MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Early Box Office Analysis – 8/27

The Brothers Grimm, which dumped its pretense of being a Terry Gilliam movie (except for people who read newspapers

Be Sociable, Share!

24 Responses to “Early Box Office Analysis – 8/27”

  1. HenryHill says:

    At least Gilliam will have the #1 movie in America this weekend. It’ll probably tap out at $30-35 million. Like all things Gilliam it’ll find a following on DVD.
    It looks like the Penguins are starting to slow down. Good.
    How come no one on the Blog has bothered to talk about what a lean piece of craftsmanship Singleton’s Four Brothers is? While Craven’s Red Eye has gotten most of the spotlight lately, Singleton has served up a down ‘n’ dirty urban Western that has good laughs, an exciting car chase, and a muscular star performance by Wahlberg. Did I mention some of the best use of Motwon music ever? (The soundtrack works because it doesn’t rely on Motown standards, but actually goes deep into the catalog.) The use of Marvin Gaye’s “Trouble Man” is perfect. A couple of more genre movies like this and Singleton could become a new-style Walter Hill.

  2. cullen says:

    considering the bad buzz and pretty weak reviews, a $15-18 million start for Bros. Grimm has to be considered somewhat of a success…so happy that the Virgin has held up well, as I find it to be INFINITELY better than the wedding crashers.
    i think that people are talking more about Red Eye than Four Bros. because of how bad some of Wes Craven’s recent movies have been…with Red Eye, while not a brilliant or even great movie, he returned to old form with a tight, fun thriller. I agree that Four Brothers is a solid urban-Western with some nice performances and some manly action-violence…I could definitely see Singleton becoming the next Walter Hill to some degree.

  3. Joe Leydon says:

    “Four Brothers” is terrific. I’ve already seen it twice, and wouldn’t mind seeing it again. (HH: You are so RIGHT about the use of “Trouble Man” — at the start AND at the end, where it has a subtly different emotional resonance.) I’m really shocked by how it has been dissed by some folks on this blog, and elsewhere. To me, it’s the rock-the-house movie of the summer.
    BTW: This is off-subject, I know, but I fondly remember the original 1972 “Trouble Man” film, directed by Ivan Dixon. (Yeah, I know that remark dates me. Let’s put it like this — I was 20 when I saw it in a first-run theater.) Anyone out there know why it’s never been released on home video? And what ever happened to Robert Hooks, the original Mr. T?

  4. HenryHill says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Trouble Man the movie is stuck in music rights hell because of the Marvin Gaye soundtrack. (BTW: Trouble Man is one Cameron Crowe’s all-time favorite soundtracks.)
    I also like the use of “Papa Was A Rolling Stone” during the “humiliation” scene, and Gaye’s “Inner City Blues (Make Me Wanna Holler)” during a Bobby-Jack search-and-discover sequence.

  5. Stella's Boy says:

    I’m shocked that so many people like Four Brothers. Truly confounds me. It is so painfully mediocre and full of cliches. Hardly worth a rental. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

  6. Stella's Boy says:

    Grimm was pretty expensive right? $80 million or so?

  7. jeffmcm says:

    It’s not a profound or original movie, but it is a lot of fun. I hope you at least enjoyed the Italian restaurant scene.

  8. Stella's Boy says:

    I’m sorry but I didn’t find it all that fun, not even in a guilty pleasure kind of way. I found it just OK at best. Really didn’t do much for me. So obvious and by-the-numbers. But I can tell I’m in the minority around here.

  9. martin says:

    grimm #’s are what I expected. it should finish up around $40, which would make it a reasonable hit for gilliam. the stupidity here is that anyone would throw $80 mill. at a gilliam movie starring Damon (OK) and an actor no one seems to care for, Heath Ledger. Whether it cost $40 or $80 it would have had roughly the same opening weekend. And of course $40 would have meant a solid chance at profitability. Now that’s a longshot unless it somehow wins alot of hearts overseas.

  10. EDouglas says:

    Why do you think Penguins is down so much? I noticed that it seemed to be quite low in the last few days compared to previous weeks and I wondered if maybe school started in some places already. I don’t have kids so I don’t keep track of that sort of thing but I just assumed that school didn’t start until after Labor Day, but I also remember being surprised when I learned that some schools started again in late August (ie this week)…so is it school or are there that many families going away this week that its showing the normal decrease in the box office?

  11. Sanchez says:

    Grimm is a huge stinker. They’re lucky if it gets to 30 million than they should have a parade.

  12. Joe Leydon says:

    EDouglas: Houston Independent School District started classes two weeks ago. And school began a week before that in some other parts of the country. So go figure.
    Also: I wonder if word has gotten back to many parents that “Penguins” isn’t an entirely sweet and sunny view of nature? I can think of a couple of scenes thta might scare the bejeepers out of very small children.

  13. joefitz84 says:

    If 40 Yr Virgin hits 100 mill$ it has to be seen as one of the huge successes of the summer. Same if Red Eye chugs along and hits the number too.

  14. jsnpritchett says:

    I think these numbers are wrong. Dukes was 9th in box office on Friday. I don’t think it went UP 5 places with 2 new releases in the mix. I noticed BoxOfficeMojo didn’t even post Friday estimates today. There’s a note saying that due to “incomplete and inaccurate info,” they’re not posting numbers until Sunday. My guess is that Showbizdata has wrong numbers, too, and that March of the Penguins didn’t drop as much as it appears.

  15. PandaBear says:

    Penguins is down because I think the market for it is tapped out.

  16. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Yeah, if Penguins starts to deteriorate at the box-office it’s because there’s only so many people that will go to see this sort of movie at a cinema when they will be able to see it on tv in less than a year.
    Grimm never sounded particularly interesting and the fact that’s it’s by Gilliam – one of the most frustrating directors – didn’t make it appear any better. And as much as I like Damon, Ledger and Belluci… well, they never seemed to make the movie any more interesting either.
    Miramax will be happy that it least did better numbers than all the other movies they’ve released in their basement everything-must-go type release pattern.

  17. jeffmcm says:

    Hey Sanchez, what don’t you like about Grimm?

  18. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    I must agree with jsn that it is extremely strange that Dukes of Hazzard jumped back into the Top 5.
    Isn’t ‘The Cave’ one of the worst film titles ever? It’s definitely overtaken Miss Congeniality 2: Armed & Fabulous as the worst of the year…

  19. JBM... says:

    The Cave’s working title was “Prime Evil,” so be thankful for what you’ve got…

  20. Angelus21 says:

    I saw Grimm. Too bad they didn’t have the give the audience their money back policy like Cinderella Man.

  21. martin says:

    box office chart is dullest i’ve seen in a long time. no one people are staying away from theaters, it’s all shit!

  22. Chucky in Jersey says:

    “March of the Penguins” has started to play out in smaller theaters. In New Jersey, a single-screen arthouse and a couple of twin-screen theaters have already dropped it. A twin-screen arthouse in Connecticut plans to drop it next week.
    Warner Independent and National Geographic share the US rights to “Penguins”, so the DVD might be a joint effort — and not until Xmas at least.
    (UK readers: You’ll see the US version of “Penguins” when it opens across the pond this fall.)

  23. jeffmcm says:

    It’s not really a joint effort, I believe WB has a distribution deal with National Geographic for their products.

  24. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    I hope we get the American version here in Australia and not the silly sounding European one with actors voicing the penguins like it was an animated movie.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

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