MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Klady's Friday Estimates

If you are looking for history this weekend, the last weekend of September will find you The Rock in The Rundown ($18.5m start) and Disney releasing The Guardian ($18m start) . Or perhaps you like Remember The Titans ($20.9m) and Open Season ($23.6m) and The Corpse Bride ($19.1m).
Actually, last year it was Open Season vs The Guardian

Be Sociable, Share!

24 Responses to “Klady's Friday Estimates”

  1. Joe Leydon says:

    I’m plesantly surprised by the resilience of 3:10 to Yuma. Could it possibly hang in there to break the $45 million mark? Maybe even $50 mil?

  2. Ian Sinclair says:

    YUMA hasn’t fallen past 40% since its release. It has the best legs of any picture released so far this year.

  3. Wrecktum says:

    Yuma drops are like Costner’s Open Range. Never bet against older audiences love for westerns.

  4. Joe Leydon says:

    All of which could bode well for Appaloosa next year.
    BTW: If David is right about a Lionsgate Oscar push, could we see a Best Supporting Actor nom for Peter Fonda? Damn. That could be an interesting race, with Tom Wilkinson also in the mix for Michael Clayton.

  5. Joe Leydon says:

    VERY sorry about the double posting.

  6. Mr. Gittes says:

    Peter Fonda for a supporting nom in Yuma? What? If anything, Ben Foster.

  7. James Leer says:

    “YUMA hasn’t fallen past 40% since its release. It has the best legs of any picture released so far this year.”
    And why research that, right? I mean, even though it’s demonstrably incorrect. Right off the top of my head, here’s another picture so far this year with better legs: “Knocked Up.” Not only did it have far smaller weekend drops than “Yuma,” it got them without having to add hundreds of theaters during its run.

  8. David Poland says:

    Here are the 10 best multiples of the year so far…
    Amazing Grace | $21.3 | $4.1 | 5.24
    Knocked Up | $148.8 | $30.7 | 4.85
    Transformers | $314.3 | $70.5 | 4.46
    Ratatouille | $203.1 | $47.0 | 4.32
    Hairspray (2007) | $117.6 | $27.5 | 4.28
    Wild Hogs | $168.3 | $39.7 | 4.24
    License to Wed | $43.8 | $10.4 | 4.2
    Stardust | $37.6 | $9.2 | 4.1
    Hot Fuzz | $23.6 | $5.8 | 4.04
    Live Free or Die Hard | $134.3 | $33.4 | 4.03
    And obvously, Yuma is still rolling, but it’s numbers are…
    3:10 to Yuma | $40.9 | $14.0 | 2.915
    Interestingly, as unique as Transformers position is (3 huge days before “opening weekend”), it is the only of the full-week openers that managed this kind of multiple. Harry Potter did 3.8 times opening under similar circumstances. Transformers, The Rat, Bourne, Wild Hogs, and Harry are the only $150 milion domestic films to do 3x opening.

  9. jeffmcm says:

    Plus, without naming any titles, I think it can be agreed that there are some pretty awful movies on that list. So ‘legs’ only means so much.

  10. waterbucket says:

    God, this year has really sucky movies so far. The only ones that I’ve liked are Bourne Ultimatum and Superbad. All the big blockbusters sucked and all the arty farty ones sucked too. And no good eye candy (Eric Bana in short short) either. And now Game Plan, ie Pacifier 2, is gonna be number 1. What the hell is going on? I blame all of these on David Poland.

  11. Aris P says:

    Anyone surprised about Eastern Promise’s B.O. take so far? I saw it last night, and now i know why it’s struggling. I am a giant fan of Cronenberg, and really liked History (except for the weird third act), but sitting through Promises I found myself bored. I enjoy a good character piece, which this felt like, but the cloying VO bothered me, the lack of any kind of suspense bored me and the (SPOILER!) twist at the end didnt really play out in any way. Next thing you know the film just ended. I loved Viggo’s performance, as well as the weird son and Armin Mueller Stahl, but the end result left me empty.
    Also, as usual, the theatre was filled with MORONS who were talking, and a whole row of dumb women who were screaming every time any kind of violence was on screen (also a contention, in that there was hardly any in a film with Russian mob subject).
    THIS is why i dont go to the movies, unless its for a director I love. I hate people. At least there was no wafting Panda Express odors. I’ll suffer through Into the Wild and American Gangster, but I hope thats it for my cinema experience this year.

  12. anghus says:

    Eastern Promises.
    Now this one is a head scratcher.
    Two years ago you had the same star, the same director, at the exact same general time of year to a much better box office.
    American based storyline vs. foreign? Title of film?
    Who knows.

  13. James Leer says:

    “…every time any kind of violence was on screen (also a contention, in that there was hardly any in a film with Russian mob subject).”
    Really? There was not enough violence in Eastern Promises for you? That’s a new one.

  14. Aris P says:

    The violence wasn’t important to me, but seriously, was there a lot? One slit throat at the beginning, another slit throat (the retarded kid), and the bath house scene (which was great for numerous reasons.) That’s it. If you’re asking me, I’ll tell you. Unfortunately, as is often the case with Cronenberg, the violence was not subtle as the rest of the film was. A knife in the eye was violent, yes, but it was so gratuitous that it took me out of the film and seemed to make a statement – violence for violence sake.

  15. Wrecktum says:

    Loved Eastern Promises. Not bored at all. Box office is directly attributable to its foreign setting.

  16. IOIOIOI says:

    Eastern Promises is a tremendous film. Someone needs to call NECA and get them to make a Nikolai figure. Easily one of the better flicks I have seen all year. Hell. If they were smart. They would option it, and turn it into a TV show.

  17. Crow T Robot says:

    Agreed. Eastern Promises is the most original crime movie I’ve seen since, I dunno, Fargo. Never knew were it was going. Never knew what to expect. Not even sure what it adds up to in the end. But it manages to be both original and compelling, and that demands respect.
    And IO, I can’t believe it but I’m on your page. The material begs sequel or TV series. It’s a world we haven’t seen before. Cronenberg and HBO could do monster stuff with this. And maybe fill in that Sopranos gap.

  18. Joe Leydon says:

    Mr. Gittes: I think Peter Fonda has a better chance at landing a nomination. Many voters would love to give a prize to Henry’s son.

  19. James Leer says:

    They didn’t when he was nominated for “Ulee’s Gold” — they’re not going to for a picture where he’s the least colorful member of the supporting cast with the least to do. As Mr. Gittes says, if anyone would get a supporting nom off this film, it’d be Ben Foster.

  20. Ian Sinclair says:

    What on earth are you talking about, Leer? In supporting actor they go for geezer Oscars a hell of lot more than they for a newcomer (Caine, Coburn, Hackman, Arkin, Freeman, Jones, Landau). Admittedly Foster is playing the flashy role of a psycho but Fonda has had some of the best reviews of his life for YUMA and has even been singled out ahead of Foster. The subtlety and sophistication of his performance was apparently lost lost on you.

  21. The Carpetmuncher says:

    In terms of appeal, you might say that Maria Bello is the difference between History of Violence and Eastern Promises. Not that she’s a huge draw, but she was amazing in that film, and word got out about that and the very hot sex/rape scene, and likely opened up that picture to more women.
    Peter Fonda for best supporting actor? For what? Getting shot? I like the guy, but he was hardly exceptional – mostly he was just there. Whatever subtly was lost on me too – but knowing Fonda’s work, I gotta say, he ain’t being subtle, he just isn’t a very interesting actor. If there’s gonna be support for a very small part of an actor who deserves some love, I would imagine it would be for Hal Holbrook.
    Plus Yuma simply wasn’t very good. While it had a solid first hour, and very appealing and well-acted leads, the final act was just so ridiculous and unbelievable that I have trouble seeing anyone giving that film awards for anything. I like Ben Foster a lot, but his psycho bit in this movie was half as interesting as it was in Alpha Dog. Mangold is quite good at making half-a-good movie. He has had a lot of good material and incredible casts, and yet can never quite close the deal.
    If Lionsgate was smart, they would forget about Yuma and push the less flashy Away From Her and get Julie Christie a well-deserved nomination.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    Or the even-more-deserving Gordon Pinsent. If Christie gets a nomination but Pinsent doesn’t, he’ll have been robbed.

  23. The Carpetmuncher says:

    Pinsent was great as well. I’d totally support that. But figure Christie has the better pedigree.
    Away From Her is still one of the best movies of the year IMO, and along with A Mighty Heart, another slept on gem, will hopefully get more love as more people see the films.
    If screeners can get Half Nelson seen by enough folks to get Gosling a (well-deserved) nom, maybe they can for these films as well.

  24. Aris P says:

    Still don’t know why so many of you think Promises was so good. It was enjoyable, in a somber, muted way, but why is everyone gushing over it? Just the fact that the twist at the end was simply mentioned and abandoned seemed like a lazy way out — why not introduce it a tad earlier and have it somehow play out in the 3rd act? I don’t need everything explained to me and and developed, but that twist had a lot of potential and went nowhere.

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