UNFINISHED BUSINESS: The Projects James Gandolfini Left … 
R.I.P. James Gandolfini 
Photos: James Gandolfini, 1961-2013 
Masterpiece To Co-Produce ITV Medical Drama … 
Warner Bros Sets Morten Tyldum To Helm … 
Zac Efron Thriller ‘The Falling’ Gets Jeremy … 
Why Was Ex-Soft Porn Filmmaker Recently Hired As Movie … 
ReelzChannel Cancels ‘The Big Picture’ After … 
Cillian Murphy Boards ‘In The Heart Of The Sea’ 
John Legend To Produce Comedy Project About Music Managers … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Crystal Fairy’ 
Sam Taylor-Johnson To Direct ‘Fifty Shades Of … 
Inside AMPAS Board Of Governors’ Meeting: Conflict Of … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Spectacular Now’ 
Glenn Geller To Run Current Programming For CBS & CBS … 
Shailene Woodley’s Mary Jane Role Cut From ‘The … 
New ‘Star Wars’ Film Cast Breakdown Unveiled 
CAA Signs Florian Henckel Von Donnersmarck, Oscar-Winning … 
UPDATE: Dan Abrams Named New ‘Nightline’ Anchor … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘The Voice’ Finale On Par … 
Joy Bryant Returns To Longtime Agent Steve Alexander At … 
SATURDAY PM/SUNDAY AM: What a big boys weekend, with only a bit of counter-programming. (Don’t worry gals, Sex And The City arrives May 27th.) Here are some early domestic box office grosses for the Top 10 movies for Friday, Saturday, weekend & cume. Numbers will be refined in the morning:
1. IRON MAN 2 (Marvel/Paramount) Week 2 [4,390 Runs]
Friday $15.2M (-70%), Saturday $21M, Weekend $49M, Cume $208.5M
The original did $51M on its 2nd weekend, which was -50%.
2. ROBIN HOOD (Universal) NEW [3,503 Runs]
Friday $14.9M, Saturday $13.7M, Weekend $36M, Cume $209M
UPDATE: Robin Hood is the No. 1 film in the world this weekend, with $75.7M international, other than North America. Domestically, it’s only No. 2. Well, Robert Downey Jr was playing in 887 more North American theaters than Russell Crowe. And it was always predicted that Ridley Scott’s pic would post almost double the numbers overseas, especially in Europe, than in the U.S. and Canada. And it’s hard to compare cool comic book gadgetry to bows & arrows. Still, this is a mediocre domestic start even with lowered expectations, but the international will help offset the 2D film’s ridiculous $225M budget. Partly financed by Relativity Media, the production budget for Robin Hood is said by the studio to really be $155M after tax credits and other savings. Still, the lower figure doesn’t include the costlier-than-usual startup costs because of several missteps by then Universal Pictures chairman Marc Shmuger. (One of the reasons he lost his job.). Even though Robin Hood was smartly positioned visually and thematically between Gladiator and Braveheart, it suffered here from too many prior film versions of this tired tale. Helped by its Cannes Festival premiere hoopla, international is roughly 15% ahead of Sherlock Holmes, another oft told story, in the same markets. The studio hopes the pic could do well north of $200M. The comp Sherlock did $265M using today’s exchange rate.
3. LETTERS TO JULIET (Summit) NEW [2,968 Runs]
Friday $5M, Saturday $5.3M, Weekend $13.2M
This sappy film which nevertheless received an “A-” Cinemascore was targeted for female audiences as counter programming against Robin Hood and Iron Man 2. But it’s underperforming after tracking suggested it would open in the high teens. I hear the budget for the film was $30M but after rebates, incentives and strong foreign pre-sales (Summit’s specialty), the studio is exposed for only half that cost.
4. JUST WRIGHT (Fox Searchlight) NEW [1,831 Runs]
Friday $2.8M, Saturday $3.4M, Weekend $8.2M
This low-budget rom com in an NBA milieu was always expected to open modestly. Searchlight produced this $12.5M film starring Queen Latifah and Common and handled marketing but, since it’s a wide release for the specialty house, big Fox handled domestic distribution. Searchlight hopes to capitalize on the 2nd round of the NBA playoffs with Dwight, Kobe, and Lebron possibly making it into the next round.
5. NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (NL/WB) Week 3 [3,075]
Friday $1.5M, Saturday $1.9M, Weekend $4.6M, Cume $56M
6. DATE NIGHT (Fox) Week 6 [2,481]
Friday $1.2M, Estimated Weekend $4.0, Estimated Cume $36.6M
7. HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON (DWA/Par) Week 8 [2,620]
Friday $1.1M, Estimated Weekend $5.2M, Estimated Cume $207.7M
8. THE BACK-UP PLAN (CBS Films/Sony) Week 4 [2,497]
Friday $785K, Estimated Weekend $2.5M, Estimated Cume $34.2M
9. FURRY VENGEANCE (Summit) Week 2 [2,695]
Friday $525K, Estimated Weekend $2.1M, Estimated Cume $40M
10. CLASH OF THE TITANS (Warner Bros) Week 7 [1,300]
Friday $330K, Estimated Cume $1.1M, Estimated Cume $160M
EXCLUSIVE THURSDAY 8AM: Sources are telling me this $6 million is “on the high end” of Universal’s expectations for Robin Hood‘s debut abroad after all that opening hoopla at the Cannes Film Festival. (CANNES: Not All Aquiver For ‘Robin Hood’?) The problem is not that the movie will tank: it just cost too much. It’s expected to do very well around the globe, probably $45M or even $50M domestic in 3,503 North American theaters this opening weekend, and twice that number overseas from 6,945 theaters.
The studio released the film in 3 countries yesterday — France, Belgium, and the French-speaking side of Switzerland — and did paid previews in a handful of others. France did a big $1.1M. (That’s on a par with Mummy 3, 40% ahead of Angels & Demons, 50% ahead of Benjamin Button, and 70% ahead of Sherlock Holmes. What a weird sequence of comps.). Belgium did $200K (136% higher than Iron Man 2, 127% higher than Gladiator, 98% above Inglourious Basterds, 131% higher than Sherlock Holmes). Switzerland was ahead of Gladiator and Sherlock Holmes.
The pic previewed in other markets including the UK, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden and several smaller territories. UK did $1.2m which is more than double Bourne Ultimatum, and advance ticket sales for the weekend are said to be “incredibly strong”. Russia did $960K. Italy did $660K in limited shows. Germany took in $550K, or 148% of Iron Man 2 and 156% of Iron Man. Austria did $73K from one show per location, 53% more than Gladiator on the same basis. Sweden was 32% ahead of Iron Man 2.
For more estimates listed by title, see box office results here...Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
I hope it does killer business. I know the film is taking a beating as a big fat star vehicle … but I would rather work in a Hollywood run by Talent than by corporations. They are, by far, the lesser of two evils – and their juice really does trickle down (but note that I said “Talent”, not “artists”).
Guess what the least important factor in the entertainment biz is…. anyone?
answer: the talent.
Nets ‘n’ Studios were here first, and they’ll be here last. Go to a “film” festival or Youtube and see what kinda quality The Talent produces.
The Powers-That-Be can deliver whatever the public wants – we get what we deserve.
Or, as H.L. Mencken said: “Nobody ever went broke over estimating the public’s capacity for bad taste.”
I don’t think it’s the studios’ fault that most critics generally considered this past decade to be the worst in Hollywood’s history.
Wonderful movies are actually easier to make than the likes of the above mentioned POS. It’s just that they can’t get enough asses-on-seats to bother.
I guess that’s why god gave us PBS.
Neither “talent” (read: shameless hacks who live in over-priced Malibu mansions, have people backing away forbidden to actually look them in the eye, and believe they are royalty reincarnated), nor “studios” (see, talent) have produced many good much less great films.
Indeed, the “talent” today is lacking for the most part in masculine actors and feminine actresses. Over at Christian Toto’s site was a comment on Robin Hood and Russell Crowe, being a bloated poseur lacking the masculine authority and presence of either Burt Lancaster or Gregory Peck. A few decent films have been made, and a whole lot of “shock the bourgeois” but not much entertainment.
I’ll take an Iron Man popcorn movie, or heck, Vince Vaughan in Four Christmases, because they’re entertaining. Not arty shock like say, Transamerica, or Squid and the Whale, or endless navel gazing like Up in the Air or Margot at the Wedding.
But NEITHER Suits nor Talent can make something like “Guns of Navarrone,” or “Day of the Jackal,” or North by Northwest. It took MOGULS. Guys who had both skin in the game, losing or making money, and a middle class “butt detector” to at least separate the BS poseur trash from actual, real entertainment people would watch.
A hundred years from now, people will still be enjoying “Day of the Jackal.” The other stuff, probably not.
As usual, your comments reveal a complete and almost absurd ignorance of both cinema history and the business. You really need another hobby.
Haven’t seen either Iron Man II or Robin Hood yet, but will.
Iron Man II because Iron Man I rocked and Downey did flawless job as Stark. Not sure if others were in the running for Stark but always surprised when someone I would not have thought of (Downey? The dude who played Chaplain?) nails it.
Re Russell, still get sucked into Gladiator, 3:10 to Yuma,…when on cable. Great pics.
I completely agree. Well said. Moguls knew how to balance art, talent, and commerce. And did it with a realistic eye.
Why is it that I get the feeling that whenever people spout this kind of pseudo intellectual BS about movies, they’re just trying to make up reasons why they didn’t care for a particular movie or actor, and obviously everyone else should have the same opinion as them?
I think this comment comes to the heart of Hollywood’s collective problem. Studios are selling Art, but the audiences are buying Entertainment. The two can coincide but usually its by accident. The reason critics are getting ignored more and more is they are evaluating movies on the quality of their Art, and people want to know whether the movie is Entertaining. Like the guy above me, I go to stupid action movies because no one has any illusions that one is Art. Well maybe Cameron does I guess. So dumb action movies are free to be Entertaining. And they are.
You want people to go to brainy dramas again? Make them entertainment first, art second.
Great Post!!!!!!!!!! The recession has a lot to due with ticket sales. Hollywood has forgotten how to create movies. They simply make movies. There is a difference. Avatar was a refreshing change.
Remove the 3D/CGI shit and tell me how “refreshing” A’tar was. Cameron is the posterboy for all that’s wrong with/in Hollywood these days.
Amen to that. Sick of propaganda films, anyway.
So true!
“…refreshing…”????? Cameron is the icon of: all-that-smells in H’wood these days.
Pay attention, Lilith.
Pay attention, Shizz!! I don’t care about hollywood politics. I just enjoyed the film.
Cameron is the posterboy for all that’s wrong in hollywood? That wasn’t my point. Maybe he is maybe he isn’t. Again, I simply enjoyed and I personally found that movie refreshing.
You guys should hang out with Sarah Palin.
Most of us aren’t Hollywood elitists, CGI does not bother us and actually helps fictional alien landscapes look vivid and real in our minds. What would you like? For them to just not make movies like Avatar? Or remove CGI from them? Movies are meant to be entertaining, not fit into some predetermined template created by a bunch of Academy jackasses. And the ridiculous Avatar sales show, quite obviously, that you cynics are in the minority.
You can keep your ‘artsy’ movies, I’ll keep paying to see the entertaining ones.
God didn’t give you PBS – The government did… but the taxpayers get to pay for it.
PS~
PBS and HBO. The Sopranos and Their Will Be Blood are the only redeemable (truly great) productions to have materialized during the New Millennium’s first decade (period).
The latter, being a testament to studios’ potential regardless / in spite of, the public’s apathy and shit-for-taste.
you forgot “the wire” and “mad men” — two other Best of Shows from the past decade, hands down!
tokk my wife to just right. it made me happy to see a adult themed movie i could take my wife too. it seems every movie out today is made for kids and young adults while us middle aged have to our pateranl job and sit thru new moon, train a dragon, iron man2, while leaving my wife at home. by the way i hope togod that eclipse is way better than the horrible new moon. that was the most excruciating 2 hours of my movie seen biography. that director should never have done that movie. cruddy acting horrible editing. please for my sanity get another jacob black. this lautner looks like a 2 yr old kissing his sister! the father next to me fell asleep, snoring i had to elbow the poor guy. but being a father with a preteen i have to go to #3 its the law! lol i hate to admit though i read all four books 1 and 4 the best 2 and 3 were long and boring. sorry meyer its the truth. by the way wheres the 5th installment? writers block?
The history channel special on robin hood showed how they got the story behind robin hood, it was very interesting
love how everything over at universal is always marc shumger’s fault.
Those figures comparing Robin Hood to Iron Man 2 don’t make sense. Iron Man 2 made %100M in it’s first 5 days in foreign markets. Robin Hood has been tracking very poorly and the bad reviews will certainly not help. $45 – 50M on its opening weekend sounds VERY optimistic.
I hope they can re-capture the “Gladiator” feel, but Russell (and Cate) are too old and fat to bring the “young’ins” in. (and by the way, the CGI in Gladiator was seamless and didn’t look like CGI – this, not so much)
Robin Hood is good. Saw it and me liked.Russell and Cate are very good actors. I went because of them alone. I didn’t see the fat/cellulite on Russell. He was thick and in shape. Cate could use some fat. You may have a point with Russell and Cate being to old to draw in a young crowd. That’s a good thing for dvd sales.Maybe that will help eat away at the crazy budget.225 ml??? My mouth dropped.
Ok, I’m always confused by these profit and loss assessments based on box office and film cost. They’re always so vague. Did the film cost $225m or $155m? You use the term “production budget” – budget being completely different than cost. What are the “other savings” Uni’s referring to? And regarding tax credit savings – are those savings accounted for after the film is produced? If so, then would there be an financing and/or interest cost on the $70m difference between the $225m & $155m? I guess my point is that these numbers all seem to be PR spin and not real economics.
And if the film’s negative cost was $155m on the low end, the marketing cost still has to be included in any assessment of the film’s ultimate profitability. What was the P&A cost of the film? Who bore that cost? I’ll assume it was Universal since they’re the distributor and that Relativity only came in for production costs. Let’s guess and say the marketing cost of the film as $70m (maybe someone in marketing can estimate this number better), bringing the total cost of making and marketing the film $225m. What’s the film need to gross in order to break even and begin turning a profit? Half the gross comes back to Uni in the form of film rentals, so the film would have to gross $450m before the film breaks even?
So assume the estimates are correct and the film does $150m worldwide this weekend. Maybe a 30% drop in week two (assuming the film is opening in other foreign territories)? So that’s a worldwide gross of $95m in week two for a cume of $245m. That’s $122.5m in rentals for Uni.
That seems like an awfully long road to break even — any meaningful profit will come from ancillary markets. But what are those markets like these days? Downloads? DVD? TV, cable, etc.
Spending that kind of money on a film seems like an excessively risky proposition, no? I mean, the film is going to have to grind out a profit over the course of a year in various ancillary markets which also have costs associated with marketing and distribution (albeit much smaller costs). Plus, all that money being laid out has a cost associated with it too. Doesn’t Uni borrow that money? And Relativity must have large cost associated with their financing as well. I believe this is what’s referred to as Hollywood’s “creative accounting”, but these are also very real costs.
What’s the real story behind economics of producing, marketing and distributing $200m worth of Robin Hood? And do you think anyone involved might have noticed the irony in making a movie that lionizes a prototypical Marxist for such a huge price tag?
Am I completely misunderstanding how all this really works? If so, I’d love a more informed analysis!
No, you’re not uninformed. AVATAR was financed with about 60% private equity, which means News was left (Fox) with only 40% of the financing and receipts.
Tame Your Dragon has already made money, its profitable. Why? T-O-Y-S. In other words, you nailed it, ancillary markets. But NOT core stuff: tickets sold abroad, DVDs sold or rented, TV rights, and things like that. Black piracy, in part, but for the most part DVD purchases or rentals are discretionary. It takes both lots of discretionary income, and attractive product, to make that sale. Consumers hard pressed are not upgrading to Blu-Ray players and discs as thought, it’s still about 10% of the market in rentals.
Which makes licensing and toys and such, far more important than an actual film. If you want to know why Star Wars sequels sucked so much, its because Lucas is a billionaire from the Star Wars toys (he kept the licensing/merchandising rights). Everything in the sequels was done in order to sell toys and games.
It’s like GM circa 1995 — making more money financing car purchases than selling cars. And as deeply troubling. Europe is closing the door to private equity financing of films with extensive regulation and disclosure. Expect the same here (Dems in Congress have a number of proposals to do just that). There’s always the Gulf but even those guys want a return on investment.
Hollywood is like Detroit — massive cost structure, reliance on outside investment (that is going away), massively subsidized, vulnerable to new technology / other competitors (in the case of Hollywood, DVDs people already own), and more.
But its deeper than that. Just like Detroit execs, engineers, production managers, and everyone else could not figure out what people wanted in cars, Hollywood does not have a clue. From suits to talent, too much fame, red carpet, money, and vast social distance from the audience. To the point where Michael Douglas does not sign while in Cannes a petition to “Free Roman Polanski” but then feels Hollywood’s social pressure to apologize for lack of said signing. This mere hours after another Polanski victim comes forward (likely there were dozens).
Polanski is the Ford Pinto! Boom! of Hollywood. With the same net result.
Avatar? Polanski? Way to stay on topic, whiskey. your obsession with some of these topics borders on insanity.
“borders on insanity”?
I think we’re way across the border of insanity with him! hahaha
Try not to read what Whiskey writes…He is “less informed”.
All you need to know is that the movie company usually gets about half of all box office dollars back. So, if Robin Hood cost $225 million to make and another $50 million to market, then this movie has to make $550 million to break even.
And yes, you’re right; Anybody that greenlights a movie like this that obviously will struggle to make that money back, probably won’t be at the studio much longer.
It’s much like “The Wolfman” from earlier this year. For some strange reason someone decided to make a horror movie for $150 million! The movie made about $140 million worldwide. That’s a loss of at least $80 million. Tell me, how many people would actually say yes to making a $150 million horror movie? Not just people in Hollywood, but people in general. Even people that don’t know movies will frown and think: “I doubt this movie will even make $150 million!”
I guess with Robin Hood there was the idea that this movie might perform like Gladiator did. That movie went on to make $187 million domestically and another $270 million overseas. Then again, that still only comes out to $450 million. But, then Robin Hood is also based on a classic story and it is rated PG13.
Anyway, unless Robin Hood makes about 4 times as much overseas as it does domestically, the studio will have to wait until DVD sales and rentals to break even and hopefully make some money back.
WOLFMAN was an interesting example for you to pick, because it was a production with a ton of reshoots and re-edits that drove the price up from “maybe a bit risky” to “hey, we’re going to lose money on this unless we get REALLY lucky”. Sadly, reworking films like this is becoming more common (CLASH OF THE TITANS is another recent example), and it never pays off. I know the big numbers freak out the studios, but it just makes better FINANCIAL sense to make the hard decisions early on and stick with them.(It also usually makes for better films, because studio tampering almost NEVER “fixes” these problems).
Don’t understand the hating on Whiskey. While his rant zig-zags a bit, all his comments are on target and do reflect the reality of the biz as I’ve seen it, as a 15 year veteran of film-making. He’s a lot more on target than your guesstimate that Uni spent only $50M for P&A on Robin Hood. At best you’re half-right.
In addition, a find it a bit amusing that Nikki posts Robin’s worldwide BO vs. Iron Man’s domestic. Bias-much??
Robin the hood was hardly a Marxist, he stole from the government, (sheriff, church of England) and gave the taxes back to the people.
This movie is already a big box office bomb. The predictions already have this movie only making about 40 million this weekend with 130 million total domestically. I highly doubt this will even make 150 million overseas. Looks like somebody is losing a lot of money.
i hope it bombs
saw it yesterday! (i live in France)
it’s really quite good,Crowe is very convincing but the rest of cast is underused(but what a great casting!!),the action scenes are very “gladiator”(it’s the same technic),there is no cheesy moments(like in “iron man 2″).
It’s not the epic movie i waited(it lacks inspiration)but it’s a strong movie(i don’t understand some american reviews dislike the movie whereas they like “iron man 2″!
There`s no cheesy moments? Hm, Xena Old Maid Marion, anyone? Worst moment in any movie this year. Plus, the cast is way too old. They want a sequel with 50 years olds, lol, go ahead. Nothing against 50 years old actors and actresses but the reason why Meryl Streep is Streep and Cate Blanchett is not, despite her PR trying to convince us she is the Next Streep, is because Streep can open a movie and is smart enough to know that sword-wielding chick is stupid cliche now and old women with anorexic bodies don`t look convincing wielding something heaveier than them.
Cate is only 39. so what 50 year old are you talking about . Crowe is 44 . Neither one of them is over the hill by any means . I guess you wanted a 10 year old to play Robin ? LOL
Cate is 41, BD (offical, you know, the one that always takes off few years) is May 14, 1969. So she turned 41 this year and was 40 when she was filming RH. Russell is 46, official BD April 7 1964. he was 45 when filming 45. Looks older thanks to extra fat and drinking. If they make a sequel, he`ll hit 50 by the time it is out and she`ll be pushing it. neither is spring chicken which is what RH and Maid Marion are. This version is crap because it tries to be “realistic”, yet instead of Maid, they have some old widow at the end of her mediaval life span (that wasn`t longer than actor`s actual age).
Crpa movie, awful cast. Epic fail.
Wrong. Robin Hood is a fine movie, action-packed, thrilling and interesting characters. The people whining that 50 minus is “old” are surely over 60. Self-haters. This movie is top form entertainment and Crowe and Blanchett are among the brightest stars. The hate for Russell Crowe’s body type which has remained essentially unchanged since his debut — he’s always been rugby-player shaped — is ludicrous. And when has Blanchett ever been curvy? Total nonsense. Robin Hood’s the best movie playing in theaters. Certainly better than Avatar, this Robin Hood has brains.
right on!
Ironman 2 didn’t get good reviews here either , but people aren’t reading them
People arent reading them? Are you sure? IM2 is dropping 60% here in its second week of release. I think alot of people are reading them actually cuz that movie sucked elephant balls.
People are probably reading them. They just aren’t taking them as seriously as they used to. Critics will just have to make room for more opinions. IM2 will probably reach 270 or maybe higher domesically, if it can hold it’s own against Shrek & Sex in the City. Robin Hood will need a divine intervention.
We Americans have a superiority complex when it comes to movies, we can watch movies with subtitles because some our brains can’t handle the culture.
These kind of pictures usually does better here in europe.
Saw it yesterday here in sweden and most theaters seemed to be sold out in stockholm.
saw it last night, it is devastatingly bad. no character development whatsoever. no warmth. disgusting misuse of cate blanchett’s talent. no relationships or conflicts that you care about in the least. at least 50 moments where ridley clearly said “just do what you did in gladiator.” not trying to whine, it’s just extra upsetting to those of us that were involved in a great project that universal had to shut down because they overspent on crap like this ($237M ????) just to service the Imagine and Crowe relationships.
sounds like someone is bitter
Talk about taking a killing! Have you read the bad reviews around the web? Particularly at Ain’t It Cool News? And these weren’t fanboy stuff; they’re detailed, reasoned, and surprisingly fair-minded. Seems Scott did his usual again – a movie that’s beautifully art directed & photographed, but devoid of feeling. And miscast with actors too old for the parts. The studio may take a real bath on this one as word of mouth gets around.
Detailed and reasoned reviews on AICN? Harry Knowles review was embarrassing.
Saw Robin Hood in a packed house in Edinburgh last night, the audience loved it. Lovely scope photography, beautiful score, nicely underplayed by Crowe and Blanchett. An old-school adventure movie. It’s certainly far superior to Iron Man 2. Alas, Robin Hood isn’t ‘cool’, which is the only factor the online geeks seem to care about anymore.
No, actually, Harry`s RH pan (that Sly Stallone loves) is the best thing he wrote in years. In the whole RH fiasco, most embarrassing thing is Cate Blanchett as Old Maid Marion with such a heavy anorexia that one can`t help but laugh when she does her Xena thing. Were those swords made of carton?
“No, actually, Harry`s RH pan (that Sly Stallone loves)”
You do realize that Stallone wants a massive wave of free publicity from AICN this summer, right? Of course he “loved” the review!
It’s all BS.
A couple of reviews I read said it sounds like it was written (if she could write) by Sarah Palin. All Tea-partyish screed. That may cut down its bankability somewhat. Or maybe enhance it.
really, a sarah palin jab (and not a particularly clever one), here? we’re talking movies not politics. get over it and get a life.
So once again Peg – you have to bring politics into your movie experience. Sad for you. Why are you going to movies if your motion picture experience is skewed by your pissy, nasty comments- you sound like an old crone. The movies are supposed to take you away. Why don’t you stay home and stir your cauldron.
The movie has Crowe making a pro-liberty/freedom speech (I suppose that’s Palin) and Blanchett making a “each according to his ability, each according to his need” speech, so that’s Obama/Marx, I guess. Or if you prefer, Rev. Wright.
So it does not know what it wants to be.
And other reviews said the movie should be skipped because it was too politically correct. I don’t think the “Maid Marion” treatment was PC. I think it was just put in there as an audience draw for women, which a lot of films do nowadays even to the point of pandering, but not usually to the point of ridiculousness like this movie.
Peggy, near the beginning of the movie, Crowe is bemoaning the fact that the West is waging an unjust war against Islam. Would Sarah Palin have written that?
Also (as someone else here has posted) Cate Blanchett’s character gets to deliver a speech near the end advocating for the redistribution of wealth.
If that’s not Left Wing, I don’t know what is. All of which raises the question, Peggy — What Lewis Caroll world are you living in???
At this point, I could see the box office going either way. I honestly have no read on what this will do, business-wise. Regardless, their budget was stupidly high.
Thank God it’s in 2D. If I wanted to see 3D arrows I’d go learn archery on the weekend.
I’m in two minds about seeing this film in theatres. Russell Crowe seems way too old to play Robin Hood and I’m not a Cate Blanchett fan. She reminds me too much of a cold and bitter old lady maths teacher I had in high school. I’m always expecting her to pop out of the screen and give me detention. It’s offputting.
Great point about Blanchett. I find her incredibly charming and likable in interviews but her warm and approachable personality simply doesn`t come through in movies. There, she`s exactly like you described her and this may be main reason why she can`t open a movie on her name (remember the big bomb Elisabeth:Golden Age?).
And for your information, her role in RH is one of her more obnoxious ever. She`s trully irritating and unlikable here.
There is nothing wrong with this movie – other than being incredibly boring.
It doesn’t matter what Ain’t It Cool news thinks. That website hasn’t been relevant in over a decade (assuming that it ever was relevant).
Robin Hood will make whatever it’s going to make this weekend and then vanish in the second weekend in the U.S. The Europeans love this navel-gazing type of movie.
It’s going to do business similiar to “Kingdom of Heaven.” A domestic U.S. failure, an international revenue earner, a worldwide break-even.
Crowe’s career neither sinks nor soars with Robin Hood. It just continues to tread water in the hopes of more money from Brian Grazer to fund another shot.
I can’t wait to see it here in the US this weekend. Brilliant cast…the pool of talent of Russel Crowe, Cate Blacnhet, Ridley Scott, enough said for me! These talents never do bad work, or get involved in bad scripts:) I hope this movie will make lots of money! It’s been a long time since Hollywood put a cast together like this with such, talented actors, director, who are known for very strong and powerful performances! This is what I call FILM MAKING! It’s fierce! It’s not about age, it’s about QUALITY, TALENT and who can deliver! I’m so excited by just the cast alone! I love Russel Crowe and Cate Blanchet ! This is a power house movie! Everyone should go see it. It will be a long time before another movie will have this kind of integrity in its art and casting! Kisses to the cast!
…yikes. “never do bad work, or get involved in bad scripts…”
Payroll troll?
how many different times can ridley scott try to remake gladiator? retread. no wonder ridley scott stayed home. maybe russell should lay off the marmite for a couple of years.
Hae you seen the film? It’s absolutely nothing like Gladiator.
Anyone else think it’s only gonna reach high 20s? I just don’t feel the interest out there…
It’s the worst movie I have ever seen. I can’t believe that the movie only lasts 2 hours. Seems like forever…xD Too much drama, awful storyline & so little action. How on earth did King Richard get killed by such stupid accident??! The movie had successfully crushed the great legend. Too bad the budget goes up in a smoke.. They could have done much better than that..
The worst movie you have ever seen?
If this is the worst movie you’ve ever seen, you need to spend more time watching SyFy Channel original movies.
“Worst movie ever” is a common reaction to bad movies that were supposed to be good. When such awards-loaded talent and $237 mio budget produces a complete turkey, reaction is more extreme than when you watch something that you know must be a garbage.
I snuck out of work to go and see ‘IM2′ because I’d really enjoyed the first and was bright-eyed and optimistic about II. What a let-down. No wonder this was the largest theatrical release thus far… Smart execs (I use the term loosely) knew ‘word-of-mouth’ on this would come up way short. Not to mention that they obviously sent out an instructive memo to exhibitors that they must surreptitiously hint to theater-goers to stick around after the credits for a ‘wow’ moment that ended up being a half-assed low-budget commercial for Marvel’s ‘Thor’. (…and trust me, this is as base as it gets). Whoa. A hammer in the sand. That probably cost the production $100 bucks. It had no chance of making up for one of a thousand one-liners that filled both dialogue and plot in this phoned-in shell of a shadow of what made ‘Iron Man’ fresh, not to mention enjoyable.
I didn’t sneak out of work this Friday… I guess the hype just wasn’t there. But I’ve been around the block enough to trust in Ridley, and that tough-guy lead actor… What’s his name from ‘Gladiator’? I’m fairly sure (hope to hell) they’ll out-perform ‘IM2′ this weekend and many weeks to come. Then again, I haven’t yet seen how a gladiator fares in tights
Great post there man couldn’t agree with you more about IM2 and you weren’t the only one who felt that way. Myself and many others i know said the same thing and by the looks of things IM2 is looking to drop pretty heavily here in its second week here, but notice how no one here is saying much about that. They rather talk finance, economics, and movie budgets. As if any of us hows the power nor brain think to change hollywood for what it is. Well…at least we have INCEPTION to look forward to.
Robin Hood ’10 is the least-desirable type of movie to watch. It’s not good; it’s not horrible. It’s just there, and it evaporates from memory while you watch it. Russell Crowe is too old and fat to portray the title character, Ridley Scott was clearly operating on autopilot, and the attempt to blend history with legend never gels. If they had any franchise aspirations with their revival of the property, I’m baffled beyond words that they cast Crowe, who would be roughly fifty years old by the time a sequel was released.
For the price tag of ONE shitty film like “Robin Hood” you could make 450 films like “Brick.” This is sadly not hyperbole, at all.
Brick was nonsense though.
And each and everyone on of those 450 would have lost money, and you wouldn’t get to make another. Brick was unprofitable. I’m all for quality, but I’m also all for entertainment. That’s why movies were created. To entertain. But to continue entertaining, you also have to make money. That’s why its a business. And for Shizz who was touting PBS – that’s why its tax dollar and donor supported. Because despite its ‘quality’ the whole batch of those shows couldn’t self sustain if people were asked to pay for it.
One Brick was already more than enough.
Brick was a pretty good flick. It takes a special sort of mind to understand it and its obvious you have it. Joseph Gordon Levitt is going to be doing his thing this july for INCEPTION. He looks pretty bad-ass in it, cant wait to see him in that type of role.
I will not see Robin Hood. I will not rent it. I will flip the channel when it hits HBO.
There was an original (and wonderful!) script called NOTTINGHAM by Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris. The protagonist was the Sheriff of Nottingham, a fair man, secretly in love with Maid Marian, but recognizing her love for the outlaw he was sworn to capture. You can read the script online. I don’t know these guys. I have no dog in this hunt.
But somewhere along the line, that whole concept was tossed out. Was it Ridley? Was it Russell? Was it the studio? Don’t know. Don’t care. But somewhere along the way, the entire script was tossed and a whole new storyline was invented.
How very sad. I hope this movie lays a huge box office turd. That would be justice.
Supposedly Scott hated the original script.
Love it, I could reboot napoleon dynamite 225 times for one bow and arrow movie.
I don’t care how you’re splitting risk or playing accounting games. If something has over a $200m production budget and is opening to less than $40 domestic, you’ve got an enormous problem. Now add in that international has been underwhelming (it’s talkative and cultural, good luck…) and that the domestic box office is really crowded and you’ve got even larger problems.
This thing is going to be quite costly for a studio that really doesn’t need more costly misfires.