As it ever was, a soft first post-holiday weekend ahead.
The big difference the last couple of years was that there was at least one big teen-focused title released into this slot (Hostel/White Noise). Universal is trying to turn that trick with a Blade Runner sell of Children of Men, but white $8000 to $9000 per screen is nice, the $10 million or so weekend is not going to change the film
http://www.soulduster.com/ on: Friday Estimates by Klady
http://www.rehabsandrentals.com/ on: Friday Estimates by Klady
Joe Leydon on: Weekend Estimates by MacKlady
Abi on: Weekend Estimates by MacKlady
betavaftrar on: 3-Day Estimates By Klady That Made The Clown Cry
Tashie Jackson on: Friday Estimates by Klady
Jeffrey Boam's Doctor on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
DiggityDawg on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
David Poland on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
berg on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
Friday Estimate by MuthaSmurfin’ Klady
4 Day Estimates by Vehicular Klady
Friday Estimates by Green Klady
4 Day Estimates by Wolfpack Klady
Weekend Estimates by Screaming Rio Klady
Friday Estimates by Rio de JaKlady
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
Children of Men, I hope will get seen more with its themes relevant to immigrants (and our current ‘obsession’ with same, in the US of A).
Night at the Museum, ugh. now I want it to go away. Are adults going in hopes of glimpsing Gugino’s rack? What’s the big deal with this movie anyway, it was okay, not that hysterical. It’s not Austin Powers even though it had that rise in the 2nd week like AP-2 (can’t remember # of screens).
Night is really the only four quadrant movie out there that the entire family can go see. And amazingly, they have no competition for WEEKS. It won’t stay number 1 for much longer, but it will play out until mid Feb at least. Arthur and the Invisibles won’t prove much competition and the next movie that even comes close is possibly Norbit (though it will be PG 13) and Bridge to Tabitha (although will young boys want to see it?). A couple studios made big mistakes not programming a strong kids film in early Feb.
Even though Night of Museum remains at number 1, Im encouraged to see that Dreamgirls is holding powerfully and Children of Men beat expectations. Also glad that Freedom Writers is the top new release against the odds, and Happily Never after and The Cleaner bombed. Overall a good way to start the new year.
“Norbit” is currently rated “R.” (They’re appealing, and will assuredly cut to get the PG-13 if they have to.) It won’t knock down Night from kiddies, but it may kill Eddie Murphy’s Oscar chances.
What??? Gugino’s rack may be on display in Night At The Museum????!?!? Well I didn’t know that. Now I want to go see it.
I saw The Good Shepherd but I was really disappointed by it.
So when are we going to see the movie about the white football coach / teacher who by day coaches young blacks and hispanics to be better players but more importantly better men, while by night teaches young blacks and hispanics how to be writers. It’ll be the feelgood hit of fall 2007.
simmer down El Capitan.
I said “in hopes” of glimpsing her rack, I’d bet some males are going for this vain hope. Of course it aint Sin City so the hope is futile.
Actually, I was surprised by how objectified Ms. G was in the early scenes in the film. IMAX emphasized this, I am sure. But they found her some less impressive sweaters for the rest of the movie.
Of course, the idea that a woman who looks like Ms. G and is really, really smart is, 1. a doyen at the museum, 2. not hit on more often than the Whack-a-Mole in the museum cafeteria, and 3. drawn to an idiot and loser like Stiller’s character… is really special
I don’t think White Noise had much appeal to teens. In retrospect, I don’t understand what appeal it had for anybody. But The Hitcher comes out next weekend so there you go.
Just back from Children of Men. Attended with my 18 year old son. We’ll both be strongly recommending it. I like the bleakness of the whole film with this hopeful story of a birth at its core. Good balance of action and thoughfulness. Plus, even though it is an adapted screenplay for a movie it is very original. And I really liked both Clive Owen and Claire-Hope Ashitey.
sky_captain…what about Good Shepard disappointed you? That and CoM, which I just saw yesterday, are my two favorite films of the year.
I thought Damon gave the best performance of his career in that flick, one that wasn’t showy and therefore disqualified for any awards, but probably the best acting in any film this year.
In terms of technical achievement alone, CoM was fantastic. Is there any info on how many takes the tracking shots took?
According to an article I read on the effects work, some of those “one take” shots were actually several shots stitched together (seamlessly). The opening shot of the film, for example, is two shots… one interior and one exterior. They are stitched together digitally as Owen leaves the cafe.
The climactic 10-minute shot was made up of 5-6 different shots.
Amazing effects work. Combined with the most believable CGI human being I’ve ever seen (I won’t say which character, as it constitutes a spoiler), this is among the best visual effects work of the year.
Wow, thanks for the info Melquiades.
If the character is who I think it is, I kind of suspected it was CGI — it looked it, but they came pretty close.
Anyone know the cost on CoM? Over $50 million?
Ok, I should have just gone to ImDB. They list it as $72 million. Am I the only one shocked by 72 mill budget for a Clive Owen movie?
“If the character is who I think it is, I kind of suspected it was CGI”
OK, I’ll just say it. Clive Owen didn’t really act in this film. He was all digital!
Am I the only one shocked at $72 million for a digital Clive Owen movie? 🙂
The fugure is low.
David – the teen focused movie will be Alpha Dog, next week.
Anyway, about Eddie Murphy & Oscar – I just saw the billboard for Norbit and I thought, OMG, Eddie – NO! Don’t ruin your chances for an award, but the deed has been done.
Man, I hope that wasnt a spoiler dude.
Isn’t Alpha Dog basically getting dumped?
I’m sure it’ll gross significantly less than The Hitcher.
For some reason I read about this movie and assumed it was like a 10-15 mill indie. It has not been promoted in any way to suggest it is a large-budget Hollywood style production. And this also suggests the opening weekend is not so great. (not to knock the movie, which apparently is very good).
I don’t see why “Children of Men” is so hard to market. It overlaps several target audiences. Just target the sci-fi geeks, the arthouse crowd and classic rock fanatics. What’s the problem?
“Little Children” expanded to just more than 100 theaters. It’s a great film, but I can’t find a report on how the expansion went. With very little marketing, it probably didn’t go well.
I’m not sure how classic rock fanatics fit into the marketing, but arthouse-sci-fi typically is a hard sell. Just look at Dark City and The Fountain.
I just got back from “Children of Men,” and have no problem saying it is the best film of the young millennium.
I caught “Children of Men” on a Friday night around 10 p.m. The showing all but sold out. But I think part of that is because the multiplex I went to put it in a small auditorium. They must not have expected it to do that well. They had personnel come in late to do an audience count, which was a little distracting. But I think it’ll probably be moved to one of the larger auditoriums.
Blood Diamond lost 400 theaters and dropped only 29% from last Friday.Dreamgirls looks frontloaded and will need help from Oscar to reach $100 mil.
Considering the nonstop glut of trailers, tv spots and posters I’ve seen for Alpha Dog, I doubt it’s a dump…
Alpha Dog is being released much later than it could have been, and in January, which are both signs of a dump. But it is getting lots of advertising, which would suggest it’s less of a dump than a desire for a specific release date. It may very well bomb though.
I also just returned from COM, and while I thought it was brilliant and moving, WTF with the abrupt ending? I’m not going to go into spoiler territory, but I just felt like there could have been a bit more. Sometimes films are ok without much of a resolution but I was a little unfulfilled, and it’s probably what will wind up preventing this from being my #1 of the year.
Is anyone else suprised that The Good Shepherd is only $10 million behind Rocky Balboa, which had a 2-week lead? Even though the budget of DeNiro’s film was probably double Stallone’s, it has to be seen as more of a success considering the respective subject matters of both films.
“drawn to an idiot and loser like Stiller’s character… is really special”
Yes, Dave. You said it. Maybe she *knows* what Ben Stiller’s income is (despite being in so many bombs).
and re. Clive Owen…
despite having the charisma of a stick of butter, “Dwight” did ok and managed not to ruin Children of Men for me.
[thank goodness Owen wasn;t selected as Bond]
When we discuss CoM’s budget is good to remember that it’s actually a british film not an american one. It was always aimed at overseas markets first. I don’t know how it did, but whoever put the money on it, probably expect to get its cost back in Europe and make money in the rest of the world and DVDs.
Lazarus said:
“Is anyone else suprised that The Good Shepherd is only $10 million behind Rocky Balboa, which had a 2-week lead? Even though the budget of DeNiro’s film was probably double Stallone’s, it has to be seen as more of a success considering the respective subject matters of both films.”
I would contend against this. Despite the difference in subject matter, the fact remains that one film is starring a guy who hasn’t anchored a hit on his own since 1993 (Cliffhanger) and was seen as a joke by almost everyone when he announced that he was making one last chapter of a franchise dead since 1990.
The other stars a guy who has been in three very big hit films since only 2004 (Departed, Ocean’s 12 and Bourne Supremacy) directed by one of the most respected actors of all time. Sure, it’s a heavier film, but still…
Add on top of that that Rocky Balboa was made for 24 million and rumor being that The Good Shepherd was made from anywhere between 85-100 million, then I believe Rocky has to be seen as the true success here.
Just returned from a near-packed COM showing in the largest auditorium at a local multiplex. People seemed interested enough throughout, although kinda bugged by such a sudden ending.
However, the most common complaint here and there was concerning that out-of-context ‘Blade Runner’ blurb Uni keeps flaunting.
Still thinks it’s the best film of ’06.
I’d hate to see a less abrupt ending for Children of Men. I think it ends exactly as it should. The whole movie leads up to that moment.
Alpha Dog was dumped by New Line a year ago, in spite of taking it to Sundance. No one I know is quite sure why Universal picked it up.
They are spending some money, but not a lot by studio standards.
I really don’t know the whole story, but I’m sure someone out there does. It’s not a pretty picture.
Getting back to that NIGHT AT THE SHITSEUM commentary…I saw ERAGON yesterday with a group of kids and it was really, really good. I mean, good for kids. It’s only rated PG and has alot of appeal to boys (swords, fighting, monsters) and girls (cute female dragon and a cute lead character). I’m surprised it’s not doing better…it wasn’t nearly as bad as I was thinking it would be.
Eragon wasn’t bad. The problem was that it simply wasn’t good. Outside of a few solid choices, there wasn’t enough originality to keep it moving.
I’ve seen Children of Men twice this weekend. If I had seen it sometime last year, I could easily say it was the best of 2006. Now it’ll simply have to be the best of 2007.
Petaluma, perhaps but you’d be in the minority on that. Eragon has a 14% rating at RT. Although better than Happily Never After at 5%.
Since COM was released in 2006, I think it should still qualify.
Yes, it is in that murky small theater count area. That said, it was released EVERYWHERE else in 2006.
And did none of the business Universal was hoping to see.
Starting in the North American markets must be a better way of getting attention paid overseas. The other way? Perfume says yes. Children of Men says no.
Saw Children of Men and loved it. Going near the top of my top ten. Superb film. As the end came up, my mind was going. annnnd End. And it did, perfect… exactly right.
For some reason, I was simply doubting Cuar
Interesting, but Scorsese is still wayyy above AGInarritu, and early Spielberg is pretty superior almost everything Verbinski (who’s not Mexican..?) has done. Let’s call Verbinski ‘Michael Bay with talent’.
On the debate on the so-called abrupt ending on “Children of Men.” I liked the ending. And imagine if the movie had ended 30 seconds earlier…
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I love the ending, but there’s was a palpable sense of “WTF?” from most of the audience as they filed out.
I thought the way Children of Men ended was fine. I’ll certainly be purchasing that DVD in February when it’s released. Can’t wait.
Isn’t Spielberg the current Spielberg, or has he stopped making movies?
I was terrified the film was going to end 30 seconds earlier. The film needed to end on a … argh, can we get a post for people who’ve seen the film? I don’t want to take the slightest chance of ruining any of it for anyone.
Oh, and “Verbinski is early Spielberg?” I hope you’re talking “Sugerland Express”/”Night Gallery” Spielberg and not “Jaws” or “Close Encounters” – because Verbinski doesn’t have a fraction of that guy’s talent. If you really want a comparison to early Spielberg, it’s gotta be Shyamalan – but again, not nearly as talented.
With David not being such a fan of the film, I doubt he’d set up a spoiler thread.
But it’s worth a shot… hey David, what do you say? A Children of Men spoiler thread open to admirers and bashers alike?
I have to admit, I too was worried the movie was going to end 30 seconds earlier. I have to say, I saw “Pan’s Labyrinth” and was ready to annoint it as the best thing I saw for ’06, but then “Children of Men” came along and blew my doors off.
And has anyone said anything about the possible noms “Pan’s” may miss out on being a non-Guild movie? For the WGA ballots (that come in on Monday), “Pan’s” wasn’t on there being a non-signatory film, though I would’ve totally nominated it (as I’m sure many would have) if it had been as it’s more than deserving. In a perfect year, it’d be “Pan’s” for Original, “Children of Men” fo Adapted.
I have to admit, I too was worried the movie was going to end 30 seconds earlier. I have to say, I saw “Pan’s Labyrinth” and was ready to annoint it as the best thing I saw for ’06, but then “Children of Men” came along and blew my doors off.
And has anyone said anything about the possible noms “Pan’s” may miss out on being a non-Guild movie? For the WGA ballots (that come in on Monday), “Pan’s” wasn’t on there being a non-signatory film, though I would’ve totally nominated it (as I’m sure many would have) if it had been as it’s more than deserving. In a perfect year, it’d be “Pan’s” for Original, “Children of Men” for Adapted.
Damn double post.
zzzz….looks like Night at the Museum will end well above expectations for a $24 million haul this weekend, topping Casino Royale overall. This thing’s going to probably hit $200 million and enter last year’s top 5…why????
“Freedom Writers” was dumped. All the ads tout “Academy Award Winner Hilary Swank” yet there was no Oscar Bait opening in NYC/LA.
“Children of Men” is a loser. Banner ad touts it as “From the Director of ‘Y Tu Mama Tambien’,” which was foreign-language (strike 1) and unrated (strike 2). The poster also name-checks one of the Harry Potter movies. Strike 3 — yerrrrrrr OUT!
Is anyone else suprised that The Good Shepherd is only $10 million behind Rocky Balboa, which had a 2-week lead?
No. “Rocky Balboa” is a proven commodity and opened 2 days before.
“Little Children” expanded to just more than 100 theaters. It’s a great film, but I can’t find a report on how the expansion went.
Check Variety.com on Monday morning. Variety.com is free for now thanks to all those “For Your Consideration” adverts.
BTW, “Little Children” finally made it to the Hamptons this weekend.
NORBIT lost its appeal, so I assume it’ll be trimmed.
Yep, there’s no way “Norbit” hits theaters with an R rating. And now they can tout the “Unrated! Uncut!” DVD a few months from now – not like they weren’t going to anyway.
And Chucky: not getting your “Children of Men” reasoning at all. Why does a director’s former film being “unrated” hinder his new film at all? Also, “Rocky” was hardly a proven commodity post-1985.
Chucky, I notice that you’re basing your ‘Children of Men is a loser’ argument entirely on how it has been marketed and not at all on the actual box-office numbers, which is strange to begin with, and then there’s your typically perverse ranting about ‘name-checking’ which remains your great unexplained anomaly after all this time. While I agree that since CoM is a significantly different movie than Y Tu Mama or Harry Potter 3, it still makes sense to reference a largely unknown director’s past hits.
But I know Chucky will not respond to this or any other post questioning his logic because he only does hit-and-run posting.
Coward.
God that argument is ridiculous, but like The Black Dahlia is wildly entertaining!
Yes, every trailer that name checks is destined to flop! Pure logic, really.
From the commenter that brought you “The Ads For ‘Something’s Gotta Give’ Mention ‘What Women Want,’ and So I Hate It” and the horror masterpiece “Oh No, H2O Says It’s Scarier Than Something Else” comes a new exercise in pure terror….
Children of Men! Gets! Slammed!
Chucky In Jersey
January 2007
What happens when name-checkers get checked?
My original take on “Children of Men” still holds.
Most US theaters will not play anything that’s 100% foreign-language. “Y tu mama tambien” is 100% in Spanish.
Most US theaters will not play anything that does not carry a rating. At some chains (Cinemark especially) it’s company policy. At others it’s due to clauses in the theater lease.
Name-checking a Harry Potter movie to sell an Oscar Bait picture is retarded. Universal should have known that.
Jeffmcm sounds like a thug with nothing better to do. He doesn’t have anything better to do, so he blindly attacks anything he doesn’t like. My response to jeffmcm is:
If you don’t like it, shit or get off the pot!
Chucky on the Moon is now more like Chucky on Mars.