Sam Taylor-Johnson To Direct ‘Fifty Shades Of … 
Inside AMPAS Board Of Governors’ Meeting: Conflict Of … 
Glenn Geller To Run Current Programming For CBS & CBS … 
Shailene Woodley’s Mary Jane Role Cut From ‘The … 
‘Star Wars’ 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 … 
ITV Pays $30M For Controlling Stake In ‘Hatfields … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Anchorman 2′ 
2ND UPDATE: Charlie Sheen Fired Selma Blair From … 
Time Warner Cable Sued For Passing Lakers-Dodgers Costs On … 
Jonah Hill Signs For Management With LBI 
TOLDJA! ‘Dumb And Dumber To’ Proves No-Brainer … 
Salma Hayek’s Animated Passion Project ‘The … 
Relativity Moves Scott Cooper’s ‘Out Of The … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Lego Movie’ 
Comedy ‘I Didn’t Do It’ Gets Series Order … 
Liv Tyler To Co-Star In Damon Lindelof’s HBO Pilot … 
DreamWorks Animation Launches Effort To Re-Position Itself … 
SATURDAY PM, 5TH UPDATE: Jeez, Jeffrey Katzenberg must have enemies in higher places than anyone thought possible. Because studios are telling me this weekend’s freakishly early East Coast snowstorm will definitely take a bite 
out of box office. (On the other hand, maybe JK has friends in higher places because now no one will know what his movie would have done on its own.) There’s no doubt that DreamWorks Animation’s 3D Puss In Boots distributed by Paramount is finishing the weekend #1 with anywhere from $32.2M to $35M. That’s the range among my sources. So it remains to be seen when the actuals come in on Monday if the cat broke the Halloween weekend record of $33.6M set by Saw III in 2006. The Shrek spinoff’s opening was looking in line with 2011′s other non-summer animated 3D hits like Rio ($39M, also 3D) and Rango ($39M but only 2D) before the snow. But one rival studio exec snarked to me Friday night, “What will DWA think about an opening in the $30sM? Dunno, but it could be more like Puss In Cement Boots.”
Fox’s sci-fi thriller In Time with Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried is soft considering the wide release. It’s clear now that Justin, while talented on SNL, is no movie star. FilmDistrict’s The Rum Diary with Johnny Depp also is performing ultralight as expected. Didn’t he make this movie before and wasn’t it called Fear And Loathing? (“Yes, with the same hungover result. Ouch,” one rival studio exec reminded me.) Sony Pictures’ Shakespeare backstory Anonymous opened for a $1M weekend ($350K Friday and $400K Saturday) from just 265 locations. That’s an unremarkable per-screen average of $3,775 even though audiences gave it an ‘A-’ CinemaScore. The studio was right to pull it from wide release. Here’s the Top 10:
1. Puss In Boots 3D (Dreamworks Animation/Paramount) NEW [3,952 Theaters]
Friday $9.6M, Saturday $14M, Weekend $33M
Audiences gave it an ‘A-’ CinemaScore, so the word of mouth and kiddie matinees account for why attendance went up a giant +45% from Friday to Saturday.
2. Paranormal Activity 3 (Paramount) Week 2 [3,329 Theaters]
Friday $7.3M, Saturday $7.7M, Weekend $19M (-64%), Cume $81.5M
That’s an expected drop from a whopping Friday last weekend. But expect a giant Halloween Monday.
3) In Time (Fox) NEW [3,001 Theaters]
Friday $4.5M, Saturday $4.6M, Weekend $12M
Audiences gave the film a ‘B-’ CinemaScore.
4) Footloose (Paramount) Week 3 [3,224 Theaters]
Friday $2M, Saturday $2.4M, Weekend $5.5M, Cume $38.5M
It’s not unanimous, but the majority of studios tonight have Footloose beating The Rum Diary.
5) The Rum Diary (FilmDistrict) NEW [2,272 Theaters] [2,272 Theaters]
Friday $1.7M, Saturday $1.9M, Weekend $5M
Audiences gave it only a “C’ CinemaScore.
6. Real Steel (DreamWorks/Disney) Week 4 [2,914 Theaters]
Friday $1.6M, Saturday $2.2M, Weekend $4.9M, Cume $74.1M
7. Three Musketeers 3D (Summit) Week 2 [3,017 Theaters]
Friday $1.1M, Saturday $1.5M, Weekend $3.5M (-59%), Cume $14.8M
8. Ides Of March (Sony) Week 4 [1,572 Theaters]
Friday $925K, Saturday $1.3M, Weekend $2.7M, Cume $33.5M
9. Moneyball (Sony) Week 6 [1,631 Theaters]
Friday $750K, Saturday $1.2M, Weekend $2.4M, Cume $67.4M
10. Courageous (Sony) Week 5 [1,134 Theaters]
Friday $550K, Saturday $775M, Weekend $1.8M, Cume $27.6M
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
PIB is no Shrek….saw it tonight and was a bit disappointed. Animation was excellent, as was Antonio Banderas, but just not as many chuckles as I expected.
Regardless, it will make a fortune for DW…
A $37 mil opening (which will almost certainly be lowered by the end of the weekend) does not translate into “a fortune”
Agreed…didn’t mean to imply that it would make a fortune this weekend. Its clear by now it won’t, but meant over the length of its entire run(domestic + international).
no it won’t
I can’t see Justin Timberlake as a man/action hero or anything but a clown, he really pisses me off. My friends and I were looking forward to seeing good movie this weekend and the only options we had were a girly boy band member turned actor and a swishy pirate not in costume. I want the Gilbert Grape Johnny Depp, this new “talk like Madonna” Depp is pretty nauseating.
Please no more action movies for Timberlake
Timberlake wasn’t the problem with that movie.
but he IS the problem with the box office $. Before anyone sees it… it’s the face/name on the poster that puts asses in seats… or in this case, doesn’t. Nobody believes Timberlake. he was perfectly cast in The Social Network b/c Sean Parker is a cool nerd… unfortunately, that’s his only gear and nobody wants to see a cool/nerd save the world, get the girl, etc. He should get back in the studio asap.
For real. What is Hollywood’s new obsession with casting twinkle toes twee sprites as action leads?! Past eras cast tall rangy Clint Eastwoods, or hulking Schwarzeneggers. Now they cast tiny twee pretty boys, and have the nerve to be SHOCKED when the movies bomb. When the hell have action fans ever wanted to see tiny twee heroes?! What the hell is going on in Hollywood? Have producers and casting agents lost their damn minds?!
Lautner’s movie MIGHT have worked, if they had dubbed his voice. That nasely nancy voice is distracting
Igor…..you sure like the word twee.
Okay, I’ll bite. What does “twee” mean?
excessively sentimental, sweet, or pretty
Really? Google didn’t occur? You waited three hours for a reply, versus the couple of seconds it takes to use your web browser. Or perhaps the wi-fi connection is real slow in your mom’s basement.
What are you saying? His hostility IS his reasoning. But I give credit to Nikki or whomever for not censoring his comments.
Using the word “faggot” in your post automatically makes your POV worthless, although reading it would have made that clear anyway, admittedly.
Yep…twee-phobia is definitely the number one problem in America and should be outlawed as hate speech.
And anyone who doesn’t know that there is a significant “gay mafia” that heavily influences casting in this industry…
…isn’t *in* this industry…
Gays are the new jews. Seems people always need to blame someone… Sad.
The last I heard we had a Constitution (First Amendment) that guaranteed the right to free speech.
The problem with Justin is that he isn’t hot/pretty enough, and can’t act. He also has little screen presence, and in this movie, had zero chemistry with Amanda Seyfried; given how much they played up the ‘love story’ angle (a mistake, IMO) great chemistry between the two leads was essential, and it was entirely missing.
The problem with Timberlake is he is not a very attractive man and on the big screen he is even a bigger not very attractive man. There is just something so annoying about him trying to act. He is still living off his teen idol status from the 1990s…He is a good musical entertainer and not an actor.
Agree w you, TF, Justin Timberlake is not Movie Star Material. Character actor, maybe. Saw JT in Bad Teacher,and w re to the ‘doin’ it with their clothes on sex scene w Cam Diaz: yuck. Urban Dictionary defines F***face in several different ways, and in that scene, J T illustrated each of the different ways the word F***Face can be used.
“Not a very attractive MAN,’ is right. Maybe Timberlake was an attractive teen.
P.C. Nanny Comment of the Week! Thanks for keeping everyone in line!
I dare you to say faggot to my face. I would love to show the consequences.
and so another nerd’s tough guy fantasy is posted on the Internet for all to read and laugh at
Okay, Chad.
I’ll meet you at the 7/11 after school. I hope you like having a foot stuck up your ass.
What a fag…
You are obviously a Bush-loving Republican that hates omen, children, minorities, and gays. Instead of spewing lies aboutnHollywood, perhaps you should complain about Bush and his two,illegal wars and enrichment of Wall Street, Halliburton, and Big Oil at the expense of women and miniorities, at the costar making children go hungry, and atbthecostsof many gays dying of AIDS because of Bush’s hatred for science and denial of global warming. Go scratch loser.
Marc5: How selfless of you to devote your strenuously heterosexual life to thinking about men licking each other.
Igor just doesn’t get it, Clint Eastwood in these movies wouldn’t have worked either. Duh.
You mean like “Killer Elite”. the newly hatched “Abduction” star beat that.
Please no more movies for Timberlake, period!
1. Timberlake is a comedic actor, period. Action/comedy or just comedy, please.
2. The guys above are right. Dramatic action films are all about the suppressed sexuality of the lead. And that sexuality must resonate with everyone. Timberlake just doesn’t have it in this department. And if The Rock hadn’t been so eager to play gay characters and put on a dress, he might have forged a legion of fans. Just sayin’.
that’s too low for JT and JD…they are big stars
Big stars?
That’s because Depp is actually making a movie for artistic reasons for once instead of selling out with the mainstream crap he’s making lately. This is probably the teen girl fanbase he has ignoring him that ignores his artistic movies like Dead Man just because it’s “black and white.”
THE RUM DIARY is an ‘artistic’ movie?
It’s a passion project to be sure.
Sometimes Depp’s out of the box movies hit paydirt, like Edward Scissorhands, and sometimes they don’t. Like Cry Baby, which only made $8.2 million total. But I liked it.
Not all fangirls are shallow.
Alex, Depp can only make these little movies because of the big ones. Cut him some slack. He’s trying.
“In Time starts out with one of the best sci-fi premises in recent memory, and then does nothing with it.” Says it all. Plus Timberlake really needs to stop acting, especially in dramas. No matter what ol’ JT is just not likable. Alex Pettyfer the 1 trick pony has used all his free credits as well. Put them both on an island and add other non likable “actors” to that posse and make a reality show.
Can’t blame Pettyfer for this one. His role amounts to a cameo, he wasn’t part of the promotion, nor was he featured in the advertising, and still he’s the best thing in movie… and that’s not damning with faint praise, he’s really good in it.
“In Time” is just a rip off of Ellison’s “Repent! Harlequin, Said the Tick-Tock Man” – without giving him credit.
So says Ellison, but it you read the story, and see the movie, it obviously is not.
CLEARLY, huh Mark?
You nerds are a bore when you constantly try to link something to a sixty year-old episode of the Twilight Zone or some short story no one ever read.
Give it a rest.
I’m pretty sure putting Timberlake and Pettyfer on *his* desert island was exactly *what* the (male) casting director was dreaming about when he cast them…
“In Time starts out with one of the best sci-fi premises in recent memory” — Too bad it’s not original. It was apparently lifted from Harlan Ellison — http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/10/3947197/time-which-justin-timberlake-trapped-horrible-future-retread-science
What about Anonymous?
Flop. Test audiences hated it so it was scaled back to a limited release. May this end Roland Emmerich’s career. Relativity’s 2011 losses will be drastic. Immortals is on track to bomb hard.
The Immortals’ trailers always make me laugh so hard. Cavill is a terrible actor.
doesn’t bode well for the Superman reboot does it?
End Emmerich’s career? He has Independence Day 2 and 3 AND Singularity lined-up already. I don’t like him, but the failure of Anonymous will be immaterial to his career.
Emmerich’s movies are generally brain-dead, but one has to give him credit for trying material that’s a step up–even if it does play like an off-the-scale THE TUDORS/THE DA VINCI CODE cross…
Which (maybe not ironically) is the film of his that ends up not getting a wide release.
People complain about his dumb CGI filled apocalyptic flicks, then don’t wanna know if he tries something different……………then it all gets too amusing!
Justin Timberlake has spent all his acting resources on acting black and straight. There are none left for movies.
I thought he showed range during his Punk’d episode. Fear, dispair, joy, urban and nearly crying on cue.
Genius. Justin Timberlake is all around painful.
Dick in a box was funny.
Amanda Seyfried needs a new agent. Red Riding Hood and In Time are bad choices. Her rotten tomatoe score is a disaster. Olivia Wilde suppose be big star too….oops not happening
To be fair, not many people knew Wilde was in the movie.
It’s unfair to call Olivia Wilde a star after one underperforming Disney movie, but your point that not many knew Wilde was in the movie actually proves she’s not a star, yet.
Cowboys and Aliens tanked too, and she was a big part of the marketing scheme there as well. Just like JT, Hollywood keeps trying to make a star out of her, but she just doesn’t have the goods.
I think she has the goods, but she’s just making really bad choices. Cowboys and Aliens was AWFUL. It had nothing to do with the performers, it was all in the writing/directing/editing.
I’ve never understood why Olivia Wilde keeps getting roles; she is not all that attractive and simply cannot act.
On the contrary, Wilde was the one female I did hear was in the movie. Seyfried was the one I had no idea about, and didn’t even realize that was her on the poster. (I had no idea who it was, since I knew it couldn’t be Wilde, due to who she was playing.)
You are only 1 person of people
Seyfried was smart enough not to do SUCKER PUNCH, so there’s that…
That’s not saying much. You had to be pretty dim to do SUCKER PUNCH. What an awful, awful, awful movie.
There are kids in junior high writing better scripts than that.
I saw ‘In Time’. It will be amazing to see Justin Timberlake and Cillian Murphy face off.
‘13’ should have been released at least a year ago and it is a disgrace that not only was it needlessly delayed but it is only being shown in New York and Los Angeles cinemas. It has a stellar cast (Jason Statham, Sam Riley, Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson, Ray Winstone, Alexander Skarsgard, Mickey Rourke, Michael Shannon, Emmanuelle Chriqui) and deserves to make a big impact now.
‘The Double’ and ‘Like Crazy’ should have both gotten a wide release. They both have interesting casts and deserve better than to be ignored by the public now.
Unfortunately only if is a franchise film does an Antonio Banderas movie get a wide release anymore. In the last five years, everything else that he has been in has only gotten a limited release or gone straight to DVD such as Bordertown (2006), My Spy (2008), The Other Man (2008) and The Code (2009). It is a shame. He is an underrated actor and should have joined the A-list years ago.
Wow. Don’t know what to say about your post. They tried to make Banderas a A-Lister for years! No one wants to see the guy in anything except cartoons. As far as the Double and Like Crazy. No one wants to see these films. That’s why they won’t get wide releases. The fact is for every specialty film that suceeds there are 20 more that get releassed and lose money and another 40 that don’t even get released. Why? Because no one wants to see them.
Rango was 2D
Like the previous poster mentioned, IN TIME had a great premise, but then degenerates into a lame run and chase action movie. Andrew Niccol should have taken a lesson from his earlier, underrated gem, GATTACA.
Justin Timberlake can’t act. Period. He’s okay for SNL skits, but he has no emotional soul. And with a film like this, it was essential that the leads have chemistry, something that isn’t evident on screen.
Hollywood needs to take chances on new talent in lead roles and stop trying to make musicians into movie stars. There’s a reason every new star comes from other shores. We just won’t give them a break over here.
And his music ain’t that good either.
“There’s a reason every new star comes from other shores. We just won’t give them a break over here.” One of the most TRUE comments I’ve ever heard!!! But can we still send JTimberlake over seas someone for someone we like?
They’re growing talent like Michael Fassbender on those other shores. We got guys like Justin Timberlake and Anton Yelchin that look like a strong wind will blow them away. Acting over here has become a joke.
Movie stars don’t exist anymore, just blockbuster films with great landscape. Actors touted as The Next Big Thing, such as Amanda Seyfried and Olivia Wilde, both have the screen presence of wet mops.
Andrew Niccol, whilst incredibly talented, made a howler of an error by casting Timberlake as the lead in a film such as this. After all; how can the guy who sang Bringing Sexy Back be believable as an action hero? What next? Bieber as Hulk?
Bieber as Hulk? BRING IT ON!!!!!
Justin Timberlake is talented? At what, because it’s never been acting.
And true, Seyfried is wasting her career on movies that aren’t great, even the indies. Do an indie that has a meaty script, or figure something out. Shia L. has a bad RT resume as well.
‘But one rival studio exec snarked to me tonight, “What will DWA think about an opening in the $30sM? Dunno, but it could be more like Puss In Cement Boots.”’ King of comedy.
I’ll bet that snarky exec. would love an opening in the $30sM. But then, Hollywood greed is worse than banker’s greed.
“…Cement Boots.”
Wocka-wocka!
Best way to make a failure of a movie? Cast Justin Timberlake. He puts the ful in Awful. In case the powers that be in Hollywood don’t get it yet, let me help you out, Justin Timberlake turns us off and tunes us out.
Yeah, right. That’s why his three previous films were a success, right? (The Social Network gained him universal praise and made 96M$, Bad Teacher cleared 100M$ and even Friends With Benefits, where he was the lead, made a nice 50M+$, even though it was a replica of this year’s own No Strings Attached).
Who knew he was in BAD TEACHER? The only acting praise in THE SOCIAL NETWORK was for Jesse Eisenberg and 96 M isn’t that much of a success for such an overly hyped picture. The other film is completely forgettable and forgotten.
The Social Network is David Fincher’s film not Timberlake. His performance was one of the weaker one in that film. Bad Teacher is mainly Cameron Diaz not him. I haven’t seen Friends With Benefits so no comment.
A couple college kids saying, “Justin Timberlake wasn’t bad,” hardly qualifies as “universal praise.”
The problem with JT is that while he’s probably not the jackass the media paints him to be, he’s also not very likable.
Maybe it’s his attitude or what who knows. Guy like R Pattison (not a very good actor so far), J Gyllenhall, and even the guy in Driver, have that thing that just makes them likable and make you want them to succeed.
Jt’s teams really needs to work on changing his image a bit, if he really wants to become a movie star, since his acting isnt so bad.
like you don’t know ryan gosling’s name
Damn, sweetheart. You were making a decent point until you cited Jake G., Robert Pattison and “the guy in Drive”, who I assume is Ryan Gosling and not Albert Brooks, as examples of actors who are likable. Jake G. couldn’t open a door much less a movie, Pattison only appeals to tween girls, and then only when he’s playing a vampire and while I love Ryan Gosling, there is no evidence he can open a movie either. Fact is, Timberlake is doing as well as any of those guys, The Social Network was a decent hit at the box office and smash with the critics, Friends With Benefits opened okay and will probably make a little dough and even this film may end up with higher BO than recent films like 50/50, Drive and Ides of March.
You need to get your facts straight. You say Timberlake’s Friends with Benefits did okay but it did a lot less than Robert Pattinson’s Water for Elephants after claiming that Pattinson’s only movies that do well are Twilight ones. Actually Water for Elephants was a box office hit and Cinemascore shows that the audience was almost all adults. So Pattinson does not appeal to just tweens as you claim. He was the lead of that movie. In fact, most of Pattinson’s fans are adult women, you should watch the crowds at his premieres, but you probably really know that.
Let me get this straight. According to you, R Pattz is the sole reason for Water for Elephants success and it has nothing to do with the book being a huge best-seller and Reese Witherspoon being his co-star? OK. I LOL`d.
I laughed at the way you twisted my words around. I didn’t say that he was the only reason. But you do know that the book was not known overseas and yet the movie did very well overseas. And Reese’s movies don’t bring in any money overseas, so Rob was responsible for a lot of the international box office. Plus Reese’s previous movie was the biggest flop last year, she is not the box office star she once was. And Cinemascore in even the US indicated that more people said Rob was the reason for seeing Water for Elephants than Reese.
So people said that the reason for seeing Water for Elephants was for Pattinson? What happened to Remember Me’s domestic boxoffice if that was the case?
Remember Me was a low budget 9/11 indie movie. Why did Johnny Depp’s movie just make $5m which is much less than Remember Me? I thought he was the biggest movie star.
The problem with Jake Gyllenhall and Robert Pattison is that they’re not manly enough. Their fan bases are teenage girls and gays, the type of people who have a new favorite actor every other week.
Hollywood needs to invest in some more manly type of guys instead of whoever is the flavor of the week.
Timberlake is just the same ol’ same ol’ for Hollywood.
Spoken like a true male who hasn’t a clue what women like.
Manly type of guys? Oh yeah, so we can enjoy manly movies with great box office like Killer Elite, Warrior, and Conan???
Spoken like a lesbian who has no clue what real women like. As seem by the fey pretty boys flopping in action movies, when they couldn’t draw any real women in and males were turned off from the get go.
Straight women like men. Real men. It’s why they aren’t lesbians. Females with no or limited sexual experience like fey nonthreatening pretty boys, but then they grow up and desire men. Back in the day of real action stars, who was the biggest fanbase of Russell Crowe or Mel Gibson, Men or Women? If you haven’t heard the gushing over tough manly stars, then it’s because there haven’t been manly stars lately for women to gush over.
Russell and Mel are gross now, both for their later actions and they are just too OLD, but back in their heyday, women could not get enough of them and saw every action movie they were in.
All woman–Dianne has a point. Why didn’t “manly” movies like WARRIOR, KE, and CONAN make dominate-the-world box office, hmmm?
Open Roads Film and Lionsgate. It must take a rocket scientist to figure this out eh?
Oh but Lionsgate also put out an action movie Abduction with pretty boy Tay-Tay and that dominated the world didn’t it?
It’s hilarious how some here are saying that manly men are those who are muscular. You do realize that the most popular actors of the past, like Paul Newman and Robert Redford, were not that muscular and would be called girly types by you if they were around today. Your definition of manly types is a joke. Being manly is not about being muscular and acting like a douche. Real men don’t take themselves so seriously. But you seem to have no clue what a real man is.
Pretty boys don`t cut it as action heroes. Fact. Not only they look ridiculous but action flick`s primary adueince (men) are put off by them. Case in point are “pretty boy as the leader of men” flops Kingdom of Heaven and Alexander. That doesn`t work and will never work. Also, Hollywood should learn some basic math which is this:
Casting Twilight`s pedo-wolf in a teen Bourne movie doesn`t equal Twitards + Bourne fans = mega blockbuster but means that each group will be put off. Bourne fans hate Lautner and Twitards only care for him in Twilight. So you lose both audiences instead of uniting them. Simple.
Jake Gylennhaal and Robert Pattinson can’t open a movie either. Water for Elephants did around 50m domestic. It doesn’t seem that great for a bestselling novel with extreme advertising. Ryan Gosling makes independents, therefore he makes profits for studios and is generally likable. Logan’s Run will show if he can headline a blockbuster. Jake has been tried and tested as an action hero. Didn’t work. Robert does weepy romance for women and girls but can he do more? It remains to be seen. None of those Twilight kids have been able to bring even a modicum of that success to their other endeavors. Justin Timberlake is a costar and not a lead. Some exec should know that.
Firstly, Water for Elephants made almost 60 million domestically and not 50 million. Secondly, the movie made over 117 million worldwide and with a 38 million budget is profitable. Remember Me was also profitable and made over 56 million worldwide on a small budget of 16 million and was also profitable. It’s interesting how you excuse Ryan Goslings small budget movies but ignore the fact that Remember Me was a small budget movie. You also ignore the fact that both Pattinson’s non-Twilight movies were profitable while saying Gosling’s movies are small and profitable. Double standard. Stick to the facts.
The guy in Drive is Ryan Gosling.
No, the Suck in Drive was Ryan Gosling. There, fixed that for you.
Ryan Gosling was great in Drive. Stay pressed Cash.
Likeability is about the only thing Robert Pattinson has going for him. The guy flat out cannot act, and he’s way too feminine looking and acting to play any sort of role that is not geared towards teenagers and fickle women. How this guy is even getting job offers continues to astonish me. It’s only due to his Twilight popularity, proving that being the hot new thing doesn’t require any measure of talent whatsoever. Putting Pattinson and Gosling, an actual accomplished and talented actor in the same sentence, is blasphemy.
Pattinson can act and got pretty good reviews for his acting for Water for Elephants. And David Cronenberg says Rob is terrific and wanted Pattinson for Cosmopolis. And calling Pattinson, a guy who is close to 6 ft. 2 with such a square jawline, feminine looking is silly.
I don`t care how masculine or feminine R Pattz is. He is a charisma vacuum which is bad for his aspiration to become the leading man. Some actors are character actors in leading man body (since Hollywood logic is that pretty face equals leading man/lady potential) and are effective in small doses in colorful supporting roles. Since I haven`t seen any evidence from Twilight, Water for Elephants, Little Ashes and Remeber Me that Pattinson can carry a movie, I`ll generously assume that his talent lies in show stealing supporting work. But as the lead, he`s a bore and a chore.
Water for Elephant is the first and ONLY movie that I’ve seen Pattinson in. You know something is wrong when most critics praise the Elephant’s performance over you! I’m gonna wait for critics review for Cosmopolis because if I can avoid it, I will. I always though Cronenberg should stick with Viggo Mortensen. A History of Violence and Eastern Promises are one of the Cronenberg’s best movies out there.
I know you think you are being funny when you say the critics were praising the elephant more, but that is not true. Rob got mostly praise from top critics who felt he handled himself well. And I trust Cronenberg too.
Being funny? Nope… Most reviews on RT is aiming at the elephant and Christopher Waltz. Most critics mention the non-existence chemistry between the two leads (Pattinson and Witherspoon). Don’t pick and choose reviews just because you are a stan. As for Cronenberg, he got his misses but so far, his collaboration with Viggo is flawless. Well, I haven’t seen A Dangerous Method yet.
“In Time” has a great premise and while JT is an incredible music performer, it’s clear that he’s not a good actor much less a leading man in a big budget movie. I do not enjoy seeing him in movies.
I don’t get all the Timberlake hate here — personally, I think the guy is actually really talented. Not a fan of his music. But I think he’s shown some acting ability. Haven’t seen “In Time” though — it’s Halloween AND game 7 of the World Series. I watched baseball and then The Exorcist on netflix streaming. LA is gonna be partying all weekend so no one is going to a movie right now. Why open these movies NOW? In my opinion, if it isn’t horror, it didn’t have a shot. But that’s me…
I don’t understand why Puss In Boots got such small result. It looks better then the last 2 Shrek pictures. I thought it would hit 60 million at least. I hope it will have long legs.
And Sit Down Justin Timberlake. You are not an actor and you are not a movie star. I hope that now he will finally see it and will stop torture us with his “acting”. Justin was always ridiculous as actor. And his movies usually didn’t even had wide release. But then Fincher has made him bearable in Social Network and Justin decided that he is now Actor and Movie Star. You are not and in every movie you look like Justin Timberlake and not your character.
And here we are. He sighed on 3 movies after Social Network. Bad teacher was Cameron Diaz movie. And she made $100 millions. Justin’s first solo movie where he was the main star and leading man underperformed. They moved movie to summer because they expected it to make huge money. But in a year where all the big R-Rated comedies made huge money:
The Hangover Part II $254,464,305;
Bridesmaids $169,106,725
Horrible Bosses $117,535,929
Bad Teacher $100,292,856
Crazy, Stupid, Love. $83,724,063
No Strings Attached $70,662,220
… Justin lost even to Ashton Kutcher and Friends with Benefits made only $55,802,754. And here we are with the second movie where Justin is Lead actor. $13 millions week-end for In Time. I hope they will stop giving him Lead roles now.
Wow. You’re obsessed. Get a hobby.
Halloween can’t support a blockbuster, even if it were The Dark Knight, or Transformers, or whatever. Too many people are at parties, or watching major sporting events, or going to haunted houses, or shopping for aforementioned events.
@ Shy. Chill out. Justin will be fine. But you on the other hand…
All this talk about Justin.. well what about Johnny Depp. When he plays regular the audience turns away. people only want to see him as Jack or in costume. Other actors of his generation are doing some amazing work. He seems to always be the same character except in a different costume.
Yeah. but I bet nobody will point out that Johnny doesn’t make a lot of bank outside those child friendly franchises..
Just saying.. the supposedly biggest star in the world can’t open a move to double digits.. If this was another actor of his standing that would be the lead story.. 5 million.. hmmm
I agree with this assessment. Both he and Clooney can make “artistic bombs”, but they are written off. Others get glaring “so and so bombs” headlines, but their not so successful films get swept under the rug. This is especially true of Depp. When it is his face and voice, not the Kabuki make-up and costumes he wears, he does not succeed. Jolie got blasted for the Tourist, but Depp slid by. It was both of these people with their names above the title, so both should have been smacked down hard, but Depp escaped.
He likes re-makes, re-boots and the like..the Lone Ranger, Dark Shadows? Yes his MOVIES make money, not so sure it is because of him.
And he has a strange affectation to his voice now.
Sounds like he’s purposely trying to sound exotic.
Jack Sparrow may have ruined him…
Depp for the majority of his career has had ‘artistic bombs’. In fact they used to call him box office poison. Its only recently where [most of] his films have been blockbusters.
And let’s blame it on Olivia Wilde too
Chick gets and gets roles in every movie. And if you look at her IMDB – almost all of her latest movies bombed or underperformed. Year One; The Next Three Days; TRON; Cowboys & Aliens; The Change-Up and now In Time. Except for Tron all those movies bombed. And she has 8 movies in pre-production for the next 2 years. Crazy. She has a very good agent.
Well, she was in “In Time” for about 3 minutes, so I don’t think this one can be laid at her door.
And in all of those movies she was a supporting character. So are you saying that if she were to get cast in the next Toy Story movie it would automatically bomb?
This box office of the Johnny Depp film is the proof that he is nothing outside the disney films, no appeal at all. But hey, as long the studios are stupid enough to pay him that amount of money…. what a FLOP!
Curse him for using his creative capital to make a passion project written by his dead pal. What a schmuck! Movies should only be about the money, except when we’re bitching about them only being about the money.
@ Anonymous. You have posted the most intelligent and optimistic comment Deadline has ever seen. I applaud and thank you.
Anonymous, the tribute to his friend was called “Fear and Loathing”. Why make the same damn movie again? I agree with what the others said, he can’t open a film unless he’s in costume. Depp had such promise as an actor (See Donnie Brasco) but he’s completely wasted it chasing after stupid money. Depp should be ashamed that he decided to sell out sooooooo HARD. Sure it pays well, but it doesn’t get anymore soulless than Disney.
Why comment when it’s very clear you know very little about Depp’s career history? Try reading, sometimes.
What other Disney film has Depp done outside of Pirates?
A film like The Rum Diary isn’t going to make a lot of money. Fear and Loathing only made a little over 10 million.
I guess you forgot about Alice in Wonderland. You know, the one that made over a billion worldwide.
Look at the imdb resume of practically any star and you’ll see a few hits and many more misses. It’s the nature of movie-making that there are very few “sure-things.” It amuses me to read Nikki and commenters write off actors/actresses because every movie they’re in isn’t a smash hit. I guess Johnny Depp should be worried about working again based on tonight’s “Rum Diary” take.
It’s quite clear that fans of cinema have not taken to Timberlake’s foray into film, and rightfully so.
Is he a bad actor? Most certainly not as bad as many ‘official’ actors, but as one of the posters mentioned, Timberlake has no emotional soul. Perhaps it’s the fact that alot of actors have had to struggle to get their breaks, and so have a well of emotion to draw from.
Timberlake is merely cruising from one industry to the next, and his life’s history seemingly bears no school of hard knocks or tough and tender years.
It would be hard to have emotion when life hasn’t asked him for any. His biggest conflict in life would have been deciding what colour to pick for his next sports car.
After all, how much emotion can you get from being able to not only afford your bills most of your life, but pretty much buy whatever you want? Which is why he doesn’t resonate with the cinema going folk.
You seem to think you know a hell of a lot about Justin’s private life, eh?
I like all you say about Justing Timberlake. The problem with the younger stars these days is that they are hyped like an over-priced share. The agents and managers are to blame: they are the ones who should actually be telling their clients “go train some more, please”. Because in the hands of anything less than a director who REALLY knows how to handle actors, they will find themselves too exposed, floundering. And the world suddenly goes “oh my god, but they can’t act!” Amanda Seyfried has not had enough training, or experience, or whatever and yet lives the life of a movie star with all its expectations. It’s a shame: she doesn’t realize. She needs to be more careful and only work with actor’s directors. You can bet her biggest preoccupation during the entire shoot was her wig and all that make-up. Watch out, Amanda! Choose wisely from now on!
I`m sorry but why blame agents and managers for stupid casting decisions by casting directors, directors and studio execs? They can hype their clients as much as they want but if figures are low (I don`t expect studio people to read reviews but boxoffice reports they do read) than no amount of hype should convince a studio to hire a star that tanked their tentpole or other movies as the lead again. Or if an actor is constantly getting bad reviews to boot. Take Orlando Bloom. He was the poster boy for casting “twinkle toes twee sprites as action leads”(quote: igor) but he got away as long as bigger name was the co-lead (Depp, Pitt) or movies were pre-sold brands (LOTR). Than despite palatable dislike for him by action and epic genre`s primary audience (guys), they gave him to lead a $180 mio epic on his own. And it bombed hard, duh! Who couldn`t see it coming? Teen girl idols don`t translate into action stars how hard is that for directors and producers to understand? They just don`t. Figures don`t lie. Reviews don`t lie. Target audience feedback is avaliable to anyone. So why the pretty boy-as-action lead terror continues is mind-boggling.
Why blame the agents and managers? Maybe because you can’t get work in this town without them but they couldn’t care less about talent. They run the business like it’s high school.
Tom Cruise. He was a pretty boy who successfully made the transition to action star. Yes, there are a handful of actors who have made the jump regardless of your overgeneralization. The studios are trying to find a new Tom.
What’s with the JT bashing? The guy does have talent, or have you morons not seen Alpha Dog, Black Snake Moan, The Social Network, or even Friends with Benefits? He has range, he’s just not wholly believable as an action hero.
Ive seen them all. And the only time he is even tolerable is on SNL. Closely watch his scenes in The Social Network. He is barely on camera. They always cut away to the other actors who can actually act. And notice that one scene where he is so bad they had to pump the music loudly over his sad attempt at acting. And to think he was actually disappointed that he didn’t get nominated for awards. He is terrible.
You don’t have to closely watch his scenes to know that he’s the least talented working actor in the modern era. I’m talking character actors, day players, you name it.
Ouch!
It’s not that Justin Timberlake isn’t a movie star, he just isn’t a bankable one. A movie star is one that played at least one substantial role in a movie. What you might have referred to is that just because Timberlake is in a movie doesn’t mean he will be successful. Neither is Johnny Depp. As for Puss in Boots, just give it one more week before determining its status.
@Chris, if you go to posts that discuss movie stardom, you’ll find a big part of the problem with discussing stardom is that people don’t agree on definitions. They can’t agree if a star is someone whose name is above the title, or a box office draw, or a name big enough to get financing for a film, or someone with name recognition, or etc.
Or one who can land on “Dancing with the Stars”!