#1 ‘Paranormal Activity’ Scares Away Weekend Rivals; ‘Saw VI’ Scares Away Audiences For Only #2; ‘Vampire’s Assistant’ Can’t Scare Up Hardly Anyone

COMMENTS (99)

• I get so tired of Nikki’s moralizing and damnation of the horror genre, celebrating any horror film’s failure and decrying every film’s success. Face it Nikki, these films will never go away, and while you can’t see the art in them, the audience obviously does.

  The real story this weekend is that half of the top ten films are horror genre related, and only one of them, The Vampire’s Assistant, is going to lose money. Saw VI will be in profit in its first week, and Paranormal Activity is a full fledged phenomenon. The Stepfather will more than double the take of the last failed remake, Sorority Row, and Zombieland recently became the highest grossing zombie film ever. And another slasher film which Nikki incorrectly labeled a bomb, Halloween II, is getting a rerelease on over 1000 screens next weekend. Horror is huge right now, and its the R rated titles that are leading the charge, not the PG-13 titles.

  Comment by Armando — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 11:46am PDT  Reply to this post

  • I’m still trying to find a reason to like PG13 fright films. I think the last non-R genre pic that I found satisfying was JAWS.

    Comment by JAYnLA — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 7:58pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Val, you can’t ‘bury’ Jigsaw. He’ll never be dead.

  The fact that adults get wound up about this is comical. The grannies at the mpaa let it go; 99% of people that complain here Haven’t Seen Any of These Movies.

  Truth be told, you’re reacting to Marketing alone.

  Jigsaw is Jason is Freddy… So f’in what. Let the people watch what they want.

  Comment by smokey — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 12:13pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • Amen. Can you imagine the cheering that would’ve gone on if they had blogs when the sixth Friday the 13th movie opened?

    Saw VI was actually a really good movie. The new direction in the series is really helping the quality. I’m not so sure about 3D though. I’m a horror fan and I can stomach gore movies, but the concept of this kind of viciousness (and not kind of campy like MY BLOODY VALENTINE or FINAL DESTINATION) being brought up close to me is not appealing.

    Comment by GC — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 10:43pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I’ve heard considerably more than $40m for Cirque de Freak, but it’s not like $40m production before P&A would be good news here anyway. It’s losing large money and it’s a material miss for Universal. Hopefully they didn’t pay too much for the franchise rights.

  Bad movies are of course not reflected in the opening weekend but this isn’t going to do well for not having an actual clean plot structure or ending. Seriously, don’t greenlight things that wouldn’t get through the intern’s pass pile if they were original screenplays.

  As far as Astro Boy – Summit is New Line all over again. Make money with one thing that they have little to do with, piss it away on a gazillion other bad decisions that demonstrate severe lack of competence. They really better hope that the Twilight train is still rolling because I’ve seen nothing to indicate they can do anything else.

  Comment by Undercut — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 12:41pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Wild Things’ plummet is unfortunate but hardly unexpected. Even the biggest champions of the film should’ve realized that it was going to go over like a lead balloon with audiences who aren’t accustomed to children narratives that don’t pander to the lowest common denominator. I know it’s not the style of the author or the readers of this blog to look past the hard monetary figures, but this might be a rare instance where we should come together and salute a studio that took the high(brow) road on a literary adaptation of a property beloved by kids instead of bastardizing its essence for the sake of bigger box office bucks. It’s a unique film that will be revisited for decades to come, which wouldn’t have been the case if Warner Bros. went with a yes-man hack with no vision to make sure the apple cart stayed upright instead of Spike Jonze. If you have a cursory familiarity with the history of the source material, you should realize it’s a fitting development that a faithful cinematic adaptation polarized audiences and underperformed financially. Much like the book, I have a feeling the film is something that will go on to be rediscovered.

  Comment by Richard — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 1:01pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • Come ON. That movie is not a narrative for children!! It’s for childish, narcissistic adults!

    It was a misguided adaptation at best, though beautifully rendered…with extra points for that the source material was a fair amount shallower than the film was attempting to portray it.

    There are many darker, beautiful films for children that are easy to return to repeatedly. I don’t think this is going to be one of them. It’s no Dark Crystal. It’s not even a Labyrinth.

    Comment by Liz — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 10:29pm PDT  Reply to this post

• After the disaster that is Vampire’s Assistant, I guess Catherine Hardwicke now looks like a genius. She made a miracle out of a 35M vampire movie also loved by tweens.

  Comment by industry geek — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 1:50pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The trailers for Vampires Assistant and indeed the whole concept was flawed. It was not enough hunky sparkly vampires to attract tweens and their moms, and was absolutely repellent to boys/men.

  Boys/men want to BE the hero (by killing the monster) not become the useless appendage of the monster. No one wants to be Renfield and eat bugs. So that was a stupid idea in the first place.

  More evidence that Hollywood is too remote, elitist, feminized, and unable to come up with a good horror-adventure movie like “the Mummy” where simple formula of the guy saves the day and gets the girl equals box office success rules. At least half of success is saying no to stupid ideas.

  Comment by whiskey — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 1:57pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The funniest part of the Saw films are the scripts. They’re usually very short- 60-70 pages of inept writing, dialogue & structure… when there is a ‘TRAP’ it simply reads ‘INSERT TRAP’ and the production designer, producers and director devise a scheme that typically makes no sense and has a shitload of gore.

  Hoffman turns in his grave at where this mess of a franchise has gone. Burg & Koules continue to treat Hoffman’s widow with very little respect and shun her every moment of the day. Hoffman built Twisted you douchebags. Heed the words of Jigsaw, respect the effin dead.

  Comment by Tyler-Perry_is_the_Anti-Christ — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 2:04pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • I actually HAVE the scripts to most of the Saw films and you’re wrong. Saw IV was 114 pages and Saw V was 108. They have full trap descriptions. I won’t seen the Saw VI script until Monday.

    They have full trap descriptions. Perhaps the first draft doesn’t have all the traps, but doesn’t that go completely against your point? I mean, if they just write a script with no traps and then add traps later, doesn’t that mean that the traps are less important that the plot?

    I mean, we’ve all see what a movie literally written around the action scenes looks like; it was called Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Say what you will, but Saw VI was clearly paying off set ups from earlier films in ways that were clearly pre-planned and not haphazard.

    Comment by That one guy — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 10:33pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Considering that I’m not seeing any of that B.O. money, I’m pleased that PA is beating out SAW VI. To be sure, PA is somewhat overhyped, failing as it does to match the effectiveness of its obvious inspiration, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. But it does have a few solid creepy moments.

  SAW VI, though…what can you say about a film that’s being “hyped” by horror fans as “not as bad as SAW V”? I’m not sure that’s even an accurate assessment. SAW V was lousy but at least had a nifty and suspenseful escape-from-drowning sequence, which is featured on its DVD/Blu-Ray cover if any SAW virgins out there wanna know what I’m talking about. SAW VI, obviously running on empty, just seems like recycled bits from earlier films in the series. If they insist on cranking out more of these things, they might as well start replacing the writers as well as the directors. I’m not sure what Project Greenlight wonderkids Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton are contributing that warrants their continued involvement.

  Comment by Sawdust — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 2:51pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Cirqu du freak books are quirky and will not appeal to mass movie goers(especially teenagers) like the Twilight series.

  Comment by James — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 4:44pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Dewey Cox as a vampire? That wasn’t a success? Shocking.

  Summit should be worried the mere existence of that film will hurt the box office of NEW MOON.

  Comment by Chris Crosby — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 5:17pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • Dewey Cox as a vampire will not stop my tween sister and her friends from seeing the movie three times before Thanksgiving.

    Comment by mileshigh — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 3:54pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Can anyone explain to me exactly what does it mean when it was reported that ‘Paranormal Activity project was acquired for a mere $300K’?

  Does this mean that the film maker was only paid $300K from Paramount and nothing else after the success of the movie?

  Or that, the film makers will earn a back-end profit after all is said and done in the theaters?

  I would like to think it is the latter, after all, it was his movie, so he should be handsomely reward for his brilliant production

  Anyone?

  Comment by armand — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 6:29pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • Depends entirely on the way the deal was structured. Paramount of course would want “acquired for $300K” to mean just that – up front money only. I suppose they could give back-end to a newbie with a micro-budget project, but c’mon. This is the town where My Big Fat Greek Wedding lost money on the books so no profit participation was paid out.

    Even if that is the case, he put in $15K, got back $300K and got a deal for his next project. No tears here.

    Comment by Undercut — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 9:21pm PDT  Reply to this post

    • From what I hear, the director and producer split 50% of the profits. The source was someone high up at Paramount. Given that the marketing thus far is $10mm all in, they should each clear $20mm.

      And good for them – it’s a smartly executed movie that NO ONE wanted when first presented. They stuck with it, believed in it, and should reap the reward.

      I saw it three years ago and dug it (not revisionist history, either!). I wish I’d had the chance to get involved.

      Comment by out of the fire — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 8:43am PDT  Reply to this post

• Just keep repeating: It’s only a movie.. it’s only a movie.. it’s only a movie… Then maybe you won’t get so bent out of shape about it.

  Comment by Grane — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 6:42pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Holllywood lifers mindlessly trash the “Saw” movies without ever seeing them; it’s intellectually lazy and a way to quell their guilt over foisting the inoffensive, idea-free mush that survives the torturous game of studio development. Not one in a hundred of the glitterati who badmouth the “Saw” sequels has seen one of them all the way through. Fair enough — but I have higher expectations of my favorite journalist than to denigrate the latest entry sight unseen. It has more substance and craft than the torture-porn label suggests. You call it “crap” — have you seen it? Or are you just parroting Hollywood insiders?

  Comment by SAW viewer — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 7:37pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Man, people really take the term “torture porn” literally. I don’t like it, but the term is simply implying that is as exploitative of horror movie torture/bloodletting as regular porn is of sex. It doesn’t mean that it necessarily has any actual sex or nudity in it, just that people go to get their “torture”-loving rocks off at the sight of some violent death sequences.

  That said, like any Saw fan would tell you, I go to see how the plot develops. It’s like a crappy cop show, just with splatter. People are always derisive of this kind of statement, as if I have to have some sort of high-minded attitude to claim the Saw films have a plot to follow, but usually those are the people who didn’t bother to see the film and don’t like that kind of movie anyway. It’s okay not to like the Saw franchise, but you don’t need to go and decry it as some sort of bane on humanity just because your cinematic sensibilities are different from mine, especially since you haven’t gotten into it and never would, even under the best, most unbiased circumstances.

  I also think it’s ridiculous to imply that it’s good that horror is moving in a PG-13 direction. I’m not saying that everything has to be a Saw or a Hostel, or that everything should push the gore envelope farther than the last, but bloodletting is part of the territory. The original A Nightmare on Elm Street is pretty bloody, but it’s a pretty classic genre picture, and the idea that PG-13 is better would stomp all over several of its greatest, creepiest scenes (like Amanda Wyss getting lifted out of the bed and dragged up the wall or Johnny Depp getting sucked into his bed). I admit, some of these movies that have come out in the last few years probably are torture porn, but you can’t just ball everything up into a category because you don’t like it without examining it. Films like Hostel were made by auteurs trying to create something compelling and interesting, which is the right idea even if some people can’t stomach it, and series like Saw are too over-the-top, really, to worry about (I mean, come on, someone gets melted in the latest one!). It’s PG-13 films like the Prom Night and Stepfather remakes, which are artistically empty, financially motivated and poorly made that deserve to get canned.

  Lastly, it’s ridiculous that anyone not interested would be so burdened by the Saw movies anyway. It’s like the inverse of having your cake and eating it too: you don’t like it, so nobody should have it. Did anyone see the movie’s most recent theatrical trailer? It was only 50 seconds long! The films are playing to the faithful, and the faithful alone, so in the age of TiVo, can’t you just ignore it?

  Comment by Tyler Foster — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 8:16pm PDT  Reply to this post

• “It’s PG-13 films like the Prom Night and Stepfather remakes, which are artistically empty, financially motivated and poorly made that deserve to get canned.”

  That describes a SAW film perfectly.

  Tyler, you’re not ready for this level of discussion.

  Comment by Ryan S — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 9:40pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • That’s your opinion. My opinion is that the series is motivated by producers trying to appeal specifically to their fans by creating a story that is interesting to them. Just because it’s not interesting to you doesn’t mean it isn’t interesting to us. (And I’m talking about pure plot — I’d watch a Saw movie with no traps in it or the traps edited out if the series’ story moved forward.) Now, obviously, I don’t know who you are, but based on your tone, I’m going to guess you haven’t watched all six Saw films, and even then, you’d still have to be the intended audience before I put stock in your opinion. One of the things I was saying in the original post you were quoting that’s very important: why should I care what someone who hates 90% of horror movies thinks of Saw? Even if it wasn’t as shambling and low-rent as it is — something I’m perfectly willing to admit — someone who hates horror films in general still wouldn’t give it a fair chance.

    Aside from that, I’m not saying that Koules and Burg don’t want to make money. I’m sure they do. That said, I’m certainly more positive that the producers working on Prom Night didn’t consider the opinions of a single fan of the original. Lionsgate may greenlight them on a “financially motivated” level, but reading interviews with Koules and Burg, I feel like they also think it’s good business to indulge the Saw-lovers and give them the kinds of plots they like, which people will say are confusing and stupid, but again, it comes back to them not being fans of the series.

    Comment by Tyler Foster — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 3:57am PDT  Reply to this post

  • I think you’re the one insisting on snark over rational discussion, Ryan. The Saw films aren’t my cup of tea by any means – I prefer movies that don’t operate as one endless loop of flashbacks/backwards continuity in lieu of story development and prefer horror films with protagonists I empathize with in order to accenturate the vicarious thrill of being scared (i.e., Clarice in Silence of the Lambs, the wife in Parnormal Activity, even the lead in Drag Me To Hell or House of the Devil). However, to act like there’s no validity to the fact that these 80s remakes are without merit is to hide ones head in the sand. These PG-13 abominations lack EVERYTHING a good horror movie is supposed to have and do more to devalue the genre as a whole than any gorefest could ever do. I’m not talking about the truly scary/fun ones like The Ring or The Grudge, either — just these worthless crapfests like When A Stranger Calls, Prom Night and The Stepfather that are poorly cast and badly scripted to the point of being truly thrill-free and manufactured to appeal to young females yet ultimately manage to satisfy no one at all.

    And yes, the Hostel films are far more descriptive of the overused “T-P” descriptor than the Saw films, seeing as how their very plots clearly draw the connection to torture=sexual release. The first Hostel was genuinely suspenseful at times, but the second one has such a disgustingly sexualized sequence in it involving Heather Matarazzo’s character that’s clearly meant to excite the sadists in the audience that it ruined the entire movie for me.

    Comment by John — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 6:36am PDT  Reply to this post

• How can somebody returning anything in a “trash bag” be equated to it being scary? Wouldn’t the more logical assumption be to think the sender thought it was “trash”?

  Comment by steve — Saturday October 24, 2009 @ 10:46pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • …or worse, dog poop. at least thats what i see alot of dog owner’s use when walking & picking up after their dogs. just sayin.

    …might as well take the idea and run with it…

    

    …personally I am waiting for House of the Devil. but if folks are enjoying PA more power to them. I always enjoy when someone bucks the system & fans respond to it.

    so far this fall I have seen the following with the corresponding scores:
    zombieland 9.5
    law abiding citizen 8.5 (professional reviewers have no clue. check out what fans say on this one)
    vampires assistant 7.5 (premise is great and execution was nicely done. no twilight but it wasnt selling itself to be)

    may check out wild things. always liked the book.

    would have liked to have seen pandorum but it was here and gone too soon.

    Comment by lu-ee — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 7:37am PDT  Reply to this post

• I’m a huge horror movie fan – I’m pretty much there for any new horror openings and caught My Bloody Valentine, Friday 13th, Drag Me To Hell, etc when they opened this year (and what an over-rated pile of crap Drag was)

  But I do draw the line at the Saw movies. I caught the first two and just found them so grubby, nasty and sadistic – and it’s a real shame the genre has moved in this direction (The Hills Have Eyes and Last House on the Left apply the same ethos). I agree with the phrase torture porn.

  I’m glad the series is running out of steam – though I suspect they’ll still reach Saw 10.

  It takes no film making skill to watch someone slowly and sadistically die…

  Comment by richie — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 5:08am PDT  Reply to this post

• @ Bigheaded Ryan:

  Saw is motivated by money? Really? Fascinating. Here’s a better question: What isn’t?

  Watchmen is the greatest example of Hollywood udder-sucking: That film was praised by fanboys for staying faithful to the plot of the original comic, but it was not faithful at all to the themes of the comic. What that leaves us is a shallow, empty film designed to squeeze money out of a (in some way) popular product in a time when comic book movies are all the rage.

  Watchmen, which I still enjoyed solely because I loved the comic, is cinematic prostiution at its finest. And sure, Saw is made for money: The plot is absolute crap, based on ridiculous logic that makes up the rules as it goes along, and yes, it HAS become about the traps.

  But let’s blame Saw when Paramount has no problem exploiting the producers of Paranormal: Some upper middle-class people make $100,000 a year, so does $300,000 sound fair when Paramount will likely walk away with as much as $80 million when all is said and done? $300,000 wouldn’t buy lunch for the executive lounge.

  You have to realize that spending money to see Paranormal is not supporting the little movie that could: It’s supporting the studio that owns a little movie.

  Comment by DK — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 7:08am PDT  Reply to this post

• “Amelia” – another bomb from Fox Searchlight. (after “Whip It”)

  Comment by maria — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 7:36am PDT  Reply to this post

  • Now that Rice is gone, we can see where the talent was. So typical of a studio head to hire an untalented subordinate. Don’t know who it is but I bet it’s a woman.

    Comment by Anonymous — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 12:18pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Nikki….The Vampire’s Assistant cost double what you are reporting here. Someone over at U. is giving you bad dope.

  Comment by wally — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 8:41am PDT  Reply to this post

• Paranomral Activity is a perfect example of the fact that younger movie-goers are looking for something special and exciting. But instead of giving them great films we pawn off a YouTube Video with fake “buzz” and marketing.

  Make no mistake, studios would like nothing better than to take shitty, half-assed movies like PA and “market” them to success. They already have to some extent in TV.

  That said, Paranormal Activity is not a film, it’s an amateur video with terrible acting, pacing and a wisp of a story. Astro Boy is a fun sweet and satisfying movie that is even better than the old series (my audience applauded at end) and Vampire’s Assistant is an average film hurt by bad casting and a story that tried to service too many themes.

  I refuse to see any SAW films none have been good since the first one. This Halloween, I may go back to see the superior Zombieland or if I can find it see the already cult classic Trick R Treat

  Comment by CineFileX — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 10:09am PDT  Reply to this post

• SAW VI is trash. Pure trash. Do you smell it? Why try to defend it?

  Comment by Dan — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 11:25am PDT  Reply to this post

• The Vampire’s Assistant cost north of $70 million and I know that for a fact. If Universal is telling you that’s it’s 40, they are trying to hide the fact that it’s a huge disaster. It probably won’t make 20 mil.

  Comment by Fangirl1980 — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 12:18pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The end of SAW…THERE IS A GOD!

  Comment by Alboone — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 12:37pm PDT  Reply to this post

• here here.
  weitz it a loser

  Comment by northwesternchick — Sunday October 25, 2009 @ 12:37pm PDT  Reply to this post