Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
Fox Acquires ‘Narc’; Zac Efron Attached To Play … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Mike Lobell Adds Cast To ‘Eisner,’ Plots … 
Sony Shares Rise On Report That It Will Consider … 
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry … 
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including … 
UPDATE: Apple CEO Challenged For Moving “Crown … 
ESPN Layoffs Could Reach 400 As Part Of Latest Disney Cuts 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ Up … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Wolverine’ 
Ang Lee Departs FX Pilot ‘Tyrant’ 
How Many Times Does Seth MacFarlane Have To Say No To The … 
Cannes: Stanley Weiser To Script ‘Three Graves … 
Cannes: Deadline Crashes Palais Forum With Costa Gavras, … 
‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ $164.5M Global: Lower … 
‘The Great Gatsby’ Starts With $5.4M … 
UPDATE: ‘Iron Man 3′ Box Office Crosses $1B … 
SUNDAY PM UPDATE: That’s the pecking order before Monday actuals, according to my sources. This was one of those weekends which can only be described as box office hell 
for me. Because the three top pics were neck-and-neck for #1 this weekend. Final film order came down to Sunday late shows on the West Coast with Open Road’s End Of Watch easily placing #1 with $13+M. There’s still a battle for 2nd place after Relativity’s The House At The End of The Street came in way under their estimate, while Warner Bros’ Trouble With The Curve came in a little below their estimate as well. Lionsgate’s Dredd still did dreadful. All four newcomers are low- to medium-budget movies, but none opened to more than $13+M this very soft weekend. And total filmgoing likely won’t add up to a lot more than $88M, which is down a big -25% from last year. “It’s a close race to mediocrity with no winners,” one movie exec snarked to me.
Still fledgling Open Road’s handheld-camera End Of Watch (2,730 theaters) started #3 , then went to #2, and then bumped up to #1 by weekend’s end. The small distributor was even getting congratulatory calls from competitors. The pic’s top position is a surprise considering it’s R-rated which limits its grosses, it’s playing in less theaters than rivals, and it’s starring Jake Gyllenhaal who’s been box office poison for major studio movie openings. But this cop drama is exactly the kind of smaller character-driven indie project he does well and his fans desire. It received great reviews and an audience-rated CinemaScore of ‘A-’ that will expand word of mouth. Maybe End Of Watch can rival Open Road’s biggest to date, The Grey ($51.5M theatrical run). Made for only $7.5M by Exclusive Media and Emmett/Furla who both financed the movie, it was acquired by Open Road for around $2M in February after execs saw it at a buyer’s screening at the Arclight and made the deal that night. P&A was around $20M. Written and produced and directed by David Ayer (Training Day, S.W.A.T, The Fast & The Furious), Gyllenhaal is an executive producer. Pic also stars Michael Peña and Anna Kendrick. Producers are John Lesher, Nigel Sinclair, Matt Jackson and Ayer.
Clint Eastwood’s baseball father-daughter melodrama Trouble With The Curve (3,212 theaters) is considered a “big disappointment” no matter if it places $2 or $3. But it did receive a significant Red State bump on Saturday to make it more competitive. A lot of uninformed types are going to claim this icon’s movie is underperforming because of the 82-year-old Clint’s rambling Republican National Convention performance with that empty chair. Oh, puh-leeze. First of all, his movies don’t open big and usually don’t open wide like this. But they do have long legs. Two movies he both directed and starred in most recently — Gran Torino and Oscar-winner Million Dollar Baby – went on to earn over $100M. This latest won’t get near that. This time, Eastwood’s longtime collaborator Robert Lorenz at the helm and the subject matter belongs on the Hallmark Channel. Its reviews are mediocre even though audiences gave it a ‘B+’ CinemaScore which should help word of mouth. But baseball pics lately do only passable box office even though Warner Bros hired a sports consultant to build awareness. The studio targeted older audiences — and launched the trailer with Hope Springs — since it’s not like Amy Adams or Justin Timberlake fill cineplex seats.
Relativity’s run of the mill horror flick, House At The End Of The Street (3,083 theaters) stars Jennifer Lawrence who’s the real deal at the box office since The Hunger Games. Pic earned a middling ‘B’ CinemaScore from audiences. For $2.5M, Relativity acquired U.S. rights to market and distribute domestically, while Film Nation and A Bigger Boat independently produced the film with a budget just under $10M. Film Nation handled foreign sales and international distribution, and Alliance Films is distributing in Canada. Relativity claims an opening of $11M-$12M keeps the pic “on track for profitability across ancillary distribution channels including Netflix deal, home entertainment, television and digital sales”. (Isn’t it interesting how Relativity always claims it never loses money on its movies and yet keeps needing investors?) Relativity drafted off Lawrence’s built-in fan base by using The Hunger Games‘ home entertainment release on August 18th with targeted media and executed grassroots promotions. Because of her, Relativity targeted women.
And then there’s Lionsgate’s British/South African co-production low-budget reboot of John Wagner and Carlos Ezquerra’s cult favorite comics Dredd 3D (2,506 locations). The R-rated pic did dreadful on Friday and went up double-digits Saturday but still fell to 6th place Sunday behind Sony/Screen Gem’s holdover Resident Evil: Retribution. Comic-Con fans seemed to accept this new gritty Dredd last summer, unlike the Sly Stallone version with lycra and codpieces. Reviews were good, and audiences gave the pic a ‘B’ CinemaScore. The bad news is that Deepak Nayer and Stuart Ford who put the picture together committed Reliance Entertainment to fund the $40M gap and backstop the P&A. The good news for Lionsgate is that it has minimal risk. LG’s marketing campaign created a comic strip prequel to the film with the publisher 2000 AD as well as a Motion Comic released online. Dredd 3D also opened the genre sections of film fests in Toronto and Austin. But there was never much of an effort to widen the film’s appeal beyond fanboys. Directed by Pete Travis from a screenplay written by Alex Garland, the film stars Karl Urban and Olivia Thirlby. It’s produced by Andrew Macdonald, Allon Reich, and Alex Garland. Best stuff are those stunning slow motion photography sequences.
Meanwhile, The Weinstein Company’s critically acclaimed and Oscar buzzed The Master expanded into 788 theaters after breaking art house records for its opening last weekend. Friday’s take was $6,345 per screen average.
Related: ‘The Master’ Breaks Art House Records
Here are the Top Ten based on weekend totals as of Sunday night:
1. End Of Watch (Open Road) NEW [2,730 Runs] R
Friday $4.6M, Saturday $5.1M, Weekend $13.2M
2? Trouble With The Curve (Warner Bros) NEW [3,212 Runs] PG13
Friday $4.1M, Saturday $5.2M, Weekend $12.9M
2? House At The End Of The Street (Relativity) NEW [3,083 Runs] PG13
Friday $4.6M, Saturday $5.3M, Weekend $12.8M
4. Finding Nemo 3D (Disney) Week 2 [2,904 Runs] G
Friday $2.3M, Saturday $4.4M, Weekend $9.4 (-43%), Cume $29.9M
5. Resident Evil 5 3D (Screen Gems/Sony) Week 2 [3,016 Runs] R
Friday 1.9M, Saturday $2.9M, Weekend $6.7M (-68%), Cume $33.4M
6. Dredd 3D (Lionsgate) NEW [2,506 Runs] R
Friday $2.2M, Saturday $2.4M, Weekend $6.3M
7. The Master (Weinstein Co) Week 2 [788 Runs] R
Friday $1.3M, Saturday $1.9M, Weekend $5.0M, Cume $6.0M
8. The Possession (Lionsgate) Week 4 [2,598 Runs] PG13
Friday $815K, Saturday $1.2M, Weekend $2.6M, Cume $45.2M
9. Lawless (Weinstein Co) Week 4 [2,614 Runs] R
Friday $704K, Saturday $1.0M, Weekend $2.3M, Cume $34.5M
10. ParaNorman (Focus Features) Week 6 [1,617 Runs] PG
Friday $466K, Saturday $1.1M, Weekend $2.2M, Cume $52.5M
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
I for one don’t know how anyone can understand Eastwood. He’s lost his “actor’s” voice, he speaks with a near-whisper. I can never understand the man on screen. At 82, he should be supporting, not leading. And I don’t get this with hollywood — how do they team an 82 year old man with a 30something female? That means the male had the child when he was 50? Hollywood always does this — takes an octogenarian actor and gives him a 20 or 30 something daughter.
My dad when 50 when I was born, so it’s not surprising to me,
Same here. Not every one has a child while being in high school.
Same here. My dad was 50 when I was born. And Amy Adams is at least five years older then me too.
My dad was 48 when I was born.
If I’m not mistaken, Amy Adams is 37 or 38. Hardly a 20-something.
Having kids at 50 is a problem to you? Because to my father it definetely wasn’t.
I don’t care what Clint does as long as he does another western.
And if I’m not mistaken, he had his two youngest girls in his 60′s.
What Clint did at the Republican convention and his comments after it was exactly why for the first time I didn’t go to a Clint opening.
I must have missed the part of what he said that was so offensive that he should be boycotted. Did he say that gay people are a pestilence on the land and are to blame for everything that is wrong in America? Oh, wait. He actually supports gay marriage. Did he support killing women who have abortions? Oh, wait. He actually is pro-choice.
Now, I didn’t actually agree with what he said at the convention, but there’s a difference between disagreeing with someone, and being offended by them. And the fact that so many Americans don’t seem to get that is more offensive than anything anyone said at either convention.
So I’m guessing you agree with Republicans for boycotting George Clooney movies because of his political leanings?
Unless someone has done something so offensive as to be actually deplorable, people should see a movie or not based on whether they actually think it might be good, not because of who the actor supports politically.
Is Eastwood pro Gay marriage, and pro Choice? If so, he sure didn’t mention it in front of that extremist audience. His personal convictions mean nothing if he gets up on stage and supports people who want to take those rights away from all Americans.
Yes, Eastwood is pro-gay marriage and pro-choice. He didn’t mention it because it would have seemed very odd to bring it up for no reason. I don’t agree with his support of Romney, but he believes that Romney is a better choice to lead the country than Obama, and he’s welcome to that belief. When we start blackballing people because of their political beliefs, it’s a VERY slippery slope. Then you’re no better than those who boycotted the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out against president Bush.
Americans seem to talk a lot about freedom of speech, but part of freedom of speech is allowing people speak freely without fear of reprisal. There’s a BIG difference between speaking out about something hateful or offensive, and stating an opinion. He never claimed Obama was a socialist, or wasn’t born in the US, or some other nonsense. He just said he didn’t feel he was doing a good job, and that’s his right.
You obviously have the right to disagree with him, but boycotting a movie is beyond ridiculous. He didn’t do anything morally reprehensive. He supported the Republican nominee for the Presidency.
“Yes, Eastwood is pro-gay marriage and pro-choice. He didn’t mention it because it would have seemed very odd to bring it up for no reason.”
Odd? To bring up two issues that are part of the GOP platform? At their convention? Yeah…okay. I guess you weren’t part of the debate club in school.
The GOP Convention is not a debate, you know. Eastwood was there to stump for Romney, not talk about what GOP issues he disagrees with.
Maybe he _should_ tell them what important issues they are on the wrong side of. Perhaps they would listen to Dirty Harry and join the 21st century like the rest of the world.
He said “We built this country.” If he weren’t in Hollywood, Hollywood would have accused him of playing the bigotry card. He wasn’t talking about people of color.
I didn’t realize Hollywood was a single entity. In fact, wasn’t that one of the points of his speech?
I agree with you, Tim. If I were to skip every movie based on some actor’s political leanings I wouldn’t be able to see ANY movie. As it stands, there is only one actress whose movies I absolutely WILL NOT watch, and it is due to the morally reprehensible nature of her conduct. Everybody else? It depends on the movie itself.
Clint did not offend me, but he did endorse a candidate I believe endorses policies that would (and have) been harmful to my life. As a consumer, I have the right to decide if I want to support a commercial enterprise (in this case, Eastwood) based on avowed political leanings. I no longer eat at Chick Fil A, and I won’t be seeing anymore Eastwood movies. Is it boycotting or blackmailing? It’s the former, but absurd to label my actions the latter. I am not stopping him from making movies (blackballing), but I am voting with my consumer dollars and not putting profits into his pocket (boycotting). He is allowed to have his opinion, but statements have consequences. Is Rush were to make a movie, would it be morally wrong for me not to go see it because I disagree with him? Of course not. Freedom belongs to both the speaker and the listener.
You raise good points, but that he didn’t make his positions known is the problem. He should declined the invite if he’s so opposed to their horrendous social views.
The title, “Trouble With The Curve” must go down in history as one of the worst ever – it shares the ignoble space with ‘The Last Monday in October, ‘Death To Smoochie’, ‘Colossus: The Forbin Project’, ‘Rat Fink A Boo-Boo’, ‘Gigli’,'The Adventure Of Gwendolyn in the Land of the Yik-Yak’ and my personal favorite/least-favorite,’The Pickle’.
You know, I never realized what a bad title “Colossus: The Forbin Project” is because it’s always been one of my favorite films, but you’re right. It’s pretty bad.
By the way, you forgot Minority Report, my nominee for all-time worst film title.
I’m a democrat, but that has nothing to do with why I didn’t see Clint’s movie. The ads just didn’t tell a very compelling story, and I’m still not sure exactly what it’s about. Still, better than the publicity for Dredd. I didn’t even know it being released this weekend.
“Jake Gyllenhaal who’s been box office poison”, hasn’t Jake had number of hits over his long career including Source Code, which made over $147,332,697 on a budget of $32 million? Selective memory coming into play again….
Gyllenhaal is far from box office poison. Box office poison is when you anchor or co-anchor an otherwise strong, high-profile project and it flops, and this happens repeatedly. He had one high profile domestic flop (Prince of Persia: Sands of Time) that actually didn’t do that poorly when taking overseas grosses into account ($335m on a $200m production budget). Some of his movies that have just made back their budget (Love and Other Drugs, Brothers, Jarhead, etc.) are ensemble pieces, have an R rating, and only reached about 2000-2500 locations. He’s hardly been poison to movies. He’s just not enough of a draw to overcome a tough sell or to hold up a mediocre flick.
It’s just Nikki being provocative again. “Box office poison” should really apply only to actors who audiences don’t accept as leading material, no matter how hard studios promote them. Like Taylor Kitsch. Three duds in a row this year is proof that people aren’t going for him. Same thing happened to Emile Hirsch a couple years back.
In contrast, people generally like Gyllenhaal. But he tries too hard to pick what he believes are prestige projects, and simply doesn’t have good taste or good timing when it comes to picking compelling films that connect with an audience. Source Code and Brokeback Mountain notwithstanding.
The whole “box office poison” moniker is pretty much nonsense. The reason Battleship and John Carter bombed had absolutely nothing to do with Taylor Kitsch and everything to do with the fact that Battleship looked like a bad ripoff of Transformers and John Carter just looked like a weird, pseudo-Avatar movie that no one really seemed to understand what it was about.
Blaming those bombs on Taylor Kitsch is stupid. You stick anyone else in those movies and they still bomb.
For the record, if you’re still reading, I don’t blame Taylor Kitsch for the failures of those movies. But he didn’t help them either, since he’s a rather generic pretty boy, and since few people know who he is, outside of the relatively small “Friday Night Lights” audience. As you probably know, Hollywood is always trying to establish new stars as the old ones age and/or become boring. So certain actors become flavors of the month, cast in a big chunk of high-profile pictures all at once. It’s a gamble. And in cases like Kitsch and Hirsch before him, some gambles don’t pay off. Maybe that’s not “box office poison”. Perhaps only someone like Mel Gibson could lay claim to that term today; people actively avoid his films now, because they can’t bear to even look at him anymore.
It’s hypothetical, but I do think a better-known star or even a relatively unknown with genuine charisma would have made John Carter perform better at the box office. Battleship and Savages, maybe not.
The problem is that stars don’t guarantee anything anymore, for the studios or the audience. It used to be that paying Tom Cruise $20 million meant you’re movie would make $100 million (which was big, back then). Now, Johnny Depp can be in the $1 billion Alice in Wonderland one year and then not even break even for The Rum Diary and Dark Shadows another year.
Could John Carter have done better with, say, Matt Damon as the star? Possibly. but his presence didn’t help Green Zone or Hereafter even recoup their initial budget. In fact, Damon had four movies in a row pretty much bomb (The Informant, Invictus, Green Zone and Hereafter.
And the thing about Battleship and John Carter were both “event movies” which rely more on spectacle than stars. No one went to see Transformers because of Shai LaBeouf. And no one went to see John Carter because no one knew who the hell John Carter was or what the hell the movie was about.
Stars have never really guaranteed anything except for particular stars in particular pictures for very brief periods of time. Go read the first William Goldman book (written in the early 80s) and people in there are saying the exact same thing about movies made in the late 70s and early 80s – stars don’t matter anymore. They’ve never completely mattered. There was a brief period of time when Tom Cruise could be in anything as long as he was playing Tom Cruise and people would see it (88 or so until the early-mid 90s). For a year or two people would see Johnny Depp in anything, as long as he was playing Jack Sparrow (see Alice in Wonderland). Who else has been a recent guarantee? Will Smith had a run but that’s probably over unless he gets a kickass script where he gets to play Will Smith. He understood this concept very well – he was more choosy about picking projects that played exactly to his strengths than anyone else.
Regardless of how much it makes, it’s nice to have our lord and savior Paul Thomas Anderson back at the box office.
It is interesting how, The Master, is being declared a classic …after 2 or 3 viewings. Hmmm, sounds like something “good for me” rather than something “good to me”.
I’ve only seen it once and I think THE MASTER is one of the best films I’ve ever seen. He inspires me as a filmmaker everyday.
Maybe Trouble with the Curve fumbled because the trailer was riddled with cheesy, melodramatic one-liners? It really does look like a Lifetime movie, which is all Eastwood makes these days. But I still think it can win the weekend, mostly because I doubt End of Watch will have that strong a multiplier.
Glad to see Dredd crashing and burning.
Why the hate? Are you Stallone? The film was actually real good. Give it a chance, it’s nothing like that atrocity from the 90′s.
No, I just don’t like watching these poor films triumph. And yes, I did see it, and I have nothing against a good action film. I’m sure it’s better than Trouble with the Curve, but I wish there were more intelligent action films. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for Looper.
I don’t know about your standards for action movies but as you can observe from the posts here the few people who saw it actually liked it (and you know that the majority of movies gets a lot of bad comments on this site).
I also don’t want to start a debate if the term “intelligent action movie” isn’t an oxymoron but you can’t get much better than Garland’s tight script for “Dredd”. He delivered exactly what was expected of him. It was fast-paced, straight to the point and “clever” enough to avoid the typical bullshit you see in other action movies (e.g. forced loved story between the protagonists or female officers doubting way too long if they should kill an unarmed criminal).
I really don’t see why you would call it a poor film (or in general that negative attitude toward the film), when there’s real talent involved in this movie who delivered with a very small budget anything but a watered down PG-13 actioner appealing to every demographic. I for one welcome that there are still movies like “Dredd” out there instead of the yearly Battleships, Transformers, Total Recalls, etc.
I don’t believe you saw it. Your argument against is really weak.
Ya, why exactly are you happy it isn’t doing well. It got 78% on Rotten Tomatoes, which suggests it’s a pretty good movie. Don’t we want good movies to do well?
Dredd was an excellent film. Had it been called “independent movie by cool director x”, it would have created a cult following like Mad Max or District 9. It was hampered by a terrible marketing campaign and the connection with the Stallone garbage.
Really enjoyed it.
End Of Watch was fantastic as well.
Great to see some efficiently made films leading the charts. A lot can be learnt on this one. And Clint… who is a real life Judge Dredd should be enjoying the golf course, not pretending to still be a leading man.
Dredd is actually a very entertaining film. I would have liked to have seen that do better… it deserves it.
Not sure The Master has been released well. It should have been a December release and burn award ceremony hype all the way to $50m. I think it will be lucky to do $25 at this point.
I think the marketing has been poor, and I’m in an art house market. Expecting people to see a film by showing some “Oscar moments” from prior Oscar winners is a tricky approach, even when you have big names and decent reviews.
The Weinstein Co. is running TV ads for “The Master” in New York. I saw one during the Jets game last Sunday and that ad featured three pullquotes, one of which was from Peter Travers. FAIL!
Saw Dredd 3-D last night. For just a straight up hard R action movie it’s very entertaining-but that box office is nasty. Much better than the Stallone movie from ’95. Based on the box offie for this and Total Recall-I’m thinking Robocop for next year is in for an uphill battle.
Nikki, and the rest of Hollywood, need to re-evaluate Comic Con. I think a lot of Hollywood, and the media that covers Hollywood, are DRAMATICALLY overestimating comic con. Hollywood thinks that the Comic Con attendees represent vast numbers of fans that simply cannot attend comic con, but are just as enthusiastic about Sci-Fi as the attendees. But that isn’t the case. Further, Hollywood thinks that everyone at the convention wants to be in every Hall to see every presentation. Beyond seeing some celebrities, that isn’t the case.
Comic con attendees are the lunatic fringe of sci-fi fans. I am a sci-fi fan and I have never been to a con, nor do I have much interest in attending them. But I do know my fellow fans. But fan is just a shortened form of the word fanatic. Just because a film or presentation plays huge at a con, means nothing. Each fan at a con does not represent hundreds more at home. They are fetishists and extreme frings of the fan base. They are not representative of any thing.
Anything? No.
Dread is dead.
How about Dredd?
Would be a shame if this movie didn’t pick up – the word of mouth on it is phenomenal and personally I’d like a return to the days action movies were made for adults not kids and families.
Saw it last night and thought it was a really good 90 minutes and pretty clever in an early Cronenberg / Carpenter way. Kudos to those that made it.
As long as Hollywood ignores the female audience this is what they’re going to get. Instead of asking women to crossover and see films for guys I think women want films for themselves. With Bridesmaids, The Help, The Blind Side, The Notebook, Julie and Julia, Devil Wears Prada and films of that quality one would think there would be more female driven titles. These also had crossover appeal for MEN. But no. Pitch Perfect is the only film on the horizon that looks fun and female. Everything else looks like depressing garbage. In depressing times people want to see female heroes in drama or comedy. The studios continually believe it’s better to make 150 million dollar action movie and lose it than risk 35 million on a female film. The Inntouchables is a movie the American companies would never make and it’s broken 355 million worldwide. It’s the taste of studios and their execs that are ruining movies.
I’m really trying to understand your comment. I am a woman, but I am not drawn to a movie because I’m supposed to be influenced one way or the other. I go for the story; if it is something appealing to me, I’m there. Are you saying that I should not be doing that? Am I supposed to abide by a stereotype, that chicks want only “chick flicks”?
I love action movies, I always have and always will. I love a good drama or a good comedy. My favorite movie of all time is “The Wizard of OZ” followed closely by “Inception”. I am indeed a woman and LOVE all movies………except bad ones (including “Bridesmaids” which made me incredibly glad my girlfriends are nothing like that).
Brava! Well put…
From a business standpoint I agree that the mature women market is underrepresented. It is a rapidly expanding segment of the population that has money to spend. I would throw in Hitch, Magic Mike, The Vow and 50 First Dates to your list.
There is a difference between a movie for Women that Men watch and charming crossover films like the Blind Side or Pursuit of Happiness. No-one can claim those as “women’s films.”
There has to be diverse genre selection to keep the market fresh, but people go see good movies that they have heard about. Success is always found by quality films with good marketing efforts, independent of genre.
I’m not sure what makes a film “female” and, honestly, it seems somewhat sexist and maybe not a great approach for a studio to take. The Twilight films and Sex and the City are not exactly good films, just like Transformers and The Expendables are also not good. The real problem in Hollywood is too much domination of marketability and the first weekend. If you start having clueless people thinking of how to make “female films” then you’ll get a bunch of Lifetime-like melodramas on the big screen, or crude comedies based around lady parts instead of men parts (yes, wasn’t Bridesmaids just *so* progressive, ugh). I wish we could just have people making good movies with believable characters, and doing so in all genres, without thinking about the target audience.
Dredd has females in two of the three main roles and neither is there for the eye-candy nor treated in a misogynistic way. Theatre I saw it in had plenty of Geek Girl types and they all seemed to be vibing on it. Maybe thats just a different type of female, or maybe its best not to deal in generalisations.
When will idiots like you stop judging the quality of a movie based on gender instead of whether it’s good or not? Good films are made for both genders. Both chick flicks and macho acting movies can be bad or good. Stop being so goddamn ignorant.
So Goldie, are the films you mentioned supposed to be examples of good films with leading women? Most of them are not (bridesmaids, yuck). I do think there should be more films with leading women but they don’t all have to be cheesy romcoms or cheesy dramas or disgusting comedies like the above mentioned one. Melancholia by Lars von Tries is a film with good female characters. That’s what I’d like to see more of. Where is “The Master’ type of film with female characters, instead of the Hangover type of film with female characters?
Lions Gate should stick to teen movies. Almost every action movie they touch- Conan, Warrior, Safe, Abduction arguably even EX2 which was a layup and now Dredd which had great buzz it seems – is a disaster. They’re a long way from being the major studio they would aspire to be.
Resident Evil’s two biggest markets will be JAPAN & CHINA. It will print money in both, so I’d expect another installment of the franchise for sure…..
I don’t know if you’ve seen ‘Resi: Retribution’ but the plan was to make 6 in the series and then stop. ‘Retribution’ is essentially the first half of what is the final film.
So that’s why RETRIBUTION has no plot…they’re saving that for the second half of the final film!
Unfortunately, this franchise lost the plot a long time ago!
My friend saw a commercial for End of Watch and said it looked pretty good and that we should go see the movie. Going in, I hadn’t seen a preview or trailer, so I had no expectations. Hell, I didn’t even know if it was a comedy or drama. For all I know, I could have been wasting $10 on the worst movie of all time. However, it was probably one of the best new movies this year. Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena had terrific chemistry and really made the movie. I felt as if they had known each other their whole lives – and that’s what makes a movie seem realistic. There were a lot of rough scenes in the movie as well that made you think, “Wow, that is really happening in the world.” The ending really brought the movie full circle, and left many in the crowd in shock. For a mini-studio movie, it threw one hell of a punch. I would not mind spending $10 to see this movie again. I urge all of you to go see it. It really breaks free from the cop television shows and movies of today to be in a category all on its own.
You’re in no position to say it’s one of the best movies of the year – you clearly haven’t seen that many if you didn’t know anything about END OF WATCH
Ted was the best comedy, and End of Watch was the best drama. Everything else this year has been awful.
“End of Watch”? More like “No One Will Watch.”
“House at the End of the Street”? More like “House That No One Cares About.”
“Trouble with the Curve”? More like “Trouble with Opening a Film.”
“Dredd 3D”? More like “Dudd 3D.”
Am I right?
I would watch it if it were Gyllenhaal free. The guy can’t act and needs to accept that
I love Jake. But he should be ashamed of himself that he trots himself out there, as he is so terrible. Look at his talk show appearances. He tries to be funny, but he’s god awful.
I hate Shia. But he’s magnetic on talk shows. He’s genuinely funny, and has tons of charisma. Can’t stand the guy, but he knows how to tell the funny anecdote, knows how to make jokes left and right. Gyllenhaal is a great dude, but his talent level is not there.
Look at the trailer for JARHEAD. I remember him going, “I hear their bombs, and I’m afraid.” And it sounds so bad. He just is not good at his job.
Alert, alert. The hilarity level is just off the charts.
Dreadd who?????!!! When will Hollywood learn to stop gauging audience interest on comic book nerds?
Maybe in a year where the #1 and #2 top-grossing films aren’t comic book movies.
Those were comic book franchises that appealed to everyone, not just comic book nerds who cream their pants over obscure crap no one gives a shit about.
I still fondly recall the days before the first Iron Man came out, when I was the only person I know who didn’t look at the billboards and say, “who the f&ck is Iron Man” and predict the movie would tank. Or, explain Avatar – not a previously known brand name. How can any movie not adapted from another source ever be a success?
I haven’t seen Dredd yet, but having read the comics, I’m confident that they could be the basis for a terrific movie. But low-budget is not the way to go. The Stallone travesty had twice the budget, in 1995 dollars! For an action movie, pricey eye candy is just the cost of doing business. Plus, where were the billboards for my friends to snark at? Was this movie marketed to ComicCon and nobody else? Dredd never had a chance.
The entirety of Dredd 3D is eye candy.
I agree. Nobody, and I mean nobody, gave a shit about Iron Man except hard core fringe comic book nerds. Then the movie came out and was a huge hit, and, without Iron Man’s success there is probably no Avengers – that’s the one that made all the others possible. Ditto Pirates of the Caribbean, except it didn’t even have the comic book nerds. The reason studios make these movies is because you don’t need all of them to be hits, you just need one or two to be hits and then those one or two pay for everything else and then some.
I am surprised about Dredd 3d. I guess every Sci Fi fan is waiting for it to come out on Blu Ray. This is where it will recoup most of it’s costs. Theatrical release is just an expensive ad for home video now.
Dredd is a fantastic film. Karl Urban is almost perfect in the title role and the action is non-stop. This movie should have opened this summer against all the crap that was out there but agains the cost to launch a film scares people. I hope they don’t give up on the franchise and foreign audiences like it. No matter what happens, one thing is clear: KARL URBAN IS A STAR.
A star who stars in a movie no one wants to see? Sounds great.
The film is great – but in spite of Karl Urban who feels like he’s jutting out his chin and dropping his voice an octave like a teenage boy in every scene. Weirdly i found myself hankering after Stallone – him in the middle of this film would have rocked.
So it sounds like there’s plenty of empty seats in those theaters that Clint can talk to.
Ba-dum, bum.
It’s House at the End of the Street.
Funny, Woody Allen’s movie(s) make about 2.5 million dollars and he can do no wrong, ever. Clinton Eastwood, who pretty much can do what he wants, whenever he wants to, gets slammed for a poor showing box office wise. I for one have no overwhelming desire to see a “basefall film” even if Mr. Eastwood is in it. However, I also haven’t had any desire to see any of Mr. Allen’s films, not since he started channeling Swedish directors and lost his funny.
You’re trying to compare Woody Allen to Clint Eastwood? Seriously? Too funny.
I won’t go safe the new Clint movie for the same reason I didn’t go see the new Woody Allen movie–neither one looked particularly appealing, both projects by masters long past their prime. But I would LOVE to see Clint in a Woody Allen movie.
What Swedish directors did Allen channel in To Rome with Love, Midnight in Paris, Scoop, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Small Time Crooks, Hollywood Ending, Vicky Christina Barcelona…?
Hell, do you even know what you’re talking about? Interiors is a 1978 movie, Another Woman is from the eighties. His Bergman obsession is over.
I know! He’s like, funny man Tom Hanks should try drama! That Steven Spielberg is going places! Why won’t someone give Travolta a comeback?
Clint Eastwood is a legend and a patriot. I never miss one of his films – they’ve all been great.
Well, George Clooney is a patriot, too. He just believes in different things. And he makes great movies, too.
I’m curious why there seems to be so many Americans who believe “patriot” is synonymous with “right wing”, when you can be a left wing patriot, too. It seems to me that the vast majority of American are patriots, no matter what way they lean. In fact, the US seems to be one of the more patriotic countries in the world. You can’t seem to go more than a couple of blocks without seeing an American flag, and students pledge allegiance to it every morning. Most other developed, democratic countries don’t do that.
Tim,
You’re making too much sense for this message board.
Does Judge Dredd have enough of an international following that it doesn’t matter if the flick bombs here? Or has it already opened overseas?
It’s doing very well in the UK, where the property originated, and other territories are showing the buzz is there. Given its low cost, $40m, it will do very nicely theatrically and then clean up on ancillary, its natural home.
End Of Watch is getting killer word of mouth. Best I’ve seen or heard on on a movie in a long time.
You may not realise it, but there’s no question Clint Eastwood damaged his reputation with that chair thing. He went from a beloved icon to an international laughing stock.
Sadly, this is true. He not only damaged his reputation, but his legacy. Hes an old guy. He doesn’t have time to make a Ben Affleck like recovery.
Clint Eastwood has not damaged his legacy. He went from TV cowboy in Rawhide to the Man With no Name to Dirty Harry to Oscar winning director of Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby and Mystic River. When his definitive biography is written many years from now, it will say that when he got into his 80′s he got a little eccentric. No permanent damage to his legacy.
Yes, yes, as a flaming Hollywood liberal who adores Eastwood, I agree this is a minor footnote to a long and stellar career. If I’m lucky enough to reach Clint’s age, you’ll find me at the retirement castle watching “The Outlaw Josey Wales” for the 159th time.
Get your facts straight. Woody Allen’s To Rome With Love did over 16m here and over 40m abroad. Pretty good.
Thank you, Amused, for pointing this out. Woody’s latest may have only done $21-mil (according to Boxoffice Mojo) here, but has indeed pulled in over $41-mil (and still counting) overseas. Damned good! Clint (5 years older than Woody, who’ll turn 77 on Dec. 1st) should do so well. And has anyone noticed that the pundits who claim baseball films never do well at the boxoffice fail to mention “Field of Dreams”, “The Natural” and “Bull Durham”?