The Hot Blog

Man, are ANY films showing legs, this summer? Prada is a still a triumphant suprise, but how the hell did that film actually drop on Saturday?

I know, the box office is sigficantly ahead of last year, but it really does not feel like any films are catching the public's fancy, beyond their opening weekend.

Superman is a disappointment, for sure, but really not much below what I think myself and most people were expecting. I was thinking it would do close to $60 million and break $90 over the five day, and this is not far behind.

Still, I think some of you guys have made some very valid points about Warner's marketing? What happened to these guys? They set the standard in '78 for the "You will believe a man can fly" campaign for Superman and the Joker six month teaser for Batman in '89. After several decades, people still remember those campaigns.

Last year, the campaign for Batman was probably a little lackluster, but at least it was consistent and honest about the film's adult tone. This Superman campaign has been muddled and confused.

Marketing their DC properties should be what comes easiest to the guys at Warner's, it certainly used to be what they did best.

I think WB was extremely honest in their marketing for SR, their marketing was very representative of the film itself. But it was not a very exciting campaign and didn't really make the film "must-see". I guess they figured it was must-see regardless and that was a little short-sighted.

What movie of McAdams had a big-head shot of her on the poster? I know she's been in some ensembles like Wedding Crashers and Family Stone, but has she had a stand alone vehicle yet? Or, is it just in Poland's imagination.

While I agree it's a little early to be talking Hathaway as the next Julia or Witherspoon. I also think it's still a little early to be adding McAdams in the category just because you have a crush on her.

What the "dark" twist in Click? I thought it just got sappy at the end.

McAdams must surely have fucked Poland to get on that list. Surely Hathaway is a more well-known, more sellably commodity. Not in Roberts territory, but McAdams is not even in Duff or Lohan territory.

McAdams has Red Eye and The Notebook.
Only the former's success could perhaps be linked to her name....the latter, well going into it, I had no idea who she was.

Red Eye had Wes Craven's name all over it. And if we're gonna give it to McAdams, give it to the her creepy co-star and to Brian Cox whose name were as much in print as hers.

I think Poland threw that McAdams comment in there just to get people all riled up. Neither film she's toplined (Red Eye and Notebook) sold her face in the key art. In fact, Red Eye went out of the way to *not* show her face on one sheets and (if I recall correctly) newspaper ads.

X3 is at $228 and still pulling in a bit. DP says Cars may pass it by Monster House. If so, I'd venture to say that Cars showed some legs since it might head toward $250 with what many thought was a soft openng that would lead to around $200. If you can call that legs, that is about it for the summer so far.

I was surprised to see Newsweek give a so-so review for POC_DMC. Does this suggest trouble for POC?

No.

"McAdams is not even in Duff or Lohan territory."

That's absurd. A romantic comedy toplined by McAdams right now would blow away the $17 million grosses of "Just My Luck" and "The Perfect Man." To deny that rings of pettiness.

Now while one can argue with the decision to take a break now while her career is so hot (she has no real star vehicles lined up, according to IMDB), I would put her only behind Witherspoon and Roberts right now in terms of bankability.

Here's a question for ya. Who do you think is more marketable: McAdams or Mandy Moore? And who do you think will eventually hit that Witherspoon or Roberts-like break-out, if any?

Josh, on her own you think McAdams can open a movie? What are you basing that on?

I don't think I agree with Josh, it seems like a theoretical McAdams romantic comedy _could_ open to $17m, but I have a really hard time seeing such a movie exceeding that amount unless the movie had a good male lead. Duff and Lohan have been around for a lot longer than McAdams, have had time to build teen-girl fanbases and record albums and all that crap, but McAdams is still only known for two starring roles and two supporting role. She could get to that superstar level, but she's not there yet.

Oh, Josh said final gross, not opening.
That strengthens the case, but it's still all theoretical until it happens.

Bodhi, assuming she wants it (and that is debatable, based on her recent disappearing act), I think McAdams is the next break-out star. Even though she was not always the lead and didn't have her face plastered all over the poster, she was in many ways instrumental to the success of her past few films.

Jeff: everybody (in a general sense) likes McAdams. Take a poll, and you'll find very little negative opinion about her. However, ask those same people if they'd pay for a Duff or Lohan movie, and I think you'd get a lot more resistance. Duff is still making movies for 15-year-old girls, and Lohan's tabloid exploits have dropped her like a rock in many eyes (hence the $17 mill gross of "Just My Luck").

I don't think it is true that generally speaking everybody likes McAdams. Regardless she has yet to open a movie herself. It may happen sooner or later but it hasn't at this point. I don't think that all that many people went to see The Family Stone or Red Eye specifically because of her.

Stella: Of course everything is based on the project; but McAdams has proved to be either very shrewd or very lucky in picking her projects so far. So assuming she gets a good script - her "Legally Blonde," if you will - I think the good will that already surrounds her propels the opening. Like I said, everybody likes her, in part because she hasn't made a bad movie yet.

There's very little negative opinion about McAdams, but I'd wager that's partially because she's just not as well-known. If she wants to be a break-out star she might have to do a few more magazine covers that she otherwise would avoid.

I agree, though, about Lohan. All throughout A Prairie Home Companion I was distracted by memories of the stories of her awful real-life behavior. Also, I couldn't stop thinking about the substances that must have been all over that set what with her, Altman, Woody Harrelson...

I agree that with the right script, her "Legally Blonde," McAdams could have a huge hit. But I would strongly argue that she has made a bad movie. More than one. I hated The Family Stone and Red Eye, and The Notebook is mediocre at best. I don't believe that everybody likes her. I don't.

Okay, everybody likes her except you.

I highly doubt that jeff.

Maybe people didn't go see "Red Eye" or "The Family Stone" specifically because of her, but those who saw it likely came out with a favorable impression of her which will serve well in the future. And I do think the success of "Red Eye" was due mostly to her - it ended up doing almost 4 times its opening weekend, which is fantastic for a suspense/horror movie.

Josh, uh very few people know who McAdams is, so it's hardly a question of whether they "like" her or not. She's not plastered on various magazines, she's not in the US Weekly/Defamer gossips. She's got a couple good roles under her belt and may well be a breakout star. But she hasn't broken out yet and to put her in a category with actual big-time stars like Roberts or Witherspoon is crazy.

Though I didn't like it I think most people did like Red Eye and that had more to do with its success than McAdams.

Stella, (a) you know I'm kidding with you, and (b) you are not representative of every movie-goer out there. Neither am I. Not everybody likes McAdams, but I'm sure you will agree that more like her than don't.

I figured you were kidding jeff, and I am certainly aware that I am not representative of every movie-goer, but I couldn't say for sure that more people like McAdams than don't.

I agree that McAdams' performance, more than anything else in that movie, was integral to Red Eye's success.

There's no reason to assume that she is more disliked than liked. I would assume that, if you did a poll, even Lohan would have 'favorability ratings' over 50% because not everyone follows her nightlife escapades.

What makes you so certain that Red Eye did well specifically because of McAdams performance?

Because the entire movie was very simple and only consisted of two things: the menacing interplay between McAdams and Murphy, and Craven's suspense tactics. And the latter would not have mattered if people didn't like McAdams as much as they did.

I think that's giving her a little too much credit, but I suppose it's possible.

The truth is, there aren't very many bankable female stars today. Hell, I would say Witherspoon is really the only one at the moment (getting "Just Like Heaven" to $50 million was a minor miracle). Natalie Portman, Keira Knightly, Angelina Jolie, Cameron Diaz, Gwyneth Paltrow - and, yes, now Julia - are a lot more dependant on each individual project. McAdams is in that category too, I'd argue, but it is just a gut feeling and an educated guess observation that she will break out in a huge way when she gets that script (and she will, provided she wants to). In general, people love her, even if they call her "that girl from 'Wedding Crashers' and 'The Notebook'" right now.

not to get off this fascinating discussion, but hopefully Ebert pulls through. Can't tell if it's serious or not but doesn't sound good:

David, haven't read all the responses yet, but Hathway has sustained a number of movies on her own and she also has proven to be a potent supporting player as seen in "BRokeback Mountain"... she certainly is stronger than Rachel McAdams... I mean, I love her dearly, but what has she done that she's sustained? The Notebook? She was supporting in Wedding Crashers, and was part of an ensemble in Family Stone and even Red Eye (which really was sold more on Wes Craven's rep.)

And if McAdams really could topline her own rom com, then how come she hasn't been signed to any? Hathaway has proven she can, and I strongly believe that her next movie will do just as well with or without a Meryl Streep.

Two words on McAdams: Renee Russo

McAdams has been incredibly choosy, pulling out of Zach Braff project "The Last Kiss" for reasons never fully explained. It's not that she hasn't been offered romantic comedies or big blockbusters, but that she's (rightly or wrongly) turned them down.

Hathaway did a similar thing right after "Princess Diaries," not top-lining another movie till the sequel, and doing theatre in NYC instead--her performance in "Carnival" got major acclaim and nearly transferred to Broadway--there just wasn't a theatre.

Considering that it is the MEFE was anyone else UNDERWHELMED by the action sequences. There was very little WOW in the film. Pick any other expensive movies Titanic, Pearl Harbor, or King Kong, they all had a few WOW moments. I wonder if Warners should look at the books on how much Singer and crew spent. There wasn't any real stars and they filmed it down under. If they can make Episode 3 for 100 mil with real stars, then what is the deal with this?

Does the "Transformers" trailer remind anyone else of that Heineken commercial that's been running recently?

Massey, don't be so quick to dismiss Jodie Foster on your list of "bankable" stars ;) Flight Plan surely didn't sell on much else.

DP/CARS - the drop on CARS had stablized around low 30's and then this weekend it jumps to 40%. You look at that and still think that SUPERMAN RETURNS did no damage? It's a holiday weekend, last month OVER THE HEDGE actually INCREASED its box office after already being in release for several months, which suggest that SR took an even bigger bite out of CARS than is apparent.

Has anyone seen the Super Ex-Girlfriend commercials that have been everywhere this weekend? It's the second Fox commercial to make itself look like a commercial for Superman (though better)... it even uses the "Look, up in the sky... it's a bird... it's a plane" tagline, which makes me wonder whether WB is going to put a cease and desist on FOX in using it... it seriously looks like a Superman commercial at first.

^ I definitely think those ads are for the male audience. I saw those and I thought, those ads are a lot harder than the earlier ones. They make it look like a superhero flick first, a relationship movie second. That's fine, but this guy liked the relationship commercials better.

Martin,

Excellent post.

Ebert and Siskel were a huge part in determining how I watch films and they taught me to look to things I normally would not have.

Dare I say I probably learned more from them then film school.

Tonight Rog will be in my prayers.

Blackcloud: That's because you're a sensitive, Brawny Man type of guy.

Aw. Mr Rog hasn;t looked like he's felt well in a long time, so many operations and treatments can be debilitating. I met him once, but knew Gene Siskel much better (his death was a huge shock). Hope Roger is alright, he's still pretty young really.

Or, Joe, it's because the relationship commercials are better.

That reminds of the one where Marge falls for the Brawny guy, and Homer makes her think he's going to visit, and it turns out to be Barney. Hilarious.

I would prefer Barney too, Blackcloud, since the new Brawny guy looks so...sterile or something.

I liked the old Brawny dude better. So what if he looked like a 70s porn star...!

Roger and I aren't exactly bowling buddies -- that is, I'm not going to b.s. you folks and try to pass myself off as one of his closest confidantes -- but I've had just enough contact with him over the past year to believe he has remained a courteous and humorous gent throughout his recent string of surgeries. We’ve shared a running gag in our sporadic e-mails about my eagerness to light candles for him at a church in my neighborhood. His response always has been: “Yeah, Joe, but remember -- you actually have to PAY for them if they’re gonna do me any good.” (BTW: I have.) Just two weeks ago, when I mentioned in passing that I expected some wingnut hate mail for my review of “An Inconvenient Truth,” he took time to commiserate – and to send me some links to websites where I could get scientific info about global warming, which I could pass on to anyone who hassled me. The guy is a class act. But, then again, I’m prejudiced. Two years ago, right before he left for Cannes, he took time from his pre-festival preparations to read the galleys for my book (even though, honestly, we barely know each other, and I'm sure he gets bombarded with better books by better-known people) AND write a very complimentary blurb for my publishers. They were flabbergasted – they referred to a quote from Roger as, no kidding, “the holy grail for publishers of a book” like mine. They immediately ditched the cover they originally planned, and had a new one designed (at no little expense) to spotlight Roger’s words (which, truth to tell, probably counted more than MY words in terms of generating sales). I am not at all ashamed to say that news of his latest setback brings tears to my eyes. I do not want to think of a world without Roger in it.

On the other hand, I have to admit: He really is a freaking snob about his Mac. He views people like me who own Windows PCs as hopelessly benighted souls worthy of pity. Mind you, he may be right, but geez.

I came here to see if anyone had mentioned Ebert yet. Hopefully he pulls through.
When Siskel was alive, I used to watch the show religiously. They were my film school as a teenager, so I totally relate with what Nicol wrote.

Ha, I knew the bulk of the responses on here would be about McAdams.

Rachel Mc is indeed choosy and would most likely not star in a "Legally Blonde" if it came to her. In fact, she hasn't worked in a year and is about to star in a low-budget ensemble film, which is not exactly the best way to capitalize on her heat from last year. Hathaway has quite a bit on her as far as mainstream appeal.

Ebert is not only a classy guy who deals with his critics with aplomb, but he serves a vital purpose in our modern film culture. Here's hoping for the best.

[Hey Nicol, where did you go to film school again where you wasted your time and money? As a public service, to keep others from making that mistake...?]

Perhaps "Cars" does not have legs, but it certainly has tires.

I have two nephews who have seen it twice, and they want to see it a third time instead of "Superman Returns."

Go figure.

"All throughout A Prairie Home Companion I was distracted by memories of the stories of her awful real-life behavior."

What exactly about Lohan's behaviour is so insulting to you as a person. It's not even a Tom Cruise situation where he is forcing his beliefs on us and deliberately doing so infront of cameras.

If McAdams headlined a movie and she was the ONLY star of note in it and it was actually really bad then I bed it too would only make $20mil. Luckily McAdams has a better agent. It is strange that she just seems to be floating around aimlessly now. Shame, really. And while McAdams wasn't the focus of Red Eye's campaign I think the film succeeded because audiences (females, mostly I would think) responded to a female protagonist. McAdams also looks like a normal woman. It fit.

Ann Hathaway though is just getting more favourable in my books. She was charming in Princess Diaries (never saw the sequel because I didn't like the original film, just Hathaway) and she was undervalued in Brokeback Mountain and she's making smart choices with The Devil Wear's Prada.

One name that was left off that bankable female list was Sarah Jessica Parker. The Family Stone and Failure to Launch cannot be claimed as being sold entirely on, who, Diane Keaton and Matthew Maconaughey's shoulders alone. She's definitely popular with some audiences.

Does anybody else love that barely anybody is talking about Superman Returns here? Sort of proves a point that it's a very "whatever" sort of feeling.

It's kind of been done to death already in the other eight zillion Hot Blog posts about Superman.

No one dare insult the Lohan in front of Kamikaze Camel!

Do you think people were having these conversations about, say, Kelly McGillis in the mid-'80s?

And don't you forget! :P

Am I the only one here who doesn't care a) what a film cost to make, and b) how much money a film makes at the box office?

Really... it costs me the same $9 to see a $5M indie or a $200M superhero movie. And if I love a film that completely bombs (Eternal Sunshine comes to mind), so what? Likewise, if I dislike a huge box office success, I dislike it.

I enjoyed Superman Returns quite a bit, though it's far from perfect. I was thrilled by the airplane and sinking boat sequences as well as pretty much all the flying shots. Wonderful stuff.

Eternal Sunshine hardly bombed. It was a nice indie success.

Though you'd never know it from this site, the major critics are starting to slam Pirates 2. When it opens with 125 mil, it will be the latest example to prove critics just don't matter at all this summer. I mean, a lot of them loved SR and no one cared.

The studio said that 63% of Superman Returns audience was over the age of 25. That's the problem, not enough appeal to the kids. If it does skew older, well there is a chance that it could have longer legs, but that probably won't be evident until the weekend after Pirates opens. We'll just have to see.

What major critics are starting to 'slam' Pirates? Rottentomatoes has it at 77% with 10 positive, 3 negative. The first finished with 79%.

This is easily the most critic-proof movie of the summer.

Newsweek and Variety slamed the hell out of it.

"Am I the only one here who doesn't care a) what a film cost to make, and b) how much money a film makes at the box office?"

It doesn't affect my enjoyment of a movie, but a lot of the discussion here at the Hot Blog is about business-related aspects of filmmaking. Budget and box-office are key areas of that portion of the business.

My reasons for disliking SUPERMAN have nothing to do with what it cost. Ironically, I think the discussion about Warner's budget/marketing choices and the results of those choices is more interesting than a discussion of the movie itself -- possibly because I think the movie didn't have much to say (though it certainly thought it did).

Don't you guys get it... investing in the "major" critics on big, dumb, fun films is a bad idea.

Found a NewsWeek 'Web Exclusive' that could look like a 'slam', but the cover of the actual magazine has Depp himself looking like a million bucks.

Variety is well-known for reviewing movies as early as possible, and most often being negative. I've yet to find anyone that reads Variety on a normal basis outside of the industry.

Again... It just doesn't matter, and I've become fatigued by people freaking out about random reviews this summer. They highlight the negatives (How much attention did Poland get for his early Superman review, eh?), and entirely ignore the positives, even if they are in the vast majority.

Pirates isn't really questionable. Unlike X-Men 3, it is helmed by the same director. Unlike the DaVinci Code, everyone already knows what a Pirates movie will be like. Unlike Superman Returns, there isn't a new view on an old property.

The only backlash Dead Man's Chest will get will be from not topping Spider-Man's opening or final gross. That's the story.

"What exactly about Lohan's behaviour is so insulting to you as a person."

I don't know about 'insulting' but while watching the movie, I was constantly distracted by thoughts of the baggage she's created for herself: the catfights with other actresses, her weight fluctuations, her drug use, and her unwillingness to work with directors who aren't big names. She gave a good performance in Prairie Home, but not good enough to get me to forget all that stuff. Since KCamel brought it up, I was also distracted in MI3 by Tom Cruise's personal baggage, but since he only ever plays Tom Cruise in most of his movies it doesn't matter as much.

Er, pretty much every actress in Hollywood has weight fluctuations. I find it amusing that people still don't understand that young people (remember, she was only 19) have body issues and that being a superstar doesn't change that. One of my friends who's 19, a concert violinist, recently moved to Sydney, she came back for a weekend and she had lost a lot of weight. She's not anorexic, she's just stressed and overworked. Yes, Lindsay's weight loss had more behind it than that, but a lot girls that age go through those issues. But she's healthier now and she's getting back on track.

And, uh, her "drug use" should be a void point. If you're using that as a sticking point then how about (since he's part of the convo atm) Johnny Depp. I'm sure when he was 19 he did much more than Lindsay. And catfights? Well, yeah, that's what happens when you read tabloids.

Anyway.

Pirates will be a hit because, unlike Superman Returns, it appears to be all fun and action, whereas Supes appeared to have a lot of arthouse-esque scenes of the man staring off into the distance being all woe-is-me. Plus, I think most sane people prefer Keira Knightley to Kate Bosworth. I love that this Pirates now includes 2 Oscar nominees.

I'm happy you can forgive her all of that stuff, KCamel. It's very charitable of you. And drugs doesn't bother me that much; Woody Harrelson is in the same movie with her. But the difference is, I don't think Woody Harrelson's a spoiled brat on an ego trip, which is how Lohan has come off in every story I've heard about her (and not just from tabloids - I live in Los Angeles and just last night a friend was telling me a story about how she was obnoxious at a nightclub he was at).

Jeff: Two of the ex-wives who divorced Cary Grant claimed he physically abused them. (We're talking about court records here, not gossip.) Does that change your attitude about Cary Grant? Does that prevent you from enjoying his movies?

I think the reason Lohan's behavior gets under people's skin is that unlike trolls such as Paris Hilton and Tara Reid, she has genuine talent, and the feeling is she's wrecking her career--and very likely her life--with her self-destructive behavior.

Joe, I never heard that before, and it does diminsh my respect for him. But relatively not as much, because it's decades in the past. Cadavra is right: I loathe Paris Hilton, but I expect awfulness from her. I loved Lohan in Mean Girls and other places, and now she's snorting it all away.

What can I say Jeff, I'm a charitable person :-)

But, the thing is I'm sure there have been stories about Woody Harrelson being troublesome on set before. I'm sure there was a time back in the day when Harrelson was just as crazy and outta control as people claim Lindsay to be. It just so happens that Lindsay's rise to fame is when the papparazi are at all time highs and there's many more places to have it reported.

I hope that eventually you can forget about it as it gets further in the past.

(I really don't know why I defend Lindsay so much. I think it's just because really like her and want her to succeed and I find it sad when a 19-year-old girl becomes the target of character assassination)

"The studio said that 63% of Superman Returns audience was over the age of 25."

How does the studio know what age someone is?

That guy walking in over there!!--Is he 26 or 24?

That couple right there!--He looks 27, and she looks 23.

Who took this particular poll nationwide, and how accurate can it possibly be?

Adorian: Actually, I've been told by studio reps (here in Houston and elsewhere) that it's very common for them to conduct opening day -- and sometimes opening weekend -- surveys of exiting moviegoers, to tabulate that very info. (They also have told me it's a pain in the ass to do this for Christmas Day openings, but such is life.) I assume the studios extrapolate from these surveys, much like Gallup and other opinion poll-takers do.

Joe is correct. Living in NYC and going to the movies here, I have, from time to time, gotten "exit surveys," which are handed out to all theatre-goers as they enter the theatre and collected as you leave. USually, there's a part to fill out before viewing (expectations, demographic analysis, etc.) and a part to fill out afterwards (your thoughts on the film, etc.)

You people need to stop hyping up the McAdams girl. She has not been in a hit on her own. Red Eye, please. That's like saying Patricia Arquette is a box office draw after Stigmata. McAdams is the new equivalent to Demi Moore. A very luck ensemble actress. People on the street have no idea who McAdams is!

The difference is that Stigmata was a horrible movie that nobody liked.
In her heyday did Demi get as much hype as McAdams is getting from people here?

I always figured exit polls her taken, but they're about as statistically solid as saying you always get 50 french fries in a large mcdonalds meal. It changes everytime.

I like how people come to this site, which is free (and nearly ad-free too), and expect to be treated like kings, all their demands followed to the dot. And basically it comes down to a couple people that know or claim to know the writer/editor of the site in-real-life and turn every discussion into some private conversation/argument with their IRL buddy. It's incredibly dull stuff and I'm sure causes new chatters to leave. It's sad to see each thread start with a few promising comments, ideas worthy of further discussion, and then see the usual 2 or 3 trolls show up and make it into a platform for their own boring personal agendas. I hate to say it, but I honestly think it would be a better place if every asshole that took it off-topic into personal arguments got banned. I'm sure the trolls would find their way back, but at least it would send a message as to what is and is not appropriate behavior for these public movie forums.

OK, Martin, let's stay on the topic of expectations. We've had the hype, we've read the mixed reviews, and now.... What is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM that "Pirates" most post as opening weekend gross for it NOT to de described as "disappointing"? The very LEAST it must make not to get backlashed?

If it doesn't break $100 million, it's a "flop."

I'm guessing $117--just enough to break AQUAMAN's record. ;-)

I wouldn't set the bar that high, I think $90 mill 3-day is the make or break point. We have to keep in mind that Pirates 1 attracted a word-of-mouth crowd, which in some cases means similar crowds (larger this time) will attend the film throughout a long run. But I guess I look at this as sort of Austin Powers 2, which means a gigantic opening because Pirates has become pure pop culture right now. I predict $105 mill 3-day.

Didn't "Austin Powers 2" actually make as much in its opening weekend as the first movie did throughout its ENTIRE theatrical run?

^ Something like that.

I'm pretty sure it made more in it's first two days than the original did in it's entirety.

With Pirates, we must also remember that it's 2.5 hours. So a session time could run anywhere to 3 hours. I know a cinema my my city only has 5 screenings a day!

my point wasn't exact numbers, but the idea of how it will perform as an in-demand sequel. Powers 2 did in fact make in 3 days slightly more than the original did in its whole theatrical run. This was a big marketing point for New Line on the monday box office wrapup.

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