have guessed "He Got Game" or "Clockers."

Joe,

That's interesting about Jungle Fever. I'm actually surprised it has outgrossed Do the Right Thing, as well. But I guess it helped that Wesley Snipes was the star, just a few months after he hit big with New Jack City.

Geoff:

I suspect we're all in for some jarring surprises if we check into the box-office history of certain actors and filmmakers. For example: While I was interviewing Clint Eastwood a few years back, he half-seriously wondered aloud why everyone always wanted to tell him "Do you feel lucky?" or "Go ahead, make my day!" when, actually, "Every Which Way But Loose" made more money than any of the "Dirty Harry" movies. ("Why don't they ever want to ask me about the orangutan?") And even now: The highest-grossing movie he's ever made (domestically speaking, at least) is.... "In the Line of Fire." Go figure.

These numbers are pretty much within expectations, except Lady In the Water underperformed slightly and Pirates overperformed slightly.

As keoki said, my estimate for Monster House was dead on, which again makes me wonder what everyone else thought they saw in this movie that I didn't.

Wrecktum? Damned near killed 'em! Numbers that is. I'm truly amazed at these weekend numbers. In the end it seems as though Pirates keeps taking audiences away from other movies. at this point does anyone think that Pirates won't be #1 next weekend? Vice can't open big, can it? And the Ant Bully looks just horrible.

Ant Bully IS horrible. Go see Miami Vice.

Haven't seen "Monster House" yet, but I don't think you ever can under-estimate how rapidly word can spread among parents if a seemingly kid-skewing movie has ANY sort of frightening and/or disturbing content. Actually, I'm surprised that we haven't yet gotten a lot of stories about frightened children running out of theaters.

Wreck - Doesn't matter what anyone saw in the movie... opening weekend is not about content.

Joe - The reason we haven't heard those stories is that there aren't very many of those stories. I have seen the film twice in rooms filled with kids and saw zero walkouts. Meanwhile, a friend with a 6-year-old isn't going because her son couldn't make it through the Kraken in P2, so she is being extra cautious.

All anecdotal... all somewhat irrelevant, but...

I'm seeing Vice, but I'll be alone because everyone I know either hates Farrell (my wife) or thinks the movie looks horrible (everyone else). I myself drank the Mann kool-aid long ago and will keep going back for more.

The "modern" record for weekends at #1 is 4. Passion most recently and also ROTK and FOTR. What is really amazing is that films like ET and Titanic spent 15-16 consecutive weekends at #1.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/bestranked.htm

Beverly Hills Cops, Tootsie, Ghostbusters, Back To The Future. Amazing how things were different int he era before frontloading.

Also, it's worth noting that by the end of next week, "Prada" will cross 100M. Considering Dave earlier was saying 35M as a top-out, and after the stories about "death of the chick flick!" last year, seems that it's alive and well.

CLERKS 2 makes double what it cost to make it.....sweeet.

Also
"right turn, Clyde."

I just love how Ghostbusters would be #2 for a week, then #1 again, #2, then #1 again up until October.

Can Miami Vice open big? Dunno. But it can open. This one is skewing much younger than tracking suggests. Many college viewers are counting down the days for this one.

"Regardless, nothing is as embarrassing as box office failure."

Perhaps if you judge films like brokers judge stocks. In the world of movies, I can think of plenty of things more embarrassing than box office failure.

"Hey, let's rent this flick Slither! I hear it's really good!"

"Nah, it only grossed $7.8m domestic. Skip it. Find something that did at least $75m on a budget over $60m."

The above conversation never takes place.

"Wreck - Doesn't matter what anyone saw in the movie... opening weekend is not about content."

Well, that's exactly right. Monster House is getting good notices, so I expect it to play pretty well. But, nevertheless, people were confidently predicting over $10m more for the opening than it got, and that's what I'm wondering about...why people assumed this film (which Sony knew was tracking badly so it had to sneak it) would somehow do so much better than it ultimately did.

I think also the question everyone had about Monster House was 'who will want to see this movie? It looks mediocre and the animation is poor' strictly based on the trailers. That's what I had going through my head.

But it is a fantastic film, and that's the shame of where we are right now. Quality means nothing unless you have some sort of special sauce in the marketing. And whats the deal with kids who can't handle a spooky house? My 5 and a 1/2 year old had a blast and when we were done asked when we could see it in 3-D. Believe me, this movie was not THAT scary. It was like being on a theme park ride you know, that kind of scary.

You're right, in a better world word of mouth would allow this movie to make the money it deserves. That's the true damage of front-loading.

It sucks! That's what it does! It sucks! Also, who wants to be an exec at Wanrner's and Legendary? Show of hands.....anyone.....anyone?

"Perhaps if you judge films like brokers judge stocks"

Nah. Perhaps if you are in the business of movies.

It is true that movies are not judged by the public - at least, not often - on budget and box office. But I don't know anyone, including the talent, who doesn't feel the sting of box office failure more strongly when a film is released than the subsequent sense of DVD audiences picking up on it and liking it... especially since the phenomenon of perception changing in Home Entertainment happens only 2or 3 times a year... and failure at the box office and versus costs happens at least 100 times a year.

Yeah, but the general public is billions of people and people in the 'business of movies' is probably less than a hundred thousand, mostly living in the two major cities.

Monster House is a film like Van Helsing where I can't help but wonder if it would have done better as a Halloween release.

It feels like a fall kids film to me.

That said, I can't wait to see it later in the week.

VAN HELSING might've done better if it had been any good at all.

In complete agreement with Poland about men vs women in regards to seeing a movie because of the star's attractiveness. In my mind, that is one of the reasons why women have it so hard in Hollywood. The simple truth is that girls will see a movie if they think they guy in it is cute, but guys will not return the favor. This is why, amnong others, Pamela Anderson is not a star (and possibly, on the same wave as my earlier comments yesterday, why Uma doesn't open movies).

Perfect examples being in the spring of 1999, during the teen-movie spree. Varsity Blues had tons of girls going to oogle James Vander Beek and She's All That had many a female going to oogle Freddie Prinze Jr. But the equally attractive Sarah Michelle Geller's Cruel Intentions barely topped $30 million and Simply Irrestable dropped dead on opening night ($3 million opening weekend).

Of course, this isn't a new problem (see - common generality about boys not being willing to see movies about girls, but girls going to movies about males or females). If guys want to see the movie, the fact that they can oogle the female lead is a pleasant bonus. But it's never been the main motivator.

Scott Mendelson

PS - finally saw Lady In The Water and I'm almost mad. I'm not mad that it's terrible, but that it's so close to being good save for a few key elements. Ironically, my favorite bit was one that's been heavily criticized (mild spoilers...).
.
.
.
.
I liked the arc of the writer played by M. Night. Whatever part ego played in the casting, it's not there in the character itself. His character is not this incredible, super duper writer, but rather a moderately talented thinker who's ideas will change the world, but not for the reason he thinks. His scene in the bathroom and his reaction to said development was probably my favorite scene in the film.

Scott, I gotta agree with you about the bathroom scene. He may not be the best director turned actor ever, but I think that scene was perfectly' played.

As for the movie itself, I didn't find it terrible and was surprised about how much I enjoyed it. Still think that Night coulda come up with a better name than 'Narf' for what Bryce Howard was...i mean come on, that's what Pinky says in the 'Pinky and the Brain' cartoons.

Pinky and The Brain come out on DVD on Tuesday....coincidence? M.Night taught us that there are no coincidences.

LITW Spoilers

"His character is not this incredible, super duper writer, but rather a moderately talented thinker who's ideas will change the world, but not for the reason he thinks."

I took it differently. I thought he was a super brilliant writer who just hasn't been discovered yet because his book isn't finished. And not only is the guy's writing going to change the entire world, he will be killed for it, and knowing this won't stop him from finishing the book. Talk about ego.

I agree that Shymalan's performance wasn't bad, nor was that basic arc about a writer. It's just the combination of that and Bob Balaban's character turning it into a masturbatory streak you rarely see in cinema. What could have been a nice "fairy tale" turns into an act of self-justification, largely due to the self-casting.

The whole movie is a self-justifying metafiction, but without any reason for being so. It would have been so much more tolerable without the post-modern claptrap. THAT's what made it so tediously arrogant, not the self-casting.

It's very, very hard to pull that sort of thing off in any satisfying way. Even a writer as good as Charlie Kauffman just barely managed to make it work in Adaptation.

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: