Early Box Office Analysis
Not a thrilling start for Fox’s Robots. It looks like its max gross for the three-day weekend is about $38 million, which puts its almost $10 million behind DreamWorks’ crappy, but Will Smith led, Shark Tale, which also opened “off-season” last October.
It will also be at least $8 million behind Ice Age, another relatively no name animation from the same production team, which opened in the same slot three years ago. In my opinion, Ice Age was a much more enjoyable movie with a stronger emotional element that made multiple viewings more palatable. Would anyone at Fox see $135 million domestic total for Robots as a success? Probably not. That figure puts the movie into profit in Home Entertainment, but still…
In spite of the big noise of Robots, The Pacifier is off “just” 45% Friday-to-Friday. It isn’t a home run, but a solid double is a step up for Mr. Diesel.
Miramax’s Hostage got surprisingly strong reviews, but will have a fairly mediocre $11 million start thanks to fairly weak awareness of the Bruce Willis action movie. Sure, it’s a better start than the one for The Whole Ten Yards, but this feels like one of those opportunities lost to a lot of distraction and overwork at Current Miramax.
Million Dollar Baby‘s Friday tells you everything you need to know about the current state of trying to ride your Oscar to the big money. In just its second weekend after winning Best Picture, the film had the worst Friday since it went wide and is now off pace to catch up with The Aviator or to pass $100 million.
Speaking of The Aviator, it will try to hit $100 million by the end of next weekend… maybe the start of the weekend after… but it looks like the film will get to the mark, ring the bell and then go away.
Finally, the dismissal and now disappearance of The Jacket has tongues wagging the stability of the team at Warner Indie. If they can’t open the Keira Knightley kinda-horror movie with the Oscar winning co-star to a third of Dimension’s dumper Cursed… well…
Robots just did not have any buzz.
Saw Robots Friday at the Arclight, really liked it. The guy next to me though, you would have thought had just sat through a root canal with no anesthesia. Through out the whole movie he would groan and whine. Then when it was over he turned to his friends to say, “that was not funny, I kept waiting for it to get funny but it never did.” His attitude was almost indignance to the point that had anyone in theater had admitted to having anything to do with the making of the film he would have beaten his fourteen dollars out of them and made them promise never to do it again.
I’m not sure what he was expecting? The ad campain pretty much lets you know what to expect. But then what do I know, for me the funniest part of the movie was the fart joke.
Robots did alright, the reviews have been so-so but it will do $120-$140 or so, which aint bad at all. I don’t know the budget on it, but my guess is it was quite a bit lower than the recent Pixar efforts. Since when is Over $100 Mill for animation a miss? I don’t think so.
The Warner Indie people really do not have a clue
it seems. The Jacket should have at least made
Butterfly Effect money, but this movie will struggle
to make 7 million. Absolutely ridiculous for such
a trippy time-travel flick, and a film where Keira
appears nude. Talk about an inability to sell
something, but the ads for this film told the tale.
It had a good trailer but the TV spots just made
no damn sense. I hate it when bad marketing comes
together.
The Jacket is terrible, and Hostage is even worse. These past two weekends have been depressing movie-going experiences. Awful movies that somehow are getting a few decent to good reviews. I’m glad both aren’t doing well at the box office.
Every opening release does pretty well the first week. The key is week 2. Especially any movie with a big star like Bruce Willis.
Stella’s Boy, maybe the key is to not see every movie showing…? Perhaps.
And the audience that WI was trying to get for The Jacket does not care that it’s star won an Academy Award for The Pianist.
Oh, and lastly, from reading the review roundup at the IMDb it certainly doesn’t seem like Hostage got good reviews (from the majors anyway), same goes for The Jacket.
Hostage got pretty good reviews from the big critics, I think it got 3 stars from ebert. However, it did not open well and week 2 is basically pointless for this sort of movie. If it opened to $20 I’d say it had a shot at being a hit, but not anymore. And Be Cool seems to by falling down pretty hard. Travolta and Willis – not the draws they used to be.
i second that emotion that the last few weekends haven’t been money well spent. Hostage was over the top and not exciting, The Jacket was terrible, Be Cool was trying way too hard to Be Cool, and RObots was a little dull. It kind of reminded me of a overactive Toy Story with less personality.
I did like the Heffalump movie. I bet Carly SImon gets a best song Oscar nod for next year for the Heffalump song featured in the movie. Mad Black Woman made me laugh even though it was over the top too. Tyler Perry’s done alot of good plays where I’m from. He’ll probably do more many movie versions of his plays if MBW keeps chugging along.
Well of course
Mark Gill was practically chased out of Stratus after a few months
and now is HOPING Nina offers him Miramax after Deluca passed.
But he is a marketing guy not a filmmaker.
And his #2 Andreen has sucked at more jobs than Bicycle Bob has had!
I said that it was an awful movie that somehow managed to get a few decent to good reviews. Much different than saying it received good reviews in general.
For those who dislike The Jacket. In the words
of Fancypants; “Youre tacky, and I hate you.” You
can like the Stool of Paraplegia but not an interesting
time travel flick? Utterly sickening, pathetic,
but expected. Shenanigans upon all your houses.
Keira Knightly appears nude??
The Jacket…It would have been a more interesting time travel flick had it stopped to do a little emotional character dev & common sense along the way. Too many visual and sound devices which looked neat drew more attention to it. I didn’t care about the characters and since I’m not a guy i don’t care about ms Knightly’s lack of clothing. The “Stool of Parapelegia” as you call it at least made me have a little concern for the char even though it wasn’t in my top 5 for last year.
I seen The Jacket it was alright but Kiera Nightly not nearly as hot as people say she is plus she was totally wrong for this role. BTW, is anyone else thinking that Constantine is kind of a bomb. It had to cost alot of money and it looks like its stalled in the 60 millions. That aint good at all. Probably cost half that just for marketing alone.
“Robots” got hurt by “The Pacifier” AND by “Millions”. Fox Searchlight is promoting “Millions” as family fare and an upmarket title; that way it’ll get into mainstream theaters as it goes national.
In Manhattan the AMC Empire and Regal Union Square are playing all 3; the Loews Lincoln Square has “Robots” in IMAX and the other 2 titles in 35mm.
Also, did anybody notice that “The Passion Recut” tanked? Newmarket Films didn’t know the lesson that Paramount learned from “Saturday Night Fever” — a major box-office hit should never be purified for re-release!
To Chucky in Jersey: Was the PG version of “Saturday Night Fever” really a failure? That was before my time, but I thought it was a hit.
I was talking to a friend this morning, one who owns a four-screen art theater in New England, and he says business was oddly down this weekend, even there was nothing much else going on in town and there was no big storm or anything. If you’re in the Northeast, which is where a hunk of tickets are generally sold, people seem to be just so exhausted from the long cold winter that many have just been staying in, I think and the low BO for these films might not have anything to do with the actual films. I went out to a dance club last night and there was a below normal sized crowd.
Lota, you demand common sense from The Jacket, but
where exactly does common sense appear in the film
STOOL OF PARAPLEGIA: THE MOST FORGETTABLE BEST PICTURE
SINCE ORDINARY PEOPLE? That movie has about as
much plausibility as AVP.
But I love this new criticism of movies like the
Jacket by demanding a Sci-fi/time travel have some
more common sense? Heck Lota, did you get that the
visuals were there to for a reason? Genre flicks
and even comedy are reviewed in such a hypocritical
way that it just annoys me.
L&DB, take it easy. Seriously. Excuse those of us who didn’t care for The Jacket our misguided ways. It’s just too derivative of other movies, especially Jacob’s Ladder. The romance is forced and a joke. Keira Knightly is absolutely awful. Granted, she isn’t given much to work with, but her attempt at an American accent is laughable and her performance is unconvincing. In the end, it borrows far too heavily from other, better movies and is a tedious bore. And for the record, I didn’t much care for Million Dollar Baby either, so maybe you should quit with your “Stool of Paraplegia” nonsense.
The Jacket was mediocre.
Robots was mediocre.
I’m ready for April movies right about now.
relax L&DB. I meant common sense from the characters. Any far out premise will be plausible if the characters are believable (filled with conviction), but aside from Brody’s char suffering I wasn’t convinced of much.
At least Donnie Darko which cost a good deal less to make made me feel sorry for his spoiled selfish ass before the heavens came for him.
Perhaps I would have liked the movie better had Brody not been a Gulf vet at all. As a person who has known people who were over there the first and in the present time, and even lost one, this generation X-er was neither impressed not lit up by the story or the characters–they just seemed like phony people. All it made me think of was that the warfare should be over. Perhaps if anyone actually pays to see this movie some good can come of it.
And visuals are my life honey. All the magic visuals/sounds will not save shallow character arcs. I agree to disagree.
Didn’t I hear somewhere that Keira Knightly insisted on a body double for this and all future films? And if it borrowed from Jacob’s ladder I’m glad I didn’t see it, I hated that film. Interesting visuals ruined by the, ” and then I woke up” ending or in this case and then I died.
It actually borrows more from Donnie Darko than
anything else. Not like that movie had many fans
when it came out in 2001 except for Brits who embraced
it the very next year. The Jacket should become
a cult flick because of it telling a very trippy
story seldom seen in American cinema. Again, not
like many people actually understood the Matrix
sequels. It happens.
And did someone say that the romance in Donnie Darko
made sense? Sorry there, but they were manipulated
through the time stream. Sort of the sameway in the
Jacket. Any other half-arsed arguments you feel
like throwing out there?
I thought the Jacket had some cool ideas, then again I thought Donnie Darko was highly overrated. Best of the 3 by far is Jacob’s Ladder. Adrian Lyne, one of the more underrated directors of our time.
Who said anything about the romance in Donnie Darko? Are you actually reading these posts? I think it borrows more from Jacob’s Ladder than anything else. Point is it heavily borrows from many other movies. What does it tell that “is seldom seen in American cinema?” Sounds like something the pretentious jackass director of The Jacket would say. I can’t see it becoming a cult flick, mainly because it’s pretty fucking stupid and has no rewatch value.
Boy, I responded to Lota about the romance. But you
really are the stupid moviegoer I deplore. Stupid
in the sense of one movie because being oblivious
to one film does not transcend all cinema. This
movie has all sorts of rewatch value but since you
were too fucking stupid to see it. I guess the
stupid is on you.
And comparing this film to Jacob’s Lader miss just
about how different they are. Of course, Boy seems
to be a rocket scientist when it comes to disecting
genre filmmaking. Shenanigans upon you sir. Shenanigans.
I, personally, LOVE the fact that The Passion Recut tanked more than I thought it would. A screen average of $200 is still too much. However, it’s so pleasing to know that people aren’t actually that gullable! It almost makes me believe that there actually is a God. But then I remember that the uncut version made $370million and then I do my best impersonation of The Mask’s bug-eye scene and rest my head in my hands.
And, also, very glad to see Upside of Anger doing so well. If it gets a bit wider and plays for a few months Joan Allen could very well get that fourth oscar nomination (and her first Oscar?). If she does get nominated they will HAVE to play up the “Four Time Academy Award Nominee” thing that Focus should have least TRIED to do for Kate Winslet last year. Maybe they woulda gone “Hilary Swank, 2 Oscars? Kate Winslet, 4 nominations zero oscars? Hmm… Kate!”
…okay, i know that would never happen, but I can dream can’t I?!
Well the Passion had a lot of hype last years. If
this country has proven anything, that we are suckers
for hype. We loves the hype. Which had to have had
some hand in those grosses. Sercumszing the Passion,
not so much hype, and not that much money. Plus they
friggin sold the hell out of those DVDs. That Mel
Gibson; he’s a whacky bastard. A recut Passion
and that complete Savages show? Did I mention
Paparazzi? Whackier than a fruit cup at a Dennys.
Yes, the Upside of Anger’s opening did about the same as Passion Recut which was in 900 more theaters. So, good on Joan Allen.
She’s so terrific in the film (the kind of ‘movie-star’ terrific that wins Oscar with the right campaign/timing) that I imagine it will have good word of mouth and if Newline markets it right they could have an unexpected minor hit on their hands.
“The Upside of Anger” expands to ~150 theaters Friday and goes wide on 4/1.
Joshua: The PG version of “Saturday Night Fever” tanked. When “Fever” was a midnight movie in the 90’s Paramount made sure to provide the R-rated version.
darko is much better than the jacket and jacobs ladder. not even close
The Passion Recut was released this weekend in just under 1000 screens and it’s total gross…$200,000. Let’s break down this figure:
1000 screens, $200,000 equals roughly $200 per screen over the weekend. Each screen probably had four showings a day. So four showings over three days is 12. 200 divided by 12 is 16.67. And we’re still talking dollars here. The average ticket price across the country is $6. 16.67 divided by 6 is 2.75.
So… There was an average of 3 people (rounded up) per showing of Passion Recut this weekend.
I find it interesting that virtually no newspaper or media outlet bothered to review the recut “Passion.” Considering the divisive religious and political controversy over the uncut version’s violence and anti-Semitism, you would think some of the film’s outspoken original critics would have taken some responsibility to see if this update addressed their concerns. (For the record, I strongly sided with the negative reviewers, but would gladly attend a free screening of the recut if invited.)
The reason is its not on enough screens and doesn’t need the publicity.
Chester, have you seen the page on Ebert’s site about Passion Recut? He gives it 0 stars yet doesn’t review it. He gave last year’s 4/4…?
Kamikaze, Ebert didn’t give the recut “Passion” zero stars. He just hasn’t reviewed it yet, so he hasn’t posted any grade for it.
its that slow a news day??
I think the reason most of the critics ignored the new version is that, frankly, it isn’t supposed to be that different. He’s just toned it down a bit. To expect a critic to re-review it because of that would be like expecting a critic to re-review a film that gets cut down for broadcast TV screenings. When a film get’s shown on tv (or on a plane), critics just reprint their original review with a notice that this version has been cut. They don’t go see it again.
I think most critics would feel that this is just Gibson trying to squeeze more money out of his film and nothing more.
Finally, the fact that it isn’t doing that well, suggests that, like “Titanic” before it (which I doubt would do well if re-released), “Passion” was a strange cultural phenominon that was very much of its time and place. Nobody I know wants to see Titanic again, and nobody I know really wants to see “The Passion” again. People want to rewatch truly good films.
It is rereleasing for money sake. Nothing more. I guess in time for Easter. We could see this every year now.
L.J., you make a lot of excellent points. But the fact remains that this isn’t a run-of-the-mill studio edit for television or airplanes. This was recut BY THE DIRECTOR for a new theatrical run, specifically in response to very public castigation of his personal, particularly controversial vision of a major religion’s violent origin. Because most of the negative press by critics and op-ed writers focused on the film’s excessive brutality, that makes this recut version especially newsworthy.
We’re not just talking here about a film industry phenomenon like “Titanic” or “Saturday Night Fever.” We’re talking about a divisively faith-based event that, among other things, many people believe greatly contributed to George Bush’s re-election. And, in contrast, you might want to keep in mind the number of critics who re-reviewed “Star Wars” and “E.T.” after Lucas and Spielberg tinkered with their very minimal violent content.
L.J., you make a lot of excellent points. But the fact remains that this isn’t a run-of-the-mill studio edit for television or airplanes. This was recut BY THE DIRECTOR for a new theatrical run, specifically in response to very public castigation of his personal, particularly controversial vision of a major religion’s violent origin. Because most of the negative press by critics and op-ed writers focused on the film’s excessive brutality, that makes this recut version especially newsworthy.
We’re not just talking here about a film industry phenomenon like “Titanic” or “Saturday Night Fever.” We’re talking about a divisively faith-based event that, among other things, many people believe greatly contributed to George Bush’s re-election. And, in contrast, you might want to keep in mind the number of critics who re-reviewed “Star Wars” and “E.T.” after Lucas and Spielberg tinkered with their very minimal violent content.
L.J., you make a lot of excellent points. But the fact remains that this isn’t a run-of-the-mill studio edit for television or airplanes. This was recut BY THE DIRECTOR for a new theatrical run, specifically in response to very public castigation of his personal, particularly controversial vision of a major religion’s violent origin. Because most of the negative press by critics and op-ed writers focused on the film’s excessive brutality, that makes this recut version especially newsworthy.
We’re not just talking here about a film industry phenomenon like “Titanic” or “Saturday Night Fever.” We’re talking about a divisively faith-based event that, among other things, many people believe greatly contributed to George Bush’s re-election. And, in contrast, you might want to keep in mind the number of critics who re-reviewed “Star Wars” and “E.T.” after Lucas and Spielberg tinkered with their very minimal violent content.
Sorry about the triple post. It seems this blog does that sometimes.
It is only six minutes shorter. It is not significantly different. It’d probably still be rated R, from what I understand.
Yes, it does Chester. Happened to me just a few minutes ago.
We can all disagree about this, Stella, but IMHO the excision of six minutes of excruciating gore constitutes a major edit.
Not having seen the new version, I also wonder if the cuts may be skewing the original film’s controversial perspective – possibly making it even more controversial. By dimming the spotlight from the brutality of the Roman soldiers, it is certainly conceivable that the film now appears to focus even more blame on the Jews than before. If so, wouldn’t that be newsworthy?
I haven’t seen it either. I have no desire to ever sit through that movie again, for as long as I live. But my understanding is that it is not significantly different and would still be rated R. I could be wrong. I really have very little desire to debate/discuss this movie all over again. And based on the box office, people have little desire to see it again (or for the first time).
Chester, maybe you’re right. I think there might be a good paper or two to be written by some higher-browed academic film types about the differences. But if, as many people say, he’s just toned down the gore, rightly or wrongly, most work-a-day critics (or their editors) aren’t going to think it’s worth their time to re-watch it, especially this soon after its first release. The critics who re-watched the Star Wars films or E.T. were doing so many, many years after their first releases, so they weren’t just new edits, they were new viewings of films seen, now, in a different era shown to a largely very different audience.
reading chester is bad enough once but three times?
L.J. and Stella, once again you make some very credible points. But no matter how you look at it or despite your own personal feelings, it’s pretty astounding that NOT A SINGLE CRITIC has bothered to review the recut, at least per Rotten Tomatoes. In a day and age where many publications devote space to reviews of DVD add-ons (e.g., a director’s cut, deleted scenes) of recent films, you’d think SOMEONE out there would have given this edition a second look.
Chester, are you positive that the studio made this new cut available to critics for review?
Chester is Mel Gibson.
The “Passion” was about an execution. What’s to be re-reviewed, Director’s ‘cut’ or not? I mean it’s not like there are new subplots…because there was precious little in the plot/subplot department to start with.
Toning down violence really doesn’t make a ‘new’ movie that requires review. It’s a cynical attempt to make $$$ before Lent is over, as plenty of underage people have seen it with their church groups already at all the free showings before wide release.
Stella, I have no idea if the studios made this version available to critics. That shouldn’t matter at this point, though, because the movie has been out since Friday, so critics have had ample time to see it. It is common practice whenever studios don’t arrange preview screenings for critics to take money out of petty cash and pay at the box office.
Lota, I do see your point. But if you’re correct, then why do so many publications and web sites devote space to review all of the trivial bells and whistles added onto DVDs? Doesn’t exhibited work revised by the actual director merit greater attention than promotional material tacked onto a DVD by the studios? In fact, from your standpoint, why even bother to review most DVDs at all?
I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree at this point. If the studio didn’t even bother to screen it for critics, which is certainly possible, I don’t think critics should be faulted for not going out of their way to see it again when the only difference is six minutes and the movie itself is barely a year old.
Stella, I’m not sure you and I really disagree (or at least not much). As I said above, I disliked the original immensely. But I still have to admit that this could be one of those “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around…” kinds of things. What if all of the critics who lambasted the first version for its unspeakable brutality would find this toned-down edition to be an astonishing improvement – but no one bothers to see it? Now, neither you nor I want to volunteer for this duty, which is completely understandable. Then again, unlike a professional critic, it’s not our job.
Also, since when do we give critics latitude as to what movies they get to see? Whether it’s the reincarnation of Jesus, Hitchcock, Fellini or Pauly Shore, you’d better believe the critics have an unbreakable obligation to show up, plant their asses in their seats, and then give us their professional assessments.
I just can’t imagine that six minutes of gore removed makes that much of a difference. Certainly not enough to drastically change one’s opinion of the movie. Just because Gibson tossed it back into theaters a year after its release, critics should have to see it again? I don’t think so.
the recut wasn’t screened for critics.
“the critics have an unbreakable obligation to show up, plant their asses in their seats, and then give us their professional assessments.”
Chester! Now, after so many thoughtful posts on your part, that’s something I have to disagree with. 😉
Whether it’s a “Film Comment” critic who doesn’t bother to see every trashy Pauly Shore film or “USA Today” which doesn’t send Mike Clark to a seven hour Bela Tarr film, NO critic can see ALL the films that open. There are just too many of them. Pauline Kael didn’t review Ozu films. She admitted in an interview that she just didn’t “get” Ozu. Admitting that, why should she bother watching them and giving her limited assessment? I think you are right that it’s a bit odd that NOBODY reviewed the new version of “The Legal Execution of the Christ”. Point taken. But frankly, if a critic had to choose between seeing the recut “Passion” and the latest Ming-liang Tsai film, I’d rather have him see the latter and report on it.
I do not know where you are looking but the film has been reviewed and not well. It has taken away the one thing it brought. The gore and violence of Jesus’ death.
L.J., my key point (which I admit could have been presented better) has been that this re-release is newsworthy, and therefore arts editors should have ASSIGNED this film to their critics. Trust me, none of the critics at any publication, whether it’s USA Today or The N.Y. Times, are able to refuse assignments from their editors. You can’t compare Pauline Kael and some of the Film Comment crowd to other critics; they fall under the category of essayists who get to pick and choose, a privilege other film critics do not share. Even Roger Ebert, arguably the most powerful movie critic of all time, seems to review every single film that gets released.
Terence, as of yesterday, I hadn’t seen a single review anywhere and there were none posted on Rotten Tomatoes. Today, Rotten Tomatoes posted a single review from Philadelphia Weekly (=thumbs down).
Apparently most people (including editors) simply do not feel that it is newsworthy.
I completely agree that that’s the case, Stella. And that’s precisely what I (and apparently I alone) think stinks. Does anyone doubt that if Scorsese were to suddenly release a personally recut version of “The Aviator” that was six minutes shorter, revised to address the criticisms of the original, that every major newspaper would have been all over it?
BTW, Stella, you might want to take a look at the Philadelphia Weekly review, because the critic addresses your “they only cut six minutes” argument. He says that while six minutes may not sound like much, the cuts are extremely noticeable and throw off whatever merit he found in the original version. The review is at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-10005055/reviews.php?critic=all&sortby=default&page=1&rid=1369821.
I don’t think that’s a logical comparison, nor do I think every major newspaper would be all over something like that. Not so soon after the release of the original version. I’ll check out that review, but other articles have stated that the cuts don’t amount to anything significant. I really don’t care. I hated the movie with a passion and will never, ever watch it again.
Stella, how is it not a logical comparison? Where is the flaw in my logic?
I think that critic is on crack. The movie’s message is the power of love in the face of barbarism? Lefties will never admit to nor see its strong direction? Are you fucking with me? I’d hate to read his original review. I assume it’s even more full of shit than his review of the new cut. Maybe my choice of words was poor. I just don’t see something like that ever being a remote possibility, re-releasing The Aviator a year after its original release with six minutes cut. And if it did ever happen, I don’t think that every major newspaper would make sure that it was reviewed.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Stella, that “the power of love in the face of barbarism” is not the message I took from the original film. But I think it’s fair to say that it is the prevailing view of those who supported it.
As far as our ongoing debate about the newsworthiness of the recut … hey, where’s Joe Leydon when we need him?
Excellent question. Where is Joe? Did he all of a sudden get busy or something?
I think people are all Passioned out.