SIX DAY OPENINGS
SW: Revenge of the Sith – $183 million
Spider-Man 2 – $180 million
The Matrix Reloaded – $147 million
Spider-Man – $144 million
Shrek 2 – $140 million
LOTR: Return of the King – $138 million
The Passion of the Christ – $135 million
SW: Attack of the Clones – $128 million
War of The Worlds
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I saw this flick. It certainly has more in common with Close Encounters and ET than it does Jurassic Park and Private Ryan. I think in a way we finally get to meet Elliot’s absent dad after all these years… and it’s Tom Cruise! But instead of teaching the guy a lesson with nice Reece’s-eating aliens, Uncle Stevie gleefully dishes out the blood-sucking ones.
The movie also takes the three iconic aspects in every other War of The Worlds version… the aliens coming out of the crater and killing people… the encounter in the farmhouse… the deus ex machina ending… and re-works it all as a sort of valentine to bad dads… arguing that even the crappiest ones will throw down for his kids when push comes to shove.
But for all the special effects, does anyone think it will make more cash than the very similar “Signs”? And does it deserve to?
It absolutely deserves to, not merely because of the much greater level of spectacle, but also because Signs, with its heavy-handed message-mongering, is much more insulting to audiences than Spielberg’s usual obsessiveness about bad parenting.
Jeff, you so full of shit, that you need an enema. Wow. Having faith and that there could be MORE to all of this is so insulting. Dude. Youre funny. You make me laugh. POS.
The first thing I thought as soon as I walked out of WOTW (didnt even sit for the credits); “Damn. Signs really isnt that bad of a movie!” Going to have to buy that on DVD this week. Maybe even send M.Night an e-card for not being triffling. Of course, I have to act as if the Village does not exist, but at least that flick goofed on our warning system.
My god, get over bashing Signs already. It’s three years old. I don’t see what exactly is so bad about it that it requires people to constantly bash it. Was it that Shyamalan didn’t put lots of extraneous action sequences in it? Or that characters learned a life lesson? Or was it that the aliens couldn’t turn doorknobs?
In todays day and age it’s an extremely rare thing to see a movie like Signs make as much money as it did – maybe it’s because people liked it?
So, the movie did fine. Spielberg can still make great looking movies. Tom Cruise gets to continue his crazy-man act. The studio brass can sleep at night. But it’s all about the money. And after the “real” budget of about $170 million or more ($135 million my ass!), $50-70 more for marketing. Cruise & Spielberg’s back-end deals, etc., what kind of profit, if any, will the studio make? Obviously, they won’t see a dime of profit from theater rentals. Then they’ll have to spend more on DVD marketing before they reap those profits. Is the film, even if its considered a big hit, a financial hit, or just a loss leader for the studio? Unlike “Shrek” or “Lord of the Rings,” I don’t think there will be any WOTW product at Toys R Us product this Christmas…maybe a Scientology camping tent or some Thetan dolls.
KC – Yes, it’s those little details like like aliens not being able to turn doorknobs (even my cat has learned how to do this nifty trick — you should see it, it’s really cute), that can ruin a film’s believability. Was watching “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” on TV last night, and if you get past the masterful technical filmmaking, you start to notice that there is very little substance and a complete lack of reality to the characters’ reactions…the same complaints that plagued “Signs,” and now Spielberg’s version, WOTW.
A Spielberg film used to be an event, the way a new Woody Allen film, or Robert DeNiro film, used to be. What happened? They’ve all lost their edge. They have so much money and power to do real edgy, unpredictable, “dangerous” art, but they’ve all decided to cash in. Spielberg should stop trying to compete with Shyamalan, the Wachowski’s and Cameron, and make some legacy films.
Thank god Data has decided to shut down for a while. If not, then all of this talk of M.Night and Signs would have him up on his ceiling. As if his name were LIONEL RITCHIE! Also, if I were an alien, the whole door knob thing would freak me out. My homie pointed out to me something that I usually ignore. All of these aliens we create are usually based off of a human concept of existance. Ie…they know how to open doors, flush toilets, open windows, steal cars, and all that goes with being human. M.Night, for what appears to be the first time, wanted to create aliens away from that concept. An alien that cant open a locked door makes sense. If you are not a human looking at that scene. Because, little kids lock themselves in rooms all the time. If a little kid cant figure it out. How would an alien, foreign to this world, figure it out? I mean, the blasted things go walking, uncloaked, by a Mexican birthday party. If they knew any better. They would have stayed cloak, because Mexicans (like everyone else) love taping every single event of their kids’ lives.
I guess I am surprised that WOTW didn’t make more money, although I am not sure what convinced me thus–the hype, crazy Tommy’s constance media presence? Nearly all the ads I’m seeing are for other releases so who nows how long people will be thinking about WOTW. I;m guessing not long.
Spielberg hasn’t used ‘real’ people in his movies for awhile, they seem like allegorical people (except for many in Schindler’s list).
The final results for WOTW will be good…just what everyone was expecting…maybe less. All that friggin’ hype just for predictable results. Rather boring, isn’t it?
WOTW will probably have decent holds, so I think it will squeeze it’s way to $280 domestic, which is obviously a solid number. I doubt the Cruise talk affected #’s much either way, but the film is just a little too dark and not cuddly to do gigantic spiderman or star wars #’s.
Rebound bombed, which might have producers worrying about Big Momma 2. If Bewitched does $70 mill., is that a hit? Not much less than Monster In Law.
Batman and Smith have better legs than many expected, should finish with $200 and $180 apiece.
Herbie at $55 mill., a hit?
Only clear loser is Land of the Dead, which is kind of weird since it doesn’t have much competition, got good reviews, and is from a horror master. A $20 mill. finish for this movie is not good.
Grove, you’re right. All these numbers seem pretty good. (And if Land of the Dead were a Japanese horror remake it would have done better). Maybe there is no slump. And if we can get China to start paying for our films rather than stealing them, all talks of a slump will be a minor blip in the big picture. Also, if I were the studio, I’d be shooting Big Momma’s House 2 somewhere really cheap like Afghanistan or Somalia cause Martin L isn’t looking too hot.
War of the Worlds has its problems (don’t get me started on the last 5 minutes) but it’s much better than Signs.
Financially, I think worldwide it’s already made more than its budget and marketing costs.
Clay – The worldwide revenues have equaled the production costs, but it has to double or triple them to earn actual profits. I’m sure it will though. Regardless, Spielberg has banked lots of goodwill from me for his life’s work, so that I wish him all the successes in the world, even when his films come up short.
the real surprise to me still in the Longest Yard which is still earning. I think Joe said the same earlier in the weekend, and it must be by word of mouth.
Herbie was annoying and not cute. But I don’t remember the original which I suspect was annoying as well or it would still be popular. Odd choice for a remake. Now when are they going to remake the Three Lives of Thomasina? I’d pay to see that if it still had the cool “curse of the cat people” style dreamings of the feline going on.
Lota…you rule…The Three Lives of Thomasina is a classic and deserves to be remade…but remade well…that movie was loved my family so much we named the family pet after the titular character…as far as WOTW, $120 million is an excellent start…and the word of mouth will be better than people think. If the sold-out crowd’s reaction in Sherman Oaks on Friday night is any indication, I bet it will get close to $280 domestic, and $350-375 over seas. And it deserves too…it was a summer movie that delivered…the special effects were amazing (so of the best ever, imho), Cruise is a movie star, plain-and-simple, and Speilberg is a consumate storyteller (not to mention a superb action filmmaker). This movie, combined with Kingdom of Heaven and Batman, have made for an awesome summer. Here’s hoping that THE ISLAND delivers the way the trailer does (NOBODY shoots action like Bay), The Wedding Crashers is as funny as everyone is saying, and WONKA is as tripped out as some of us want it to be.
Bring on the films…
well i only think crap films based on good stories should be remade (like someone please remake Green Mansions and make sure the writer&director have read the book), but I don’t mind remakes of kids films since it might find a new audience; culture seems to change every 8 yrs or so now. I saw Thomasina long after it was made, but it’s still a dark story kids can relate to about death, and the things parents don’t want to talk about and should.
You won’t think Lota rules when she says she didn’t like WOTW much. But Batman was excellent. The Island may have action, but if the science isn’t there it will be another quasi-tech boring movie.
But if they remake “Thomasina,” who plays the Patrick McGoohan role? Russell Crowe?
crowe in a kids movie…? maybe that’s what his career needs…but if somone were to seriously re-make Thomasina, they’d have to keep the darkness in tact… As far as The Island, I expect to see mind-blowing action & f/x…it will be an extra treat if the story is better than ‘pretty good’…the new trailer that’s out is sick…those flying motorcycles look incredible…and Scarlet with a gun…i’ll be there this weekend when they sneak preview it…
Is this the trailer your talking about? it looks flashy, to say the least… Might do $150-$180 or so.
http://www.dreamworks.com/trailers/island/island_trlr3_qt_480.mov
Sith is just a better film than Worlds.
That tongue thing is amazing!
http://www.dreamworks.com/trailers/island/island_trlr3_qt_480.mov
great trailer
My dog could have played Tom Cruise’s role in War Of The Worlds and it still would have grossed the same amount. No one went to see Tom Cruise, they went to see ALIENS!
You know, all this talk of a “slump” really sounds silly when you realize that in the past month and a half, SIX films have been released that are going to gross over $150 million. That’s pretty damn good.
And if WOTW holds like I expected, then all of those films will have done over three times their opening, which means they all had good word of mouth and were films that “people wanted to see.”
I think the real issue, here, and it’s being borne out by the numbers, are the lack of viable mid-level releases and/or indie films. Maybe, we are even talking about just pure numbers, fewer films being released.
But anybody questioning Hollywood’s inability to release big films that people want to see is just being foolish.
methinks the Elder Leydon was joking Nick.
Crowe would insist on doing the cat resurrection himself and reduce the witch’s screentime I’m sure. He’d also have a f*cking monolog in there too about Fatherhood. Forget it. Ralph Fiennes would have been a good uptight misery Dad if he hadn’t gone all weird on us. Maybe Ewen MacGregor since he’s starting to get significant wrinkles and looks cranky from years of boozing it up. Rachel McAdams might be quite a good witch. Dakota is a good spooky kid but unless she does it, like tomorrow, she’ll be too old. Leave the casting to me next time Leydon. Sheesh, I don’t tell you how to do your job, right?
You know, Lota, by now, I should know better than trying to be ironic in the a roomful of literalists.
martin-
yes, that was the trailer I ment…it looks freaking awesome…i am thinking $175 million domestic on that baby…
Sometimes I wonder if Bay cuts his own trailers because they seem very similar to his film style.
It is nice to see Buscemi still getting big roles, I don’t see any other directors putting him in summer blockbusters.
yes…i have wondered if bay cut’s his own trailers sometimes as well…what i like is his intense visual style…and he seems to like Buscemi, as they did Armageddon together.
speaking of Thomasina,
two other of Paul Gallico’s stories are currently being remade/reinterpreted to my knowledge–Poseidon Adventure, due out next spring and I hope Wolfgang Pedersen returns to Das Boot quality(is salvation still possible?)
and
The Snow Goose which is still in production with a somewhat woeful/inappropriate cast, compared to the intensity of the original.
Something else to remember about “Herbie: Fully Loaded” — even if it tops out at, say, $55 million (and I don’t think it will, I think it’ll do better, but Martin could very well be right), there are DVD sales. And those will be HUGE. Then, the movie will wind up in heavy rotation on the Disney Channel. That should be enough to generate at least one or two made-for-video sequels that can get by with lesser-known leads, and make scads more money. Hey, it worked for “George of the Jungle II” and “Inspector Gadget II.”
The Island does look great from the trailer. But I doubt Bay for some reason.
Don’t know about the rest of you, but regardless of boxoffice performance, I’ve enjoyed the films this summer — the excellent Batman, and the highly entertaining War and Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Perhaps the five months of crap preceeding the summer releases gave fuel to the fire of all this negativity/slump talk, but so far so good as far as quality. Charlie, Island, even Dukes of Hazzard look good. The slump talk has been overhyped. Going to movies is still good, distracting fun. Enjoy.
JoeFitz raises an interesting point. Remember how a few people were arguing that “WOTW” got a pass from some critics ONLY because it was a Spielberg flick? (I don’t agree with that, but never mind.) Well, could it be that some people will attack “The Island” ONLY because it’s a Bay movie?
I think people were as willing to attack Spielberg as give him a pass, but in regards to Bay, he’s certainly more vulnerable to hatred than most directors because of his track record. The trailers for Island have looked good, but possibly only because they’ve featured very little plot or dialogue.
There’s another story about the alleged Box-Office Slump in tomrrow’s NY Times. Fearless predictions: We will see (a) a sarcasm-laden link on Movie City News, (b) a haughty dismissal in The Hot Button, and (c) a borderline-incoherent rant here about the upcoming release of the next “Harry Potter” movie.
Back to the NYT article itself. The money quote:
At this point, 26 weeks into the year and with many of the summer’s biggest movies already rolled out, Hollywood executives seem resigned to the strong possibility that the overall box office for the year may be well behind 2004’s.
“We could be moving toward a down year, but that doesn’t paint the picture for next year or two to come,” said Dan Fellman, president of theatrical distribution for Warner Brothers. If the downward trend continued for another year, he said, executives would probably reconsider the industry shift toward releasing DVD’s as close to the movie’s opening date in theaters as they do now. Some experts suggest that moviegoers are staying away from theaters because they prefer to see movies at home.
Sith is not a better than WOTW. At least WOTW generated some suspense — there wasn’t one moment of it in Sith, which was a video game I couldn’t play. Actually, video games are better written and better performed.
And the Island trailer looks like a Levi’s commercial to me.
I wonder if they’ll wait to see how these movies do on DVD before deciding that they’re to blame for the slump that may or may not exist.
war can’t hold a candle to revenge of the sith. crazy even saying that.
Sith was big, steaming turd. Better than the two turds before it, but just barely.
Joe Klein, is that you?
Yes, it is crazy for someone to express their opinion that WOTW is superior to Revenge of the Sith. How dare someone express their opinion around here? How dare someone not agree with bi-bob? I’m sure they’ll learn.
Signs rips off old sci-fi movies, and so does WotW. But I’ll put Tom Cruise’s performance against Mel Gibson’s any day. Man, Mel had better stick with directing after that one.
And WotW had no “closet scene”. Where the intergalatic-traveling alien is perplexed by a door knob. And Spielberg doesn’t play a key supporting character just to inflate his own ego. And…the big kicker for me… he didn’t put his name in the title of the movie. Remember it IS M. Night’s The Village and M. Night’s Signs. Is there anything more annoying than a director putting his/her name on the title?
WOTW sucked, but it was still better than Signs (WOTW had actual action in it, not waiting around forever for something to happen like Signs).
I’m surprised that notoriously-soft-on-bad-movies Roger Ebert gave WOTW thumbs down, so what’s with all the thumbs up from all these other critics??
Don’t consider my purchased admission ticket as an endorsement of WOTW (or that I went because of “good word of mouth”)… some movies you just have to see. This one sucked sucked sucked sucked sucked… except for the fx.
This summer I think I’ll write a book called “Conquering Earth For Dummies.” Since many aliens are apparently retarded, it should sell very well.
…and if Michael Bay had directed this, most critics would have slaughtered it. Did I mention the aliens and the humans were both retarded?
You know, Joe, didn’t bother linking to the story because it is meaningless.
The liklihood is, has been and will continue to be that the overall box office number will be down from last year. I think there is a chance that Nov/Dec will catch things up, making it an up year for studios, but the overall number – especially after seeing, not seeing numbers on, War of The Worlds – is unlikely to catch up.
But the issue always has been, Joe, what it means.
The DVD slump continues to be a much bigger problem.
Not to be the naysayer here, but that drop for a Sunday on a holiday weekend (to $19 million) does not look good. Not to mention only $12 for the fourth. I’m not convinced it does over $210…
WotW will hold above a 40% drop for next weekend mainly due to lack of competition. I seriously doubt that Fantastic Four will open above $40mill. I really do. And I doubt Dark Water will do above $20mill. I think the 15th will be a huge weekend and finally beat the slump, but just barely.
“The liklihood is, has been and will continue to be that the overall box office number will be down from last year.”
Gee, that sounds like a slump to me.
Dave – you heard of this? is this a scam?
shares available in new movie.
http://belmarts.com/money.html
Why is everyone on this blog SO OBSESSED with how much movies make/don’t make? I mean, who gives a shit, really? If you don’t work for Paramount, what does it matter if WOTW makes $200 million or $300 million? So what? It would be much more interesting to discuss the movies themselves – and when I say discuss, I don’t mean “WOTW sucked!” or “Sith was big, steaming turd” etc., etc. Do you people actually LIKE movies, or do you just like bitching and moaning about them and playing boxoffice handicappers?
Obsessed? I think it is because we are all interested in films, the industry, gossip, film history, box office, etc. That is why we all come here. Why is it obsession if we all really like getting into it and talking about it?
Well Box Office is kind of a good way to (duh) determine how popular a movie is with the general public, and predicting box office results and analyzing them is a fun. It just is. It’s really fun.
You could make a point that I read the “Politics” section of the newspaper everyday, but that doesn’t mean I like President Bush. But I still like to read on it and get the latest news.
Is a down year really a “slump”? Lets say the year ends and we’re $300 mill short of last year. Is that really a slump? I don’t think so. A legitimate slump would be 2 or 3 years in the row doing perhaps lower and lower numbers. This is an off year, nothing wrong or particularly crazy about that.
And we all like movies… some of us just aren’t that thrilled with what we got out in theatres right now.
If Fight Club came out this summer you’d see long, point-by-point analogies of why people hate it/love it. But with these movies you can some up pretty quickly with a “It sucks” and “It’s loud”.
Really, Joe? You can sum up WOTW with “it sucks” and “it’s loud”? That’s all the movie left you with?
Actually, I’d like to add the movie left me with the thoughts: “bored” and “lame.”
Also, there for Jeffrey Boam’s doctor…there is always the hope if the movies don’t do well or crash after opening, etc…THE STUDIOS WON’T MAKE THEM AGAIN. Or you can at least hope they won’t.
Well moviefreek some movies are so stupid you just shrug your shoulders and move on. But hey, if you want more than “it sucked,” here’s something for you…
*WOTW spoiler alert*
my favourite braindead scene in WOTW is
when Tom and Dakota are in Creepy Tim’s basement and the “alien eye” (or whatever it’s called) snakes around the basement. The “alien eye” hears some noises and frantically snakes around searching for the source, but just can’t seem to do it. Now the “alien eye” continues to snake around the basement and eventually finds itself looking into a large and pretty mirror standing on the floor. And guess who is hiding behind that large and pretty mirror- it’s the 3 humans! Normally the hide-behind-a-mirror trick only works if it’s Bugs Bunny hiding from the great hunter Elmer Fudd, and Elmer would stop to admire himself in that mirror, but here it’s the “alien eye” admiring itself in the mirror. The humans are only inches away, huddled behind the mirror and sweating bullets, but do the aliens know that? I guess not, because the “alien eye” snakes out of the house after that. I mean, C’monnnnnnn.
The aliens can vaporize running humans with lasers but they can’t sense or find three humans in a house? They don’t have heat sensors or something? C’monnnn.
And maybe I’m missing something, but why didn’t the aliens just blow up Tim’s house in the first place because they were razing every other part of the area.
There are all kinds of WTF scenes like that in WOTW.
Also, did anyone find any of the principal characters even remotely likeable? I didn’t like any of them, and I was really hoping that at least the son died by the end, but oh well.
If the plot wasn’t so completely ludicrous, it would have made more $
yeah!
Bored and lame should definately be part of any War Of the Worlds review. Can Tim Robbins give back his Oscar? That scene was cringe worthy. I don’t think they meant for everyone to laugh.
Plenty of ludicrous movies have made lots of money. Look at the filmography of Michael Bay.
Most crappy flicks make money. So what is the damn point?
Now, that’s not true. Making money doesn’t have as much to do with quality as it should, but most crappy flicks are not profitable. Thanks be to the poor box office performances of such movies as Taxi, Battlefield Earth, House of the Dead, and so on.
Yeah, movies with ludicrous plots can make a lot of money, but they can make more if they were less ludicrous, ya know?
You think the big and dumb WOTW will make more than the smartly written Pirates Of The Carribbean’s 305 million domestic? I’ll have a happy smirk if it doesn’t (and I don’t think it will).
I like WOTW and I don’t think it’ll make more than $250.
all movie plots are ludicrous. thats what makes them movies. check out the plot summaries of the top 10 grossers every year. we’re not talking about movies about guys who wake up and read the paper.
I wouldn’t call Battlefiel Earth crappy. That is insulting crappy movies.
Bi Bob, you’re talking like someone who hates movies. Or at least, the big Hollywood type.
no. i love big hollywood movies. but i hate when people say plots are ludicrous. because thats what great movies are. like star wars is reality? indiana jones? forrest gump? even pulp fiction? when u start bashing the plots u know u should stick to indie crap.
Is it ever OK to bash plots? Can a line ever be crossed, when something becomes just too ludicrous, even for a big Hollywood movie? Sometimes I can handle it, and sometimes I can’t. It depends on the movie. That doesn’t mean I need to stick to “indie crap.”
Pretty much every movie has a plot like that. Otherwise they wouldn’t be movies, right? I mean look at the top grossing pictures. It is a cluster of off the wall ideas and plots. But thats why we go.
I’m sure we read or see in the papers everyday about a car with a personality of its own, aliens attacking Earth, and a man who dresses like a Bat to fight super criminals.
If you don’t like Hollywood type movies you really should stick to Sundance movies and not bitch and moan about it. Because they have been making huge studio films since they began making movies.
Angelus21: Strictly speaking, you’re wrong. In fact, the very first motion pictures — that is, movies projected onto screens in public for paying audiences — were more like what we’d today call documentaries, or “Sundance films.” (1895: Paris.) Simple narrative films didn’t come along until, oh, about 7-8 years later. (1902: “A Voyage to the Moon” 1903: “The Great Train Robbery”) And “huge studio films” didn’t appear (in this country, at least) until a deacde or so after that. So, actually, “Sundance movies” have been around longer than “huge studio films.” Just thought you’d like to know.
Who said they don’t like Hollywood movies? Some people are so hostile, and for no reason.
Studio’s have been creating movie magic since day number one. I don’t think King Kong was walking around in the 20’s but I could be wrong. Huge movies with a big creativity behind them are what the industry is all about. Out of this world stories that makes an audience use their imaginations and minds.
Whoa, I saw WotW last night… that was pretty crap. Main reasons were: (some spoilers)
-The entire basement scene with Tim Robbins. It was too long and boring and should’ve either ended after the first alien eye left or had the whole thing condensed to 5 minutes or so. And not had Tim Robbins
-The annoying constant references to WWII and 9/11.
-The annoying saccharine ending. A BILLION PEOPLE DIED BUT AS LONG AS TOM’S FAMILY IS ALRIGHT
-It didn’t ‘feel’ epic enough. Now, The Day After Tomorrow is not a good movie at all but at least during that one i felt something. I actually sat there and went “whoa” and felt “the world is ending! That’s bad!” but during WotW I just didn’t care. Action happened, Cruise escaped just barely, he tries to find his kids, they keep walking and find themselves in another situation
-The constant plot flaw involving electronics how come no cars work yet the newsvan and it’s televisions and vcrs all work? And why did the ferry work? And the boomgates? and… etc
-Why did they kill all those people with their laser death rays only to later in the movie want to collect all the humans to drink their blood? And why, when the blood was dispelled from the pod, did it look like orange kool aid?
-Why would you escape… ON A BOAT?!
That was quite possibly the dumbest section of the movie. Me and my friends (who also didn’t particularly like it – they aren’t film nuts fyi) were like “why are they going a boat? There’s no escape!” and even my mum thought the same thing when we were discussing it.
laaame.
That ending was just crackers though.
I hate to get into a big discussion of the movie, but just a couple of points:
The orange stuff wasn’t blood. it was alien goo. As if the tripod was puking.
They weren’t escaping on the boat, they were just trying to cross the Hudson, or at least just go somewhere a little further away.
You wouldn’t start by sucking human blood. First you shake things up a little, THEN you go after blood. Duh.
But yes, Robby shouldn’t have survived.
camel do u have to post spoilers? pull that crap on aicn. not here. unlike u some have not seen the film.
I warned about spoilers, unlike some people throughout these threads.
Jeff, okay, so it was goo (kool aid) but why were they drinking their blood?
And I’m fairly certain that the boat idea was dumb no matter what they were trying to do.
I still can’t believe people post spoilers. That is low class.
I really don’t know why some people feel compelled to post spoilers of a movie that came out not even a week ago. Can’t you discuss this without them? Or at least find an old thread. Because some people don’t see things opening night.
Some just try to ruin the experience. Mean people.
Sorry for participating in spoiling. I guess I thought if you read this far you probably saw the movie already.
SPOILER:
Kamikaze Camel: they were drinking blood because it’s in the HG Wells novel. You can still blame Spielberg for keeping it in, though.
As for the boat, that was in the novel too. It was dumb for them to think they had a chance of outrunning the aliens, but hey, panic.