MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates by Klady

Spider-Man 3 will drop in the mid-60s, which I suggested was not much of a problem in a comment yesterday. I

Be Sociable, Share!

24 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady”

  1. Crow T Robot says:

    Was anyone else absolutely blown away by the sheer cinematics of “28 Weeks Later?” That shot at the beginning of Carlyle chased across the English countryside is one for the ages.
    This Fresnadillo guy does for Boyle’s vision exactly what James Cameron did for Ridley Scott, taking all the ingredients of the first film, even the same style of filming, and expanding on it in ways you never expect. The story twists can be brutal at times but they never come off as tasteless — that empty “horror porn” we used to yap about here.
    As sequels go, it’s a fucking knockout.

  2. Cadavra says:

    70%? That’s rather discomfiting…

  3. EDouglas says:

    Pirates 2 had a 62% or so Friday-Friday and it still wound up with $400 million.

  4. Chicago48 says:

    Does anybody know how well Waitress is doing? As for Spidey – it amazes me that a movie like 300 can be made for under $60 and make godzillions of profit….and Hollywood is still making $300Mil movies like Spiderman. Talk about stupid accounting.

  5. Cadavra says:

    Fonda less muscular than Streep? Have you checked out the guns on that woman? 😉

  6. I’m glad Zach Braff and his shtick isn’t successful. It boggles the mind to think that NBC (it is them, right?) want to not only keep Scrubs on, but give him tonnes of money for it.
    As for Spidey, I like to imagine the fall is because the movie isn’t very good.

  7. jeffmcm says:

    So has anyone _seen_ The Ex or are we automatically writing it off because of that opening gross?

  8. EDouglas says:

    I’ve seen it.. the only thing that’s a bummer is that people are missing out on the cameos by “40 Year Old Virgin” stars Paul Rudd and Romany Falco (who starred together in Peretz’s last movie). It’s a rental or a late night cable watch at best.

  9. waterbucket says:

    Did someone just diss Scrubs? Die, bitch!

  10. The Pope says:

    Re: 28 Weeks Later
    I agree; Carlyle legging it for his life through the bucolic English countryside is quite a sight!
    However, besides a few pretty exciting sequences, what kills 28 Weeks Later is the utter, utter lack of plausability. The reason why a film, no matter what the genre (but especially thrillers, gangsters and horrors), is that the story retains its tension by respecting the bond with the audience and that bond is an internal logic. That internal logic is what keeps the following films as classics: The Godfather, Chinatown, The Silence of the Lambs and, since you mentioned it, Aliens. Years later, people still can’t punch holes in their plotting. At crucial points in 28 Weeks Later, Fresnadillo and his co-writers disrespect that bond and throw that internal logic out the window.

  11. Chucky in Jersey says:

    As I correctly predicted, “Georgia Rule” is tanking because it has Lindsay Lohan. That justifies U’s decision to piggyback the chick flick DVD.
    At least “Monster-in-Law” has an odd charm — Hanoi Jane and J-Lo in the same movie.
    Chi48: “Waitress” is in the top 15 with a per-theater average at nearly $10K.

  12. Ju-osh says:

    28 Weeks Later SPOILERS to follow:
    The opening is awesome, true. The fact that Carlyle’s character has to abandon his own wife to save himself is powerful. Unfortunately, it’s also one of the last REASONABLE decisions made and actions taken in the film. From then on, it’s like a bad 80’s slasher pic, where every scary turn in the story is set up by someone’s stupidity. It’s like the self-referencial jokes in ‘Scream’ never happened and we’re back to watching horror flicks where everybody goes into dark rooms alone and neglects to mention to anyone else that they just saw a fucking monster lurking in the woods nearby. Add to this the fact that Carlyle’s zombie seems to be able to think semi-normally, slow down/supress his hunger at will, inexplicably hide from his prey (instead of just attacking them) and manages to be everywhere his kids are going before they ever even realize that they are going there themselves, and you end up with a movie more interested in cramming in close-ups of the icy blue eyes of a 16 year girl than in anything having to do with logic. Speaking of eyes, The idea that people with different colored irises can somehow resist the virus is as out-of-left-field as The Sixth Senses’ thing where people with a shock of white hair can see ghosts, but it is not handly nearly as subtly, making it just plain stupid and hard to accept. I kept hoping that it was going to be a red herring, and maybe the fetishistic approach to filmng the girl’s eyes might mean something significant…but no, it was what it was and nothing more.
    Okay, so after all of that bitching, let me mention one other scene — besides the openning — that I thought was crazy and cool: the scene where Carlyle is infected by his wife and then goes nuts, killing her. It’s sick, but effective.

  13. brack says:

    “Does anybody know how well Waitress is doing? As for Spidey – it amazes me that a movie like 300 can be made for under $60 and make godzillions of profit….and Hollywood is still making $300Mil movies like Spiderman. Talk about stupid accounting.”
    Am I the only one here who thinks that the studios are lying about their budgets?

  14. Crow T Robot says:

    I hear what you guys are saying. But you’re making the geek mistake of thinking in terms of plot rather than story. Every time 28 Weeks Later makes a leap in logic (and there are quite a few of them) it’s usually for a larger purpose. Yes, the children must confront their mother. Yes, the father must confront his wife (that scene is ridiculous when thought of logically but I think ingenious dramatically). And yes the children must eventually come face to face with their father at the end.
    Getting to these points is important. HOW they get there doesn’t interest me so much. Especially not in a thrill-ride fantasy.
    The movie is essentially about this family. Are the children strong like their mother or cowardly like the father? The manifestation of strength is in their blood. So dad popping up at the end, while stretching credibility, is essential. This is the underlying question of the whole movie and it must be answered.
    Like Cameron knew in Aliens (when the Queen monster unlikely stowed away at the end and the obligatory nuclear explosion), Fresnadillo knows story sense is more important than plot sense.

  15. “Did someone just diss Scrubs? Die, bitch!”
    I dissed Scrubs circa 2006/7. Scrubs circa 2000-2005 is mostly comedy gold. But it’s time has passed. Take it out the back and shoot it already. So many shows on tv are clearly only still on because the networks have nothing to replace them with. Who knew Crossing Jordon was still on?!

  16. Cadavra says:

    SCRUBS has always been one of those shows, like ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT and THE OFFICE, that are so pleased with their own cleverness that they often forget to be entertaining. For every smart or funny moment on SCRUBS, there are two or three so lame or annoying they’re like a power drill in your skull. TWO AND A HALF MEN may be just THE ODD COUPLE with burlesque jokes, but damn it, it certainly is funny.

  17. Stella's Boy says:

    I have only seen random moments of a few episodes of Two and a Half Men, and it is about as bad as sitcoms get. An Arrested Development throwaway joke is infinitely funnier than anything I’ve ever seen on Two and a Half Men. But I suppose humor is subjective. To each their own.

  18. jeffmcm says:

    I agree that Scrubs is too cute for its own good, but Arrested Development and The Office were/are the best sitcoms on TV.

  19. Stella's Boy says:

    I like The Office a lot as well. It may be a little smug at times, but it’s also consistently funny.

  20. brack says:

    “I dissed Scrubs circa 2006/7. Scrubs circa 2000-2005 is mostly comedy gold. But it’s time has passed. Take it out the back and shoot it already. So many shows on tv are clearly only still on because the networks have nothing to replace them with. Who knew Crossing Jordon was still on?!”
    Scrubs is still funnier than most of the stuff on tv.
    Crossing Jordon won’t be coming back next fall.

  21. Cadavra says:

    Tell me about it. And the season finale apparently has the entire cast on a plane about to crash. Wonder if they have time to shoot a take-out.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    A take-out?

  23. “Scrubs is still funnier than most of the stuff on tv.”
    Well, considering the highest rating comedy on tv is Two and the Half Men, that’s damning Scrubs with faint praise. There really isn’t much to compare it to, is there?
    I’m sort of glad Arrested Development has ended or else it too could have just kept going on. That show was hilarious as it was.
    The funniest show on tv atm is Thank God You’re Here, but I have no idea about the quality of the foreign versions. The Aussie one is a riot.

  24. Cadavra says:

    A “take-out” is the resolution of a cliff-hanger. For example, if a serial chapter ends with the hero’s car driving off a cliff, the “take-out” occurs in the beginning of the next chapter, showing him leaping out of the car just before it goes off the cliff.

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