By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com
Klady's Friday Estimates – Sept 14
This will be Jodie Foster’s weakest mainstream opening of the last decade aside from 1999’s Anna & The King, which opened the week before Christmas, which is traditionally a grower slot, not a show-er slot. The question over at Warners will be whether they played this one right. The film is not actually “Death Wish With A Chick.” It is more complex than that. But how to sell more complex? More importantly, how do you sell to women, for whom Foster is an embodiment of power? Power is great, but do they really want to see her shoot bullets? After all, she is a strong woman in previous films who doesn’t end up firing the gun. Interesting.
Meanwhile, what is The Weinstein Co getting out of Mr. Woodcock? Damned near the same thing they got out of School For Scoundrels. Even The Bad News Bears didn’t open much better. Clearly there is an audience who wants to see Billy Bob Thornton hit people in the balls… but it is a specific and limited group. The difference with Bad Santa? It turned out to be a really good film. But at the start… similar numbers.
I guess someone knew Dragon Wars was opening… not me.
As for Across The Universe and Eastern Promises, you’re going to have to find more than 250 people per screening on fewer than 25 screens each to impress me that you have anything other than high profile talent that people have some interest in seeing.
The Taymor/Beatles film has some good ammunition in the Fab Four and the thumbed Ebert, who raved the film. I expect to see a lot of towns like Toronto, where the critic at one paper gave an absolute rave and the other nearly threatened to burn down the cinema. Sony has a challenge on its hands and whether the movie is actually good or bad (it’s both, actually) has little to do with it. Is there an audience that will pay to see a really complex, beautiful, star-free (domestically, at least… the stars of significance are mostly European) film… will the teen girls show up… or are they just going to wait for that DVD? I don’t get the feeling that this is MTV’s movie of the season… but then again, I have been in a country where MuchMusic dominates MTV for the last couple of weeks.
In the Valley of Elah is the sad story of the weekend, drawing fewer than 100 people per screening of the film on Friday. It is a film for adults, who are notoriously slow to get to the theater, so it will do a little better as the weekend progresses and perhaps over its run. But the must-see is dusty. Crash, by the way, opened on 1864 screens back in 2005. So comparisons are impossible.
I bow to the holding power of The Bourne Ultimatum.
And the quick death of Shoot ‘Em Up once again proves one of my favorite theories… The Geek 8. Unfortunately, this time it was The Geek 5.7. However, the film’s marketing never found a single reason for a woman or non-geek adult to show up for the film. And unless you are happy grossing under $20 million, you HAVE to find another segment, no matter how strong you feel in the geek universe. (I’d be curious to hear from AICNers about why they think that even the geeks didn’t show up in full force for this one.)
Shoot ’em Up completely died, which is a shame, but if it was successful I’m sure the studios would have made five rip-offs that wouldn’t understand why Shoot ’em Up was fun. I’m sure it’ll turn a profit on DVD, though.
I’m surprised Eastern Promises outperformed Elah, considering I’ve seen far more ads for the latter. Both are playing in NYC and LA mostly, so I’m guessing us urbanites would rather see the new Cronenberg than the new Haggis.
What do the Weinsteins have to do with Mr. Woodcock? I thought it was a New Line release. I admit it looks like a Weinstein film, but that’s not the same thing.
Eastern Promises is very good. The 11:20 show at the Arclight this morning was pretty crowded.
Some people are calling the failure of The Brave One to reach a $20 mil opening the Joel Silver leading lady curse. I think the marketing was great in the early trailers, the use of “Auto Rock” by Mogwai fit perfectly, as it did at the end of Miami Vice. The recent commercials lost that touch when they started using DMX’s “X Gon To Give It To Ya” song. I have not seen the movie, but I don’t think that particular DMX song fits the tone of the movie. Mellow and somewhat introspective worked better than loud and in your face.
Mr. Woodcock looks bad, I’m sure it’s bad, and when you have to change a director or get a director to do reshoots (on a comedy of all things) you’ve got a lot of trouble on your hands. Honestly, the movie was set up for failure when some dope thought, “Woodcock, that hilarious, lets make a 90 minute movie out of it.” New Line who through their parent company Time Warner had been running ads nonstop on TBS, can suffer the monetary loses on this one.
Dragon Wars? Has this movie been on the shelf for any extended period of time?
I don’t know why Shoot ‘Em Up is tanking so badly. It’s more or less this years version of Crank. Both movie serve their achieve what they set out to do. I guess that I could go to Harry’s Hell Hole and see what caused them to be so hyped for the movie prior to it’s release. The only thing I remember hearing about it was what Don’ Murphy said during David’s video interviews. That’s the first time I heard about Monica’s lactating hook role, but that’s about it. Where people drawing odd connections between this because of Clive carrying trying to protect a baby in Children of Men?
Who are the members of the Fab Four? Variety, Hollywood Reporter… L.A. Times and NY Times?
The legs of The Bourne Ultimatum are shocking. “I” don’t think it deserves this much longevity and continued b.o. receipts. The twisted with Supremacy rubbed me the wrong way as did the uninteresting government villains that Bourne had went up against in this movie. Identity is the best, Supremacy works as a continuation with the resolution to Brian Cox and his partners involvement. Ultimatum was more of the same and lacked a real purpose.
I just took at the reviews for The Brave One and I didn’t realize how big a tumble it took from the initial 10 or so reviews that I originally saw.
Of all the new choices of movies to see this weekend….I chose to see ONCE again and took my wife. I frigging LOVE that movie…my fave of the eyar so far bar none.
The Brave One was probably a hard sell from the beginning because of its Deathwish connection. It’s really too bad, because although the critics were not kind, people who actually went to go see it seem to have enjoyed it (me included). Its RT user rating is a bit over 30 points higher than the critics, and the yahoo movie users have it at a B.
NickF: Fab Four = Beatles.
Joe; I believe Nick was goofying on Heat’s ridiculous GEEK 8 bit of business. Again; 300 HEAT… 300 FREAKIN HUNDRED but please do not let that film’s geek success stop you from using that GEEK 8 bit of business. A bit of business that I dislike because of it’s simplicity.
If you put Shoot’Em Up in the Summer. If you market it off of some big Warners movie or some other big action flick. It will easily make more sheckles then it has at the current point. The film had bad placement. It’s as simple as that.
Nevertheless; Shoot’Em Up has a sort kind of charm that will keep the flick alive on DVD and CABLE. This will be a flick that teenagers see, show their friends, and some college-age adults get into it as well. So… in the end… it will make some sheckles. Thank goodness for ancillaries!
I’ll tell you why Shoot ‘Em Up didn’t do better: Running Scared, Smokin’ Aces, Domino, Crank. The marketing didn’t differentiate it from any other movie in the crazy tongue-in-cheek action subgenre.
I didn’t see many trailers for SHOOT ‘EM UP, and I did see the film (I thought it was a blast, but I can see why others wouldn’t), but one of the reasons I think it failed is because it was shorter than an hour and a half. If I’m going to pay $9 to see something, I’d like it to be at least between an hour 45 and 2 hours. Otherwise I feel slightly cheated.
Jeff; you may have a point there. It is odd that we have this whole new WHACKY sub-genre of action films. Who knew that Looney Tunes could be so violent, bloody, and involve “sexual situations”.
The b.o. problem with SHOOT’EM UP is as follows (imho):
1. The generic title – not good…Like calling a movie “Sci Fi Drama” or “Martial Arts epic” – don’t underestimate a bad title.
2. The film was sold as a hysterical action romp: the gangster-action-movie equivalent of KUNG FU HUSTLE and should have never been marketed that way.
3. Simultaneous release of 3:10 FROM YUMA, a critically acclaimed Western also hurt SHOOT EM UP’S chances.
It will probably do very nicely on DVD though.
“one of the reasons I think it failed is because it was shorter than an hour and a half. If I’m going to pay $9 to see something, I’d like it to be at least between an hour 45 and 2 hours. Otherwise I feel slightly cheated.”
You eat a lot of “super-sized” fast food, don’t you?
I want to second the ‘generic title’ explanation: I’m smack in the middle of this film’s natural audience (young-ish male, AICN reader, like crime stories, like action pictures) and I saw plenty of enthusiastic advance word for the film…but every time I asked myself, “Do I want to see that?” I came up against the generic title and any enthusiasm I had for it instantly drained out of me. I know that’s irrational. But it’s what happened.
Combine it with performers I don’t feel I *need* to see (Owen’s about as generic as the title, Giamatti’s great but I don’t need to see him waving guns around in an action picture, Bellucci’s a treat to watch but I assume I can catch the relevant scenes on Mr. Skin) and a suspicion that the film probably lands more on the lots-of-exploding-squibs end of the action continuum than the ingenious-fight-choreography end, and you’ve got a picture that just doesn’t achieve escape velocity for getting eleven bucks out of my pocket and two hours out of my life.
But it’s the generic title that tips me over the edge.
3:10 to Yuma appears to be holding well. Wonder if that means the movie will have legs.
So let’s see: YUMA’s a hit, SHOOT’s a bomb. But who wants to bet that next year, we’ll see half-a-dozen more just like SHOOT, and zero westerns.
Cadavra: Well, we should have at least ONE new Western — Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen are set to start filming Appaloosa soon in New Mexico. But your point is well taken. Alas.
Does that end with Ed and Viggo tossing their guns aside and just trying to out bad ass each other? I can’t wait.
LB: It’s actually based on a novel by Robert Parker, the same guy who writes the Spenser novels. It was a good book — quite violent, intelligently plotted — and I think it could be a terrific Western. BTW: Viggo and Harris play characters who are on the same side. Not surprisingly, their enemies suffer dearly.
Just a joke to express how excited I am to see these guys share the screen again. But thanks for the info. I’ll track it down.
“Owen’s about as generic as the title”
That’s crazy talk. I challenge you to sit through a single Paul Walker movie and stand by that statement.
I think Shoot ’em Up is failing for the same reason the torture porn genre hit its dead end. Post 9/11 I think people intuitively take violence more seriously and the whole extreme violence with extreme garrish humour genre doesn’t really fly. Maybe it never did.
I like films like Running Scared or Die Hard which take the story seriously but insert some character humor. Shoot em Up just takes it to a level I no longer care to revel in, however. I think this style actually, beyond the 12 year old boy AICN fan base, has never had a wide audience.
I say this while still acknowledging that Monica Belluci is one of the most beautiful women alive.
SHOOT did poorly for the usual reason: ineffective marketing. I don’t see any evidence that people are turning away from violent-for-the-sake-of-being-violent films. I remember six years ago people saying the public wouldn’t want to see explosions on the screen anymore because of 9/11. That turned out to be equally misguided. DIE HARD 4, which I doubt anyone is going to accuse of taking its story seriously, even had an image of the Capitol Building (the target that got away) imploding and it did fine for itself. Violence is just an element and people seem to dig it.
And, sadly because I truly dig the guy, Clive Owen just can’t seem to draw an audience to a film they weren’t going to go see anyway.
There is a difference between the violence in Die Hard 4 and Shoot ’em Up. Die Hard 4 is over the top but Shoot ’em Up literally goes into the level of Loony Toons. Kind of like the last half of Death Proof when they punch out Kurt Russell and you feel like you are watching Wile E Coyote. It is just not satisfying action and fails on so many levels.
That is is the kind of violence that I think has never really had an audience beyond the Harry Knowles (I masturbate to it in my sleep) crowd.
As an action fan, I have never liked it. All I am saying is Die Hard 4 goes over the top, but Shoot ’em Up and Death Proof go well beyond that into garrish cartoon territory. That stuff has always been a rare breed and a tough sell. I actually find it as palatable as the torture porn which is to say, not very.
The flip-side of the argument could also be that the demographic most needed to make a movie like that a hit can get their ultraviolence-and-humor fix from GTA and any number of video games that have been outgrossing movies for quite a few years now. Added to which, SHOOT will probably do very comfotably once it hits DVD.
It’s actually unfair to compare it to something like DH4, which is a brand name and has an actor who, even if he’s had his downs, has always been able to sell the shit out of that property.
I just don’t see it as an across-the-board reason. GRINDHOUSE tanked and I think a lot of geeks realized that the general audience isn’t into cinema minutia as much as we’d like to think (and was opened on probably one of the worst possible weekends to open it). I think that was a victim of a general “so what?” factor as the advertising didn’t sell the over-the-top violence so much as the romantic idea of a return to g-house cinema. On the other hand, both KILL BILLs- which are pretty good examples of over-the-top ironic violence with a wink did really well. (And DP will also probably do very well when it hits DVD shelves on Tuesday). Lately it seems like if it looks like it will work on a small screen, most people in the demo who want to see it will wait until they can rewwatch it and not have to put up with less-than-enjoyable theater experiences.
If violence for violence’s sake was out of style, 300 wouldn’t have been a hit.
And I know I’ve said it before, but I freakin’ love that last shot in Death Proof with the rubber head.
I assume there’s some sort of Frank Miller exception to the post-9/11 rule since SIN CITY raked in the bucks, too.
“sin city” had a unique style that people wanted to see right away. i can’t explain “300” except maybe thinking it’s a kinda sequel to “sin city” stylistically speaking.
“shoot ’em up” i could wait for dvd. there was no watercooler talk that i knew would spoil the film. hell, i don’t know if the film could be “spoiled.”
I won’t overly defend SHOOT ‘EM UP, I’ll just say that sometimes goofy trashy action is just the ticket, and it was just the ticket for me last weekend. I love BAD BOYS 2 and XXX too, but I’m not about to go into some huge dissertation about why – sometimes stupid just fits the bill. I don’t have guilty pleasures, but I do like it when a movie seems aware of how ridiculous it is.
Alan does have a point. “Shoot ‘Em Up” looks from the trailer like stoopid fun as “xXx” did. The big difference is that “xXx” had Vin Diesel.
So did The Chronicles of Riddick.
Oh, I agree, hendhogan. In the end, those movies performed because they promised the audience something they hadn’t seen before and visuals they needed to see on a big screen and people- for better or worse- responded. SHOOT didn’t accomplish this and tanked. It’ll recoup on home video, no doubt. Either way big ironic violent movies will keep coming out and either make money or bomb, just like any other genre. In the end, the point was that the movie didn’t bomb because we’re all living in some kind of post-9/11 PTS Syndrome. A vast number of people couldn’t be buggered to go see a movie because the people selling it didn’t convince them they needed to see it. Happens all the time regardless of six-year-old national tragedies.
i agree, L.B. sorry, nicol, i don’t think 9/11 had a hand in this either.
Joe, I assume this APPALOOSA has no connection to the Brando film of the same title, right?
But if “XXX” had advertised itself as “starring Vin Deisel from Pitch Black & The Fast and the Furious” then they would have been guilty of the dreaded name-dropping and therefore would have tanked. Chucky . . . you’re so complicated.
Cadavra: Correct, no connection. Like I said: based on Parker’s novel (which, I repeat, is quite good).