2ND UPDATE: Charlie Sheen Fired Selma Blair From … 
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 … 
Russell Crowe Sets ‘The Water Diviner’ For … 
Comedy ‘I Didn’t Do It’ Gets Series Order … 
CNN’s ‘New Day’ Debut Up In Demo But … 
Liv Tyler To Co-Star In Damon Lindelof’s HBO Pilot … 
DreamWorks Animation Launches Effort To Re-Position Itself … 
‘Pacific Rim’ Sequel In Planning Stages, … 
Legendary “Down To Handful” Of Studio Suitors: … 
UPDATE: Dan Harmon Apologizes For Comments Slamming … 
Paramount- Montecito Set Black List Scribes Eyal Podell … 
‘Bioshock’ Creator Ken Levine Takes On … 
Deadline Expands: Hires Washington Post Journalist Lisa De … 
Ratings Rat Race: ‘The Voice’ Rises, … 
Angelina Jolie Stunt Double Files First U.S. Phone-Hacking … 
MGM & BermanBraun Sign TV Production Deal, First-Look … 
‘Venus And Serena’ Producer Calls Tennis … 
Kim Basinger In ‘Petit’ Lead For Danish Helmer … 
SUNDAY 7:30 AM, 3RD UPDATE: No change in the three top movies’ order at the domestic box office: Summit Entertainment’s Twilight Saga finale Breaking Dawn Part 2 is #1 for the third weekend 
in a row, the Eon Productions/MGM/Sony Pictures’ James Bond actioner Skyfall is a close #2, and Steven Spielberg’s Oscar buzzed Lincoln from DreamWorks/Fox/Disney is #3. It was a lean Friday but a fat Saturday. Ben Affleck’s Academy Awards-touted Argo crossed the $100M benchmark this weekend. While during the week, Wall Street called DreamWorks Animation’s Rise Of The Guardians “one of the most disappointing releases in the company’s history” – enough to hurt the public company’s share price. Analysts who expected to see $55M-$58M for the toon over Thanksgiving – not $32.6M - join Hollywood in still struggling to understand why audiences rejected the film. Toon is probably all in at just $80M.
Traditionally the weekend after Thanksgiving gives new definition to the term ‘quiet’. I’m told it’s failed to produce a wide release hit for 20 years and counting. So there were low expectations for producer Brad Pitt‘s R-rated ruthless star turn in Killing Them Softly (2,424 theaters) from his Plan B production company and Oracle heiress Megan Ellison’s Annapurna Pictures which financed it for $15M. But Friday night it received a miserable ‘F’ CinemaScore from audiences despite decent reviews and a stellar cast including Ray Liotta, Richard Jenkins, and James Gandolfini. Little wonder that distributor The Weinstein Company dumped the film this off-weekend – when no movie has opened north of $10 million since 2005′s Aeon Flux - after acquiring it post its Cannes premiere for a release commitment only in the U.S./Canada. “If we do double digit millions, we will be fine. And if it happens to get into the teens, we would be very happy,” an exec told me before it opened. So TWC must be mad as hell because the pic only opened to single digits. One film financing exec tells me about the TWC deal on this pic, “Killing Them Softly will be lucky to reach $15M box office when all is said and done. Using that figure and extrapolating out their Showtime pay TV deal (which is not that great), potential TV deal, VOD, and DVD, they are going to be unrecouped about $12M in P&A assuming they spent $27M to release. Not good.”
Killing Them Softly was scheduled to be released September 21st, then moved to this weekend to avoid competing against TWC’s The Master. (Although it moves another ‘R’ movie against TWC’s Silver Linings Playbook.) The actioner retained its original release date in other regions where Inferno International is representing overseas sales which have produced nearly $15M in grosses so far. (Inferno filed for bankruptcy protection in Los Angeles earlier this year, citing a legal judgment related to the 2005 release of the Ryan Reynolds comedy Just Friends.) The film, shot in New Orleans for tax credits, follows three dumb guys who think they’re smart and rob a Mob-protected card game, causing the local criminal economy to collapse. Pitt plays the hit man enforcer hired to track them down and restore order. Based on George V. Higgins’ 1974 crime novel Cogan’s Trade, it was scripted and directed by Australian Andrew Dominik who previously teamed up with Pitt on another of Brad’s puny-grossing passion projects – 2007′s The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (just $3.9M). Harvey and Bob Weinstein, as well as Ellison, are among the executive producers. Besides Pitt, Dede Gardner, Steve Schwartz, Paula Mae Schwartz, and Anthony Katagas produced the film.
Playing in far less runs (1,403 theaters), LD Entertainment’s extremely unpleasant The Collection is its horror sequel to 2009′s The Collector and didn’t get near the original’s $3.6M debut at 1,325 locations 
($7.7M total). The latest stars Emma Fitzpatrick and Josh Stewart, who reprises his role as Arkin. Written by Saw veteran genre scribes Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan who also directs, this grisly R-rated follow-up received less than middling reviews. While The New York Times called it “just a pointless exercise in sadism”, my favorite slam was the Detroit News reviewer who opined: “People in Hollywood need to work and surely The Collection created a lot of jobs, but there must be a better way.”
Overall, the Top 10 order based on weekend estimates looks a lot like the holiday’s. Total moviegoing is $110.6M, +45% over last year. But not close to last weekend’s Best-Ever Thanksgiving 5-Day Box Office:
1. Twilight: Breaking Dawn 2 (Summit/Lionsgate) Week 3 [Runs 4,008] PG13
Friday $5.4M, Saturday $7.5M, Weekend $17.1M, Cume $254.2M
2. Skyfall (Eon/MGM/Sony) Week 4 [Runs 3,463] PG13
Friday $4.8M, Saturday $7.6M, Weekend $16.9M, Cume $245.9M
3. Lincoln (DreamWorks/Fox/Disney) Week 4 [Runs 2,018] PG13
Friday $4.0M, Saturday $5.9M, Weekend $13.3M, Cume $83.5M
4. Rise Of The Guardians (DreamWorks Anim/Par) Week 2 [Runs 3,672] PG
Friday $2.9M, Saturday $6.3M, Weekend $13.4M (-44%), Cume $48.5M
5. Life Of Pi (Fox) Week 2 [Runs 2,928] PG
Friday $3.3M, Saturday $5.3M, Weekend $12.2M (-46%), Cume $47.8M
6. Wreck-It Ralph (Disney) Week 5 [Runs 3,087] PG
Friday $1.6M, Saturday $3.3M, Weekend $7.0M, Cume $158.3M
7. Killing Them Softly (Annapurna/Weinstein) NEW [Runs 2,424] R
Friday $2.5M, Saturday $2.7M, Weekend $6.9M
8. Red Dawn (FilmDistrict) Week 2 [Runs 2,781] PG13
Friday $2.0M, Saturday $2.9M, Weekend $6.6M (-54%), Cume $31.3M
9. Flight (Paramount) Week 5 [Runs 2,603] R
Friday $1.3M, Saturday $2.0M, Weekend $4.5M, Cume $81.5M
10. Silver Linings Playbook (Weinstein) Week 3 [Runs 371] R
Friday $914K, Saturday $1.3M, Weekend $3.2M, Cume $10.8M
11. The Collection (LD Entertainment) NEW [Runs 1,403] R
Friday $1.1K, Saturday $1.2K, Weekend $3.1M
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
I can sum up “Lincoln” in 2 words… it’s long.
Spielberg’s LINCOLN in two words: Needs vampires!
I saw it in Illinois over the weekend, and if the showing you were at was as seriously underlamped as the one in Gurnee Mills, I’m surprised you could see the movie at all.
No point in going to the movies when the chains underlamp an already dark movie. Worst movie experience I’ve had since the notoriously underlamped Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
Exhibition is becoming such a horrible experience that I refuse to see movies in theaters anymore. Add to the under-lamped (sometimes even out-of-focus) projection poor sound; dirty seats; sticky floors (all that dried, spilled soda pop only gets cleaned up every-other-day, maybe) and those ads, it’s dead on arrival.
The onslaught of advertising for non-entertainment related products and services destroys the mood well before “coming attractions” finishes it off. And it is counterproductive in any case. Looking around me, I see people reading magazines or their iPADs.
Gotta go to Arclight if you really want a good film watching experience. And don’t complain about the cost because there is almost no difference with other reservation-based chains anymore.
Lincoln is Disneyfied and hokey.
You probably didn’t even see the movie.
I did indeed see Lincoln in New York City in Union Square, two days after its release. I repeat: hokey and Disneyfied.
Well your two word review has me convinced. That you’re useless.
I thought it sucked too.
Unfocused. Tries to do too much.
Shot terribly. What’s up with that nauseating yellow with all the source lights at night?
Cheesy as hell ending. It’s very Hollywood blockbuster, but not even as concise and well made as most.
I didn’t see Lincoln but a friend went to a guild screening and said it was “awful”. I’m glad Victoria weighed in because I was starting to think my friend saw a different movie. Remember, guys, we’re all entitled to our own opinions, okay?
what ever happened to….
HARVEY WEINSTEIN’S CALL FOR A FORUM TO DISCUSS THE EFFECT OF VIOLENCE ON FILM WHERE HE SAID…..
“I JUST CAN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE. PLEASE CUT IT.
HOLLYWOOD CAN’T SHIRK OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEPICTING VIOLENCE?”
hmmmm maybe he postponed it in order to wait for KILLING THEM SOFTLY and DJANGO box office receipts???
@Overtime
That appears to only be for show during the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado shootings.
Harvey only cares about box office and always will.
He needed to soothe his conscience while he was counting his money.
Lincoln – was a bloody BORE. I and my friends left after suffering 45 static talky minutes. The movie compares to watching paint dry. Couldn’t believe Spielberg made it. Doesn’t he even bother to preview his movies with audiences anymore? Lord it needed lots of cutting. And I sincerely hope he finds another screen writer – Kushner used to be a fine writer; now he’s simply pretentious & seems to be in love with himself. BTW, our group wasn’t the only one who left the screening – there were other couples we saw leaving, too.
Pretentious = Paul couldn’t keep up with the dialogue. I suppose he was expecting more robot fights and car chases…
The best movie of the year thus far — is Silver Linings Playbook and Bradley Cooper gives without a doubt the performance of the year — better than Daniel Day Lewis and better than the unlikeable character that Joaquin Phoenix plays in the so-so Movie The master. He is pitch perfect.
Good — to know.
If Killing Them Softly has budget only 15 million then you can’t really call 7,5 millions week-end bomb. It’s not like budget was 35 millions. It will get it’s budget and maybe some nominations in the awards season for Pitt or other cast members.
It could have been better but that is the problem of director Andrew Dominik – he makes good slow movies that people like like but then gets bad box-office like with Jesse James. I don’t understand why you keep calling those CinemaScore marks like they matter something. I read few reviews and everybody liked the movie. Maybe those F come from Twilight-like crowd who thought it would be some Expendables or Bourne action movie and it was too slow or something. Maybe they will even sue like that woman for Drive
I was thinking the same exact thing about Killing Them Softly. It’s cheap enough to eek out some money in the end. Breaking Dawn 2 is sinking like a stone, and despite all the record breaking talk it will play just like the rest. My prediction is Skyfall edges it out for the weekend. Bond and Lincoln have been holding strong all month long. Rise of the Guardians should have been kept on the shelf. Dreamworks had more deserving
That would be “eke.”
CinemaScores matter a lot if they accurately reflect what people thought about the movie. It means people are telling their friends this movie sucked, rather than you’ve gotta see it. Word of Mouth is what gives a movie legs and if the CinemaScore is awful, it means the movie will likely be gone quickly.
It all depends on where you get your audience approval numbers. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 65% which is definitely not an F.
Shy, I concur.
Right. If the budget was 100 and opened at 50 on an off weekend, we would not call it a “bomb”.
Might the problem also be the word “Killing” being the first word in the title, for a movie released around Christmas-time?
High concept. High concept. High concept … .
Huh? Do you work for Pitt’s agent? $15 million to make, another $25 million to market, no European distributor. How in the world is this film supposed to make its money back. And $7.5 million opening weekend on 2400+ screens is a MASSIVE flop, especially for a guy who is consistently billed as this huge star, at least according to the media.
They don’t make movies like Killing Them Softly and Jesse James for money. I don’t think they give a carp about box-office. They know it won‘t have big success there. They didn’t even promote it.
Lime when Lawless was out – it was everywhere. They were selling it. Even Silver Linings Playbook is everywhere, in press every day. With KTS Pitt did few interviews and that was basically it.
It could have be bigger and get more money. It wasn‘t. I don‘t think any one of them cares. You can‘t really call it a big flop if it’s budget was 15 millions. Jesse James was even bigger flop at box-office. But funny that everyone knows and remembers that film.
If KTS will get any nominations in awards season then they accomplished mission.
they might not make these movies for money, but they sure take our money to see them, don’t they? therefore, they should try to deliver a little entertainment. Or be upfront that they’re going for awards and that the non-voting moviegoers’ enjoyment is not the true priority.
Ah yes, the sad thing is that Killing Them Softly is the best film of this bunch. And what always amazes me about Jesse James is that everyone I’ve asked in the industry has seen it (and most people liked it) yet no one outside the industry seems to have even heard about it. Bad marketing?
RE- “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”: Movie titles are meant to seduce and intrigue. Two words in that overlong, on-the-nose title killed it before it even left the starting gate: “Assassination”, and “Coward”.
With all the competition out there for my discretionary entertainment dollars, of which I have not many, you’re asking me to spend ten or twenty to watch a coward assassinate somebody? More to the point, you want me to take a date, or my kids?
“Day of the Jackel” (both versions) and “Eye of the Needle” are of a similar genre, involve the same basic mix of variables and beat setups. But they are structured and marketed as procedural thrillers. They did well. Targeted assassinations by gunsels and cowards were the mainstay of “The Godfather” trilogy and “Goodfellas”, to name just two; lines around the block to see those. So it’s not the gist of the subject matter — the meat and potatoes — per se, but how the fix’ins are presented on the dinner plate.
Free association wordplay of “Killing Them Softly” brings to my mind Richard Speck and Ted Bundy, two loathesome serial killers who preyed on beautiful young women. Pass.
The only thing “Killing Them Softly” tells me is I don’t want to see it.
Hopefully, this will get past the moderator.
@Shy – But Cinemascore does mean something, you’re not talking about film critics, studioheads or people with press crendentials grading it, you’re talking about the general audience grading it, the common moviegoer like many of us. Now a bad Cinemascore grade does’nt neccessarily gurantee that a film is doomed, but bad word of mouth can hurt a film’s potential. I’m planning on seeing “Killing Them Softly” myself, don’t know if i’ll see in theaters or wait for it on video yet.
Of course Rise of the Guardians failed. No one wanted to see a sequel to that lame Owl movie. What, you say it was NOT a follow-up to Legend of the Guardians? My mistake. Can’t imagine how anyone could possibly get that impression.
No one saw or remembers that Owl movie, so I doubt others got that impression.
Actually, I thought the same thing when buying the movie stock (lost my shirt) on HSX. I assumed it was a sequel to Legend of the Guardians. I can’t believe that these “hollywood experts” spend $100 million plus on a movie and can’t think up a better title.
Because it was based off of something called Rise of the Guardians. I’m guessing not that many people were confused because most people can think.
I mean Guardians of Childhood and this was the first in an inevitable franchise. I wonder – Did you get confused with Star Trek and Star Wars?
“Guardians of Childhood” and “Guardians of Ga’hoole” certainly sound less generic than “Rise of the Guardians” and “Legend of the Guardians”, but apparently also too juvenile for $100+ million movies. I don’t know if John Carter would have made back more money if they kept “of Mars” in the title, but I doubt it could have made it lose more.
Pretty sure a better title couldn’t have hurt its box office take. Let me guess, you’re one of the studio execs who green lighted this mess.
The Owl “Guardians” movie is actually — somehow — very popular with the very young set, and they remember it. It does indeed sound like a sequel to that. And, let’s say it doesn’t…still an awful title.
However, this statement in the above is confounding: “Analysts who expected to see $55M-$58M for the toon over Thanksgiving – not $32.6M – join Hollywood in still struggling to understand why audiences rejected the film. Toon is probably all in at just $80M.”
Really? It’s a mystery why a too-serious take on these fun legends (myths? characters?) failed? Then, add to that, the horrible character designs — some of which are inconsistent with the overall style — and the weak concept (The likely pitch “Marvel’s planning the Avengers in 2012. This is the Avengers of childhood’s most famous characters!”) and $32M is twice what it should have made.
I’m uncertain why other studios didn’t see this movie as a great opportunity to open THEIR children’s/family fare…it was clear this was a dud from the outset.
So in terms of numbers ‘Killing Them Softly’ would have been better off going out via Radius TWC as opposed to the traditional way
That’s too bad about Killing Me Softly. I’m planning on checking out the film today. It looks like a decent thriller with a grade A cast led by Brad Pitt. Maybe they should’ve stuck with the original Sept release seeing how The Master ended up bombing itself.
I think it’s pretty simple with Rise of the Guardians:
1. Terrible title – It is difficult to title. It also reminds everyone of that owl movie no one saw. But it’s too generic, so generic it could re-title The Expendables, The Avengers, The Hobbit, Chronicle , Inglourious Basterds, The Incredibles. If “Guardians” can represent many different things, really it means it represents nothing at all.
Just settle for for something with “Christmas” in the title, allowing a broader marketing strategy and more opportunities to suck Christians in to watch any movie with Xmas in the title.
Problem is that you end up with nothing but terrible pairings like “A Christmas Legend”, Saving the Last Christmas “Heroes of Christmas” — but at least you get a more specific idea of the movie. Yes, overseas suffers a little bit, but you could still re-title it for them, too.
2. Terrible trailers – The film’s concept is promising, kind of like The Avengers But R.o.t.G.‘s trailer was all over the place.
The latest R.o.t.G. trailer started and focused on Jack Frost as Peter Pan, i.e. just wasting away as a kid living forever. It didn’t really mention the team being a team, nor was did it introduce the Sandman and the Tooth Fairy. Little kids had no idea about the crazy darkness. Girls thought it was about Jack Frost. Adults thought it was just a mess.
Do the Trailer this way: The “too dark” problem? Start the trailer with the dark threat stuff, front and center. Now, you know the story conflict, and you just want the dark to go away, even in the trailer. Fade out to light scene, scene of the Easter Bunny doing bunny things. Similarly cut to each Guardian one at a time, each one doing his/her own thing. Realizing the threat, they’re pulled into the North Pole ready, but realize they need one more. That’s when you finally intro Jack Frost doing all his Peter Pan BS, hammering home that the fate of the world depends on this kid mischief.
Mini-montage of Frost rebelling, team begging his help, short clip of threat growing. Finally, end with an intense, dialogue-less mash montage of the back and forth action, with the final clip being a close up of Jack Frost as enemies slowly close in, cut to black.
There’s just one flaw in your plan. It’s not a Christmas movie. It’s an Easter movie. But then again, that just proves how poor the trailer is!
Thanks for your helpful marketing tips, mr. or ms. animator, but you have missed the point. The DNA is this movie is doomed from the start. Nobody – not parents, not kids-wants a dark, edgy version of the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and especially not santa. Nobody wants anything other than comedic joy from animated films. Sorry, but that is the truth. you want to do something deep without comedy, work in live action. you want to do something deep in animation – make sure the comedy is essential to the story (Despicable Me, Nemo), not tacked on as an afterthought. So, you have a fantasy adventure, with dark overtones and scary story elements, featuring characters that do not look like we think they look, doing things we do not think they do, and hanging out in a group we do not think exists, with no comedy coming naturally from the story – congrats – you have made an animated horror film for 4 year olds.
The funny thing is that this movie was great. Santa, et al. weren’t dark, they were funny. I took my kids (8,6,4) and they loved it. Great story, great concept, great message. It’s a fantastic movie.
But here’s the thing: we only saw it because a friend insisted it was a good kids movie. I REALLY, REALLY didn’t want to see it. I was dreading it because the marketing made it seem like this dreadful, dark story. I think the marketing ruined an otherwise fine Christmas movie.
You had me at “title”. But I agree with everything else you suggest as well. Lemme guess: Out of work? Consistently overlooked assistant? Highly successful employee at competing studio?
I can’t say too much b/c I haven’t seen the film. I CAN say that my little girl has no interest. I don’t think they know what the movie is. I get the idea but it’s for older kids, maybe even teenagers if they targeted them correctly, like OCEAN’S 11 for kids who kinda wanna still believe in Santa but in “movie vernacular” that they get.
But no amount of head scratching, trailer trimming or reading of comment cards will ever put Dreamworks back together again on this one. “It’s the title stupid!”. I mean seriously, how many departments had to sign off for this film to go out and NOONE said: “Um, this title sucks. Oh! Aaaaaand…it makes no sense when you’re skimming showtimes for your kids on Flixster.” It sounds like something schlocky for science/fantasy fanboys to go see because there’s nothing playing that they actually do want to see.
The worst is for everyone who really did care about this project and worked hard. Totally sucks. Totally #Hollywad.
Something as simple as “Holiday Heroes” would have sold this better than a title that sounds like a sequel to that failed owl movie.
Also, the design work looks too dark and creepy for what should be a cheerful, holiday film. I’m guessing they wanted to try to lure in fans of The Nightmare Before Christmas, another film that plays with the idea of holidays mixing.
You have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about. First of all Guardians comes from the name of a series of books it is based on “Guardians of Childhood” which obviously already has a fan base. Also, my three, seven and eleven years old wanted to see it the first time they saw a cardboard cut out advertising it. Then ever more so with the previews. We went to see it and they LOVED it. I only thought it was alright but as long as they love it I’m perfectly fine with that – even if I had hated it.
“…they join Hollywood in still struggling to understand why audiences rejected the film. No momentum even now.”
It’s amazing to me that they don’t understand the very simple reason this movie isn’t connecting with audiences: the style of the characters was creepy and strange. Santa looks like an evil Russian magician and all of the other characters were nothing like their origin characters.
And actually, they DO understand why it’s not connecting: the new trailers for the film COMPLETELY leave out the main characters, focusing entirely on the kids instead.
I can’t imagine who green-lit these creepy characters. You don’t take loveable childhood characters and make them look like the monsters under your bed.
the people who green-lit these creepy characters need to take their Pixar-envy and leave DreamWorks Animation. This movie, and most of their recent movies, reek of people that are obsessed with out Pixar-ing Pixar. Leave already – go work at Pixar.
Then the remaining development people can get back to the forgotten art of being DreamWorks Animation. Where is the humor? the cleverness? the originality? Audiences really miss the vibe and fun and smarts of the early DWA. The longer DWA tries miserably to be Pixar, the more time Melandandri is going to have to steal the fun mantle away from them. It is a sad, sad shame.
If they went to Pixar they’d likely quickly get replaced by a vet there.
How did TWC manage to screw up Killing Them Softly THIS bad? I understand the film itself doesn’t play very commercially but it’s a BRAD PITT GANGSTER MOVIE. Surely you could open that to $15m plus. Focus successfully duped the US public into forking out $13m on opening weekend for a GEORGE CLOONEY ASSASSIN MOVIE that I believe was less commercial than KTS. I wonder if Harvey has something against Dominik; I remember reading an interview around the release of My Weekend with Marilyn where Harvey said Dominik was difficult. Didn’t TWC commit $20m P&A as part of their deal to acquire the film? What a sham.
My God that Clooney movie was bad! It was boring and made no sense! And I LOVE european set spy movies!
The wooooorst.
I thought The American was good. If you went in expecting a spy movie, then of course you’d be disappointed. It was a movie for adults that was intelligent and thought provoking. Not for people with a short attention span, though.
Yes, thumbs up on THE AMERICAN.
As a parent, I can tell you why we won’t go see Rise of the Guardians: Santa looks like a dirtbag.
I’m glad I’m not the only one. Tattoos on Santa??? He looked like an extra on Sons of Anarchy, not Santa Claus. It’s like they were trying WAY too hard to make it edgy. It’s a kid movie. They don’t need edgy.
As much as it pains me (I really loved Jesse James and generally like Brad Pitt), Killing Them Softly is probably one of the most puzzling duds I’ve seen all year. I really wanted to like it. Really I did. The reviews were good, the cast was great and the premise seemed cool. But it’s just perplexing how little of it actually works. By the time it ends I felt like I was left with a dull feeling of emptiness. What exactly do I take away from the movie? That the US and by extension the western world is a miserable place? The only really amazing thing in the movie is the performance by Australian Ben Mendelson. The very appearance of him seems to reek of a foul stench and he manages to be both disturbing and hilarious. Compare him in this to The Dark Knight Rises and you’ll see why I really hope he gets to break out in the US.
Nail hit. On its head. All of it. Ben is terrific. But this film does not work. I am sure there is an interesting story with a certain evil studio head as villain that explains all that went wrong.
Killing Them Softly with the 80% positive on RT and an F Cinemascore. Rarely do you see that huge of a disconnect between audiences and critics.
Reminds me of The Thin Red Line. In high-school I dragged a handful of friends to see it with promises of great actors, great reviews etc. After that, The Talented Mister Ripley and the Ginger Snaps fiasco, it was years before I was trusted to pick another movie.
That’s what happens when the general audience wants things dumbed down whether it be music, movies or tv. If it doesn’t appeal to the simplistic Disney teen audience who would rather Brad Pitt completely sell out in crap like Johnny Depp, they’re not interested.
You need new friends
“Ginger Snaps fiasco”? GINGER SNAPS is one of the best horror movies of the last decade. Firstly, lucky you that you got to see it in a theater, and second, if that led your friends not to trust you, I agree with ElGorcho, you need(ed?) new friends.
Meh, they get a break because we were between 16 and 18 at the time and I was the movie nerd of the group. Not many kids would enjoy The Thin Red Line and Ripley.
I was a little bitter that they hated Ginger Snaps, though. Fucking teenagers, if it had a name cast or if they didn’t know it was “Canadian” beforehand, they’d have probably loved it.
@Pvt. Luke – You have some weird friends buddy, becuase those 3 films we’re pretty damn good. You are right about the disconnect between “Killing Them Softly’s” RT score and Cinemascore, you rarely ever see that big of a difference between the two.
“The Last Samurai” opened the weekend after Thanksgiving and did well. That was only 9 years ago.
Can’t believe Killing Them Softly got an ‘F’ from audiences. It’s truly one of the best films of the year. It flows so smoothly, it’s hilarious and the themes engrained are actually delivered without a heavy hand. It dances on the border of “brillant.”
I’m sorry, did you just say “without a heavy hand”? Holy shit, that was funny. The movie is terrible and utterly ham-fisted.
I actually like “Killing Them Softly”, but I can see why people would reject it. It doesn’t have that grand scope and intimacy Martin Scorcese infused in “Goodfellas” and “The Departed”, it’s grimier, not as well-paced (despite it being more than an hour shorter) and less polished. But Pitt’s performance is worth a matinee price… just amazing.
Maybe it’ll find a decent audience when it comes out on DVD and Blu-ray…
Well, Rise of the Guardians is on a similar path as Polar Express (although this will not reach that total overall).. it has that horrible horrible look to it. The trailer was offputting also. NOOOOO one liked the look or attitude of the Easter Bunny (way too rugged looking) and even Jack Frost (horrible)- was almost like they were going for an Anime look and failed…failed badly. content may be there but by way of look/advertising they lost my money…
Why no mention of SILENT NIGHT? Rave reviews from the NY Times to the LA Times… Not the director’s fault that Anchor Bay had no money for prints & did limited.
‘Killing Them Softly’ was very slow paced film. There was no action whatsoever. I think this is was an easy film to make. Set up a site (i.e. restaurant) put camera there and let the 2 actors talk for 15-20 minutes, and then end scene. Now repeat. That is how it was the entire film. James Gandolfini had no purpose in this film either.
An older couple behind me said at the end of the film that this was a horrible movie and we should have seen something else. I was mad I didn’t walk out when I had a chance to slip into a different film that was just starting.
I’m an animation junkie and I skipped Rise of the Guardians because the character design is terrible. Other than the Easter Bunny and Sandman, every other character looks plain ugly and uninteresting (there’s interesting ugly, like Selick movies characters). Add the fact the trailers made it seem like it was all about the most boring character of them all and you get an instant No-no.
Certainly bad news for Brad Pitt. An F cinemascore is surprising considering it got a 64 on Metacritic, but I guess it’s one of those movies that critics generally liked and audiences hated. It will no doubt do some international business on Brad’s name and they will probably come out OK financially, but it’s gotta be hard when audiences hate your pic.
“Rise Of The Guardians: struggling to understand why audiences rejected the film”??
are you kidding me?!
Totally got and dug KILLING THEM SOFTLY. I don’t get the F score! Just DO NOT GET IT. But, I also dug the JESSE JAMES flick. So, when DOM the Dir. creates movies with Pitt…I know it’s worth it. KTS will make it’s budget back and a profit. The world will devour this movie. America has to finally grow up and get back to really making and enjoying solid movies.
Finally saw Argo last night. Great movie. Great crowd. Who gives a shit about this weekends releases when there are so many acclaimed and crowd pleasing movies already out. Too many movies.
Granted, the Collection looks like garbage, but how is $3.1 so far off from $3.6? Seems like a solid opening given the subject matter, theater count, and relative lack of promotion. Also, I can’t imagine they broke the bank given that it features no names and that most of it looks like it takes place in the same dirty location.
The reviews for a Pitt Movie always confuse me. He consistently gets rave reviews but I rarely find his acting to be anything special. He’s decent but not decent enough for the raves. So I’m not surprised the reviews were good but movie goers gave the film a BIG F.
I feel the same way about him. He’s just OK. And that lip twitch he does in every movie drives me crazy, like he permanently has chewing tobacco under there. I don’t understand why the media goes so nuts for this guy. He must really charm them all in interviews.
Ditto – I’ve never seen a Pitt ‘performance’ that I though was any good. He just plays himself, like George Clooney.
The raves are bizarre – Brad Pitt is media/paparazzi creation. People see his movies because of his personal fame. There’s nothing wrong with that, but are there movie goers who really think he’s like Daniel Day-Lewis, M. Fassbender, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Viggo Mortenson, Sean Penn, etc . . . . . those are actors. Pitt is a movie star.
It’s a little scary that people can’t tell the difference.
Pitt is the worst thing about the otherwise terrific Jesse James–he just doesn’t belong on screen with Casey Affleck, Sam Rockwell, Sam Shepard, Jeremy Renner, Garret Dillahunt, Mary-Louise Parker and Paul Schneider. In anything like a serious role he’s an obvious over-thinker and the real actors run circles around him. While he seems capable of comedy with the right director and script (does great wastebasket tossing in Moneyball), I can’t remember a single serious role where he hasn’t embarrassed himself and this includes Basterds, Benjamin Button, Babel, Troy, Spy Game, etc.
Stars don’t = butts in seats anymore.. Not even Brad Pitt
@Heather Gilroy – You have a good point, it does’nt seem to be those single star driven box offices smashes like it used to be. If you look at the biggest films now most of them seem to have fairly large casts and several leads.