MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

B.O. Hell First Look

bohell0524.jpg
This chart will be updated in the days to come, but since the town is shutting down this afternoon, I thought I’d get a head start and open up the conversation…

Be Sociable, Share!

31 Responses to “B.O. Hell First Look”

  1. doug r says:

    I’m thinking with a 165 minute running time and some of the bad press I’m seeing, it’s going to be on the low side. I’ll say 152 mil

  2. Direwolf says:

    Are those numbers through Monday?
    If so, I’ll take the over.

  3. EDouglas says:

    Actually, my number has been updated with actual theatre counts to over $164…but as noted, that number doesn’t include Thursday numbers. I think it will do around $175 million in its four and a half days.

  4. ployp says:

    Why is the town ‘shutting down’? I must have missed something.

  5. EDouglas says:

    ployp: long weekend… a lot of people take Friday off work, too.

  6. EDouglas says:

    BTW, a source of mine has Pirates 3 making close to $20 million on Thursday night alone.

  7. Nicol D says:

    I saw Pirates at the 8:00 show last night…what can I say? Yes, the interminable running time definitely works against the film.
    I say that as a fan of the first two but not an obsessive fan.
    PROS:
    Depp
    Wonderful action set pieces
    Pirate council
    some nice avant-guard like set-pieces that might have felt more in place in a film by Vincent Whitman or even Maya Deren or Stan Brakhage.
    Keith Richards (wonderful!)
    Kiera Knightly always looks like she came out of a glam photo shoot
    CONS
    Depp
    overplotted
    takes itself waaayyyy too seriously
    some very silly scenes
    Kiera Knightly always looks like she came out of a glam photo shoot
    Kiera’s Braveheart FREEEEDOOOM! speech
    This film is being said to be the darkest of the three, but like Spiderman 3, it also contains some of the goofiest set pieces with Depp; but not in the Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd way of the second film. The goofy Depp scenes here are more akin to the end of Cheech and Chong’s Nice Dreams where they go nuts in the insane asylum. Very bizarre.
    The film oddly enough takes itself way too seriously and lacks any spirit of fun. By the time the big action scenes come, after over 2 hours, you just want the damn thing to be over.
    It seems in retrospect, Depp’s decision to play Sparrow as a mincing fop, so wonderful in the first film leaves him nowhere to go in the third. Because he is sooooo one dimensional, he really has no bearing on any of the surroundings. He’s just there to be Jar Jar Binks. Keith Richards brings more depth to his 5 minutes of screen time. Really.
    This is not at all a bad film and much of it I liked, but damn, with a half hour clopped off, it could have been much better.
    This is longer than Godfather 3, Apocalypse Now, Pulp Fiction etc. and feels it.
    Not bad, but not great.

  8. ployp says:

    I like pirates 3 a lot better than the second, but not as well as the first. I didn’t find it confusing (some reviews I’ve read on rottentomatoes claim that you’ll be confused) at all. Barbossa is a lot better than Capt. Jack, and more fun too. It was long, but not unbearable, not like Spidey 3. I’ll say that it’s the most decent film I’ve seen this summer. I had fun and I felt I got my money’s worth.

  9. crazycris says:

    hear! hear!
    I’m with polyp! ;o) (although I prefer Jack to that #@#@#@ Barbossa)
    Dave, are you going to create a post on your “spoiler-laden review” where we can comment on the film without worrying about ruining it for others?
    cheers!

  10. Hopscotch says:

    As ludicrous as it sounds, this film could probably be at $180M by Tues. morning. Insane. I’ll likely steer clear from it THIS weekend, only to find it next weekend.
    No way in HELL Shrek makes $80M this weekend. More like $60M.

  11. Nicol D says:

    In my review of Pirates 3, I inadvertantly gave away the ending to Cheech and Chong’s Nice Dreams.
    To anyone who has not yet seen that 1981 piece of cinema and gets upset at the inclusion of spoilers in reviews, I offer a heartfelt apology.

  12. RudyV says:

    I was reading another movie site a few days ago (after being directed there by a MCN link, of course) and they tried to discuss THE CRYING GAME without giving away the ending. Even better, a few years back I witnessed an online tantrum because some foolish soul had the gall to mention how PSYCHO ended without providing the appropriate spoiler warning.
    This raises the obvious question: What is the half-life of a spoiler? How many decades have to pass by before you can safely give away a movie secret without fear of reprisal?

  13. Joe Leydon says:

    RudyV: Good question. And I don’t have a good answer. Because, as a jounalism professor once warned me: You have to remember that some people don’t know how Hamlet ends.

  14. teambanzai says:

    Rosebud was his sled, Verbal Kent was Keyser Soze, Darth Vader is Lukes Father, Lea’s his sister, They make it at the end of Apollo 13(believe it or not there were people in the audience that didn’t know that) She’s a dude in the Crying game, did I leave any out?

  15. Wrecktum says:

    Jeff Bridges really WAS the killer!

  16. RudyV says:

    …and not even a half-hour after raising this question I found myself directed by the IMDB trivia question o’ the day to the DARK CITY page, where someone was asking if she should even bother watching the movie after her idiot boyfriend gave away the ending. (the unanimous response: DEFINITELY!)

  17. EDouglas says:

    Hey, Joe… did you know that your review of Knocked Up has been blown up as a poster that’s in many theatres here? Pretty cool.

  18. EthanG says:

    I have to agree that this movie is much better than the second, and while overlong, it’s pure popcorn fun, and not in a campy sense which I thought was much of the problem with Spiderman 3. (that movie seemed a lot like Clooney’s Batman movie)
    Depp, Rush and Richards were definitely the highlights. I agree that some scenes were quite bizarre (you’ll know which ones when you see the movie) but they worked for the most part. My only complaints are really the running time, Orlando Bloom, and the lunacy of making Knightley a pirate king, though she was passable on the acting.
    I will never understand why this franchise is critically viewed in a negative light next to the ludicrous Spiderman series. The effects in World’s End put the majority of sequences in Spidey to shame, (and they did this with $100 less) and while much of the dialogue is banal, it’s not nearly as bad as that in the Spiderman movies. Maybe a lot of these critics are fanboys themselves and geek out over Peter Parker.
    One interesting thing in my theatre outside of DC: a lot of cheers and clapping for the Transformers trailer. That movie’s going to be the massive hit of the blockbusters left to open (other than Harry Potter which is bank)…the only other huge response Ive seen to a trailer this year was for 300.

  19. Joe Leydon says:

    EDouglas: Yeah, I thought about having someone take my picture while I stand next to one. But, you know, even for me, that might be a bit too much of an ego trip.

  20. anghus says:

    you forgot “Bruce Willis was a ghost” and “It was Harrison Ford’s wife that killed his mistress”

  21. Wrecktum says:

    $17m for Thursday Pirates numbers. Strong? Expected?
    (Robert DeNiro is really the devil. Mia Farrow and Manimal were the killers.)

  22. Jerry Colvin says:

    The Spider-Man movies (esp. number 2) are great; those who think otherwise are wrong. You don’t have to prop up Pirates by tearing down Spidey. If you think you do, there must be something wrong with Pirates…

  23. Blackcloud says:

    He dies, she dies, they all die, they all live. I think that covers every movie ever.

  24. Blackcloud says:

    I’d be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to wish a happy 30th birthday to Star Wars. Happy Birthday! All the people standing in line for POTC 3 have the right idea.

  25. jeffmcm says:

    Not Manimal!
    I’m pretty sure that Pirates 3 did not cost ‘$100m less’ than Spider-Man 3.

  26. Blackcloud says:

    “The Spider-Man movies (esp. number 2) are great; those who think otherwise are wrong.”
    Now that’s an unanswerable argument. Kant himself would not be ashamed to claim that aesthetic judgement as his own.

  27. The weird stuff definitely worked better here than they did in Spider-Man 3. Plus, there was no musical sequences or Saturday Night Fever moments in Pirates 3.

  28. jeffmcm says:

    The Saturday Night Fever moment was the best part of Spider-Man 3!
    !!!

  29. EthanG says:

    There’s plenty wrong with the Pirates series; just less wrong than the kitsch that’s Spiderman.
    Jeff..supposedly the production budget for World’s End is $150 million and Spiderman’s is on record at $258 million. Also, Spidey’s advertising budget is estimated to be well above Pirates’…

  30. torqtump says:

    Spiderman weaknesses: bad special effects, unconvincing villains, weak “save me save me” heroine, some incredibly awkward scenes (emo Peter).
    PotC weaknesses: too long, useless Orlando Bloom, overcomplicated plots, unconvincing love story.
    I judge them equally bad, but for different reasons…

  31. jeffmcm says:

    I believe the production budget for AWE is well above $150m.
    SM3 isn’t ‘kitsch’.

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