Christmas Cheer! Better Numbers For New Movies; ‘Mission: Impossible’ Still #1; Spielberg’s ‘War Horse’ Exceeds Predictions

COMMENTS (427)

• Give the grosses some time. With Christmas on a Sunday and shopping and family parties taking precedent, I would imagine busines picking up next week.

  Comment by JMcFadden — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 10:47am PST  Reply to this post

• What was with the marketing? Have spent the past few months in Texas and they din’t get across very well when Sherlock and MIGP were even coming out. Pretty bad when you have to go on the internet to figure it out.

  Comment by a person of no consequence — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 11:10am PST  Reply to this post

• I love Fincher, but having seen the already seen the foreign version of Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, the marketing made it look like the exact same movie, just in English.

  Comment by a person of no consequence — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 11:15am PST  Reply to this post

• Wonder if the lackluster sales figures have anyting to do with the U.S. Progressed Ascendant into Virgo in October 2011 … If so, it’s just something you all in Hollywood will have to get use to.

  Previously, the U.S. Progressed Ascendant was in Leo from 1973 to 2011, AND according to astrologer, Robert P. Blaschke (now deceased), this means the END of the Era of Celebrity Infatuation, Entertainment Culture, and Baby Boomer Excesses.

  The U.S. Progressed Ascendant into Virgo in October 2011 and lasting until the year 2047 is all about Healthy Citizens, Self-Employment, Hard Work and a Return to Craftsmanship.

  Comment by Donna - Phx — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 11:48am PST  Reply to this post

  • best post on DHD ever.

    Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday December 27, 2011 @ 1:03pm PST  Reply to this post

• My Family and I just got back from MI4.
  LOVED IT!!!!!!

  Comment by j.c. — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 12:39pm PST  Reply to this post

• I thought ZOO would be a drop in the bucket. Really too early to write off the films though. Generally pre-Dec 25 is slow and takes of between Christmas and New Years Day.

  Comment by brad — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 12:43pm PST  Reply to this post

• You people need to ‘get a life.’…these assholes make movies fer chrissakes.
  I didn’t read where any of them cured cancer.

  Comment by Joe Schmooga — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 1:00pm PST  Reply to this post

• I don’t know what church my plumber or grocer attends. I haven’t inquired as to the political beliefs of the lady who cuts my hair. You probably don’t know the sexual orientation of the cook at your favorite restaurant. Why do we need to approve of what an actor in a movie does in his off time? If you like his acting, go see it. If not, don’t. It is not enlightening to learn private details about Tome Cruise or any other person from whom we purchase goods and services.

  Talk about the movie, the acting, the range of emotions, the character development, anything except the private life of someone you’ve never met.

  Comment by Rip Ragged — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 1:02pm PST  Reply to this post

  • We don’t inquire about actor’s beliefs; some of them hit us over the head with them. If your plumber, grocer, or buetician insisted of telling you where they stood on politics and religion, I’m betting you would get another plumber, go to another grocer, and get someone else to cut your hair.

    Comment by mfan — Tuesday December 27, 2011 @ 12:55pm PST  Reply to this post

• Tom who? haven’t seen a movie he was in since Top Gun. There are a lot of people who’s movie I don’t watch for a lot of reasons. The more the lefties shoot off their mouth the less I watch.

  Comment by Kate — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 1:09pm PST  Reply to this post

• It’s not about Mr. Cruise, it’s about having one movie that’s above mediocre that people can go see. The reality is I’m not going to support the left leaning Hollywood folks, especially Mr Damon, unless it’s a bonfide gotta see this one blockbuster (which are few and far between.

  Comment by JT — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 1:26pm PST  Reply to this post

• Look, MI is a great action pic with characters I cared about and funny too; it deserves to be number 1. Tintin is stunning visually especially in 3-D but sometimes too too over-the-top in an undisciplined 1941 bad way; however the Bagghar sequence is a triumph and the Saturday matinee audience I saw it with had a lot of kids in it and applauded enthusiastically when it was over; they loved it.

  Comment by AJ — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 1:45pm PST  Reply to this post

• Got sucked in to watch Mission Impossible yesterday. Dreadful, simply dreadful. I want my money back. When Hollywood institutes a money back guarantee, maybe they’ll produce some decent movies. Until then, I’m on strike.

  Comment by kp — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 2:05pm PST  Reply to this post

• Zoo — a very dull premise featuring irritating stars (a ranting leftist paired with a dull-witted slattern).

  GWTDT — Everyone who likes the Swedish trilogy already have seen them. This was a product for which there was very little desire, like that frame-for-frame-identical remake of Psycho from a few years back. And there are plenty of people who are turned off by grotesque sex-scenes.

  Tin Tin — a fun, action-packed movie, but about a character no one in the U.S. knows much about; then burdened with the 3-D rip-off element.

  Chipwrecked — something for teachers to take the whole fifth grade class to see during lunchtime, during the Christmas-party-day at school. Complaining about it as like complaining about processed lunch meats, so why do it?

  Comment by Jack Brooks — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 2:59pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Couldn’t disagree with you more. I wouldn’t mind seeing MI4 but that is only because i heard the reviews are pretty good. But when I hear the master is revisiting his “7″ persona then I am going to be intrigued and don’t think I am the only one. The reviews are also fantastic for TGWTDT and I will be seeing this tomorrow. Don’t be so quick with your pronouncements; this film will have legs. Bet on it!

    Comment by neil — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 8:47pm PST  Reply to this post

• MI4 is the only interesting-looking new movie at theaters right now. ZOO may be okay, but I could wait and see it on DVD.

  Comment by Tim — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 3:29pm PST  Reply to this post

• Hollywood sales are going to continue to be soft. If anyone doesnt’ get it, there is a massive boycott going on in the USA of all movies lately. We will not give our money to people who support the destruction of this nation.

  Tom Cruise isn’t coming back as some say. It is just that a younger aged class of people are going to the movies with their friends, and they are going to see this movie.

  Matt Damon is in We bought a Zoo. He things we are fooled !! we are not fooled by his latest rant against Obama. WE know how far left he is. Why would we give our money to a self proclaimed socialist.

  We all know how far left hollywood is. We all know who they are donating their money too.

  Even during the great depression, movie sales were up, cause it was away for people to escape. Right now people don’t have jobs, but no matter what they would go to a great movie. That was proven during the Economic down times of Carter.

  This time it is different. Not one DIME of money is going to any actor or movie, no matter who it is made by for them supporting Obama.

  Wake up Hollywood, it has been quiet, but we aren’t paying for you to think your opinions of politics matters anymore. We are hitting you in your pocket book, our Nation is more important, then you thinking the world thinks we actually agree with what you have to say.

  Good riddance. Our country is more important, you want it to fall, and become the socialist communist utopia we don’t want it to be.

  Plus too since we are mostly racist, why would you want me to go and see one of your movies.

  Comment by kssturgis62 — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 3:39pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Cut it out, Matt Sludge.

    Comment by PaulH — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 8:44pm PST  Reply to this post

  • If you really want to boycott those people destroying this nation, you’d pull your money out of banks like Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and J.P. Morgan Chase, stop shopping at places like Walmart, and quit spending so much money on fast food and big Pharma drugs, instead of mouthing off at Hollywood actors. Hollywood wasn’t responsible for closing American factories and shipping jobs to China and India, and Hollywood didn’t pay its workers slave wages, forcing them to take out food stamps to supplement their meager income, while at the same time taking out insurance policies on those same workers and pocketing millions from the spread in premiums. And while Hollywood may be sending us cinematic crap at times, they are not sending us highly processed food which is expanding out waistlines and contributing to the rise in obesity and its related diseases. You need to stop watching Fox News and start looking out your window and go around your neighborhood to see what’s really going on in the world. You’d be much better informed as a citizen.

    Comment by 728huey — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 8:58pm PST  Reply to this post

    • Very well said! Whether we like all these movies or not, whether the marketing is manipulative or not, the stuff is still art or entertainment, and requires skill and imagination to create. Wonderful cinematography and terrific music scores, good sound editing and design and good production values are common in all the above-mentioned films. Okay — maybe not scriptwriting, but, hey. It’s still not banking, Walmart and Big Pharma. As Man Ray said, bad art is not going to kill you – like bad politians.

      Comment by benten32 — Monday December 26, 2011 @ 12:00pm PST  Reply to this post

  • the Drudge-Bots that post here make this the most entertaining blog on the net , are they all insane?

    Comment by notadrudgefan — Monday December 26, 2011 @ 12:13am PST  Reply to this post

  • Up till the last line I wasn’t sure. Is this a satirical post? If not, it’s truly pitiful. Your irrational hatred of the President is causing you to forgo entertainment and in some cases, art. How silly is that? You’re hurting no one but yourself. don’t for one second think there are significant box office effects from this type of thinking. More like, the people who post this stuff prefer to stay home watching DVDs or Netflix anyway and they use this as an excuse to beat up on Pres. Obama and anyone perceived to support him.

    Comment by whoareyou — Monday December 26, 2011 @ 10:09am PST  Reply to this post

  • There are still about 80% or more of the US who don’t care one way or the other dimwitted Hollywood stars say about politics. It’s only you Matt Sludge reading, Fox News watching mouth breathers who care, and there are barely 5 million of you.

    Comment by Brit — Monday December 26, 2011 @ 4:08pm PST  Reply to this post

• first off its Hollywood so everything you see, read and hear is ultimately a LIE, Tom is a flake. whether jumping up and down like a spazzed out hyperactive apelike chimpboy on Aperah Winfreaks couch or marry girls half his age.. hes a narcissistic megalomaniac. Did I mention that huge proboscis that they conventiently hide with camera angle. the guy in reality is short, dumpy and quite frankly UGLY

  Comment by steve — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 5:00pm PST  Reply to this post

• Tom Cruise is a terrific movie star. Presence, Action, stunts, etc. But is he an actor? not totally. When you see his movies, you see Tom every time…not necessarily the character he is playing…oh, he reads well and is definitely a presence, but you still see Tom. Same with Michael Douglas (except in Wall Street 1), George Clooney (any movie) and a host of others. The last time I saw Tom Cruise truly act was in Top Gun. When he acted there, you didn’t see Tom Cruise, you actually saw his character Pete Mitchell. In Far and Away, he had a fairly good irish accent and made a great attempt. But since then, to me, I don’t see the character Tom portrays, just Tom reading lines and doing incredible stunts. A hell of a movie star, but not necessarily a total actor in my viewpoint.

  Now someone like Robert Downey Jr., now THERE is an actor, when he stars in a movie, you actually can actually identify the character he is portraying and you see that character as he intends you to see and Robert Downey Jr., the person, is not seen. That, to me, is the definition of an actor.

  Comment by john michael — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 5:15pm PST  Reply to this post

• I saw MI4 yesterday and Sherlock today, both were good for what they are, well-crafted action movies.

  Cruise pushing 50 looks great, Downey Jr. looks like 50 miles of bad road. If the couch-jumping, “glib” interviews are a thing of the past, Cruise can last another decade as a believable action star.

  The new trailer for Dark Knight Rises looks amazing and had the audience chattering. Ann Hathaway’s Catwoman sounds a class warfare warning bell that should be interesting in the summer of an presidential election year. Catwoman whispers to Bruce Wayne “How did you think you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us?” Indeed.

  Comment by Bella — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 6:17pm PST  Reply to this post

• Dear Anonymous, did I hear yir right? You and your mischievous, antisocial cybercreeps really can’t afford to check out your slimy reflections in your cracked mirrors. You’re Anonymous ‘cuz you’re total Cowards!

  Comment by FlybyNight — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 6:42pm PST  Reply to this post

• I just got back from seeing War Horse at a 300 seat theatre in CT 7:00PM show and was surprised at most there were 30 people there. Wanted to love the film like I do the play but not giving anything away the last 5 mins of the film took me right out of it. Would love to ask Spielberg why he filmed the scene the way he did.

  Comment by Kevin — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 7:20pm PST  Reply to this post

• I’ve analyzed film data for going on 13 years…

  Everyone should be cheering for Dragon Tattoo to do well. The market needs more diverse product and being able to structure financially successful “adult franchise” films will certainly lend itself to that.

  That being said, I would not use Dragon as the sole barometer for whether or not adult franchise in and of itself works, as the nature of the dark material inherent in Dragon makes this data sample extraordinarily unique.

  In regard to Tom Cruise “being back” and Daniel Craig being “box office poison,” neither of these sentiments paints an accurate picture and are a cop out for where the market really is.

  Other than Lions for Lambs, which would have done what it did even if Jesus were in the Cruise role (almost all films that even touch the topic of the war tank), the extent of Cruise’s “decline” has been vastly exaggerated and manipulated by the media. Look at the grosses for MI3 (398M), Valkyrie (200M) and Knight and Day (262M). And yes, I understand about baseline budget and P&A, and that sequels should appreciate in value, especially overseas, so why did MI3 do worse than MI2 etc. But look at this data sample: Brad Pitt did The Devil’s Own, 7 Years in Tibet, Meet Joe Black, Fight Club, Spy Game and Sinbad all within close proximity of each other in his CV. All those films either underwhelmed or failed relative to their budget/P&A investment. And those happened for Pitt during a much more forgiving market than what we are experiencing lately (with the young male demographic no longer just showing up at the cinema). And all this did not affect Pitt’s ability to headline Troy (with an estimated 200M budget). Therefore, it’s not a surprise that Cruise can carry a fourquel in what has been a historically lucrative franchise.

  The statement that Daniel Craig is box office poison stems from people pointing to Golden Compass, Dream House, and Cowboys and Aliens. Golden Compass’s financial structure was screwed just by the way that NL set up foreign presales in order to finance the thing in the first place, as well as a horrible domestic marketing campaign (look at the disparity between the domestic and foreign take on that film). Plus, Daniel Craig had JUST done his first James Bond and is not even in Compass for long enough periods of time to classify it as a “Daniel Craig film.” Therefore, he did not “wreck” Golden Compass. Dream House was just poorly executed on all levels, from too high a budget to an inefficient marketing campaign. And Cowboys and Aliens was a disaster on so many levels, from filmaking by committee to horrific SFX for the aliens at the end (Ron Meyer said so himself). I do not work for Chris, Rick or Sally at CAA or Independent Talent Group so I have no inherent interest in speaking on Craig’s behalf. This is just the truth and marrying underwhelming films to an actor when it is not deserved is missing the point.

  All this brings me to the point: in contrast to the days when Tom, Tom, Mel and Julia ruled the roost, and when movie stars were the “inherent content” of the property that drove awareness, we NOW are in a market where, as “Dan” put it: “The content OF the movie trumps the actors IN the movie.” Movie stardom, in the current market, is more about picking roles that have inherent economic content value and then being willing to put in the infrastructural work of building up your brand, especially overseas. All Will Smith and James Lassiter did was understand the tentpole model and build the Will Smith brand the very same way that Paula Wagner and Tom Cruise had done it before them.

  Tom Cruise never stopped being a movie star (you don’t just erase close to 3 decades of brand awareness building just cause you jump on a couch) and Daniel Craig needs to be given a role where the content model does not sabotage chances of boffo returns in the first place.

  All this being said, it will be interesting to see how Dragon ends up faring. I would have structured it differently, but I respect Sony/Amy/the team over there and give them credit for green lighting a flippin’ 3 hour, R rated, 100M baseline plus P&A film where a girl gets anally raped. We all talk the talk about wanting to be courageous so let’s give credit when someone actually steps up to the plate and takes a flippin’ swing.

  Also, anyone notice the data sample that the original Swedish films all declined in revenue rather than appreciated? That’s an interesting data sample to me…

  Comment by Data Guy — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 7:26pm PST  Reply to this post

  • @Data Guy: why should people be cheering a moneygrab attempt by Sony studios to remake a barely 2 year old foreign film in English with a Swedish accent? You say we should want more diverse adult fare and we do, not remakes of new films. I admire David Fincher but this was such a waste of his talent. The movie is just like the book. If you read the Dragon Tat books, then watched the Swedish films last year in America, Fincher’s version is the third time through the SAME material. That’s boring and uninspired. Adults deserve better, something new, somethng original not remakes. I have a feeling if anyone else made this film you too would be crying “money grab” and “remake” but since you are a Fincher fanboy excuses must be made for your demi-god.

    Comment by answer — Monday December 26, 2011 @ 12:55am PST  Reply to this post

    • Totally agree. Head on spike for lazy remakes. If this version was made for viewers too lazy to read subtitles consider that the core fans were clearly not averse to reading.

      Comment by data can't read content? — Monday December 26, 2011 @ 9:08am PST  Reply to this post

    • I see where you are coming from and I think you make good points…

      But one point that still stands is that for studios (specifically the majors) to feel comfortable investing in adult fare then we should ALL be cheering for any type of content that pushes the boundaries.

      Totally agree that the Swedish films were good and that Sony, like any major studio, is in it for the money. No one argues this.

      But if Dragon Tattoo underwhelms significantly then execs will point to it as an example why they should look to obviously 4 quadrant films, preferably with a recognizable brand, PG13, and that are 95-115 minutes. If Tattoo does anything significant, it makes it easier to start a conversation in a room about more “edgy” intellectual property. There’s a reason that Clint Eastwood had to take J.Edgar to WB as he was told by other studios that they flat out do not make films like that. And looking at the economics, there IS a reason why studios feel that way, whether filmgoers like it or not.

      Again, I agree with a lot of your points, but looking at the big picture, I think it’s good for all of us if this film does some good business.

      And I appreciate the civil dialogue; I think the only time people should be up in arms on this forum are when people come on here and blatantly misquote facts or offer their opinions based on ridiculous speculation.

      Everyone has a right to do that, but it’s a more interesting dialogue when people have reasoning behind what they’re saying.

      Comment by Data Guy — Monday December 26, 2011 @ 10:25am PST  Reply to this post

• Also, a few other points for all the yahoos who clearly do NOT know a thing about this business:

  –box office is NOT the only metric of revenue for a film. So for those of you who are doing simple math like this: well they spent 100M and it grossed 125M, therefore, we made 25M, that’s just not how the game is played

  –in regard to the above, please look up the following: foreign presales, ancillary revenue, Slate Financing Arrangements, exhibitor/distributor split AND…

  –…basic box office data that you can just Google… “harry” your comment about Saw opening to 50M is ridiculous, Saw 3 had the biggest opening of all of them and opened to 33M

  –and to “Sean” who referred to Will Smith’s Hancock as a “bomb”, it’s actually Will’s 2nd highest grosser of all time (624 M)

  –Rum Diary is not a reflection of JD not being a movie star. It’s a reflection of the fact that Infinitum Nihil has/had a deal with GK films and Depp works with GK a lot so they gave him way too much $ to make a film that he already made back in 1998 called Fear and Loathing that failed then and failed now

  –to say that Fincher is not talented is again ridiculous. As someone whose first “gig” was as an intern at a management company where my job was to find potential clients by looking at reels, I can, with assurance, tell you that most people, people who graduate from film school even, cannot even set up a Two Shot. Whether or not you like the topic David explores in his films or him personally, the guy knows how to make a film. And if you think it’s so easy to make a good film then you go visit a Hollywood film set (which brings me to the question: how many posters here have actually been on a real film set and are not just posting from the basement of their Midwestern barn with their only friend Harold the horse)

  –going off of the above, I’m tired of hearing how agents are the scum of the earth. I do not approve of bad behavior by anyone in this business, but agents have a really rough flippin’ gig. Trying to convince a studio to give financing to a guy who thinks he’s a director because he can film a bunch of women shaking it in a rap video because he can frame a shot on a tripod is not an easy gig and one I do not envy

  –a shout out to Chris Highland (now with Paradigm I believe?) and Gersh as well as Sanders Armstrong Caserta for building Rooney Mara, whether or not she’s with them now. Give credit to where credit is due.

  Comment by Data Guy — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 7:55pm PST  Reply to this post

  • This is the internet so I can’t know that you know what you are talking about but it sure reads that way. Well done.

    Comment by Inigo — Monday December 26, 2011 @ 1:35am PST  Reply to this post

• M:I-GP is highly emotionally surcharging movie. Take tissues, you’ll need plenty of them in the end(I won’t give away the spolers). When Tom appears first time on the screen people stood up and cheered and coins were thrown on the screen.

  Simmon Pegg got plenty of laughs as well as did Anil Kapoor(stole the show for the few minutes he was on the screen).

  This movie deserves to make $250+ domestic

  Comment by Love Mr.Cruise — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 8:51pm PST  Reply to this post

• WAR HORSE….The color of corn is gold…!!

  Comment by John Arnold — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 9:02pm PST  Reply to this post

• Indiewire had a review of War Horse that read the main characters (the two horses)as gay. Just like with the Sherlock Holmes movie. My feeling is, if you want to make a gay movie, make one. Don’t take what’s supposed to be straight characters and turn them into gay characters for whatever reason. We straight people aren’t that dumb and we can see it for what it is. Everybody is supposed to be equal now, so make movies with gay main characters and be done with it. I’ll go see it. Just no more bait and switch. We straights don’t like being made fools of.

  Comment by My Two Cents — Sunday December 25, 2011 @ 11:58pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Wait, it’s been over 12 hours and no one has said anything about his batshit crazy post? It’s the Christmas gift I was waiting for? The two horses are gay? Are you’re angry about the subtext?? Love it.

    Comment by Post of the Year — Monday December 26, 2011 @ 10:14am PST  Reply to this post

    • look, we straights don’t like being made fools of! you got it? listen to the man, would you???? yes, the horses are GAY GAY GAY, goddamn it!!! we straights don’t want a fuckin’ bait and switch!!!!

      Comment by it's all right there!!! — Monday December 26, 2011 @ 6:42pm PST  Reply to this post