MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Klady

Wow… look at that line-up!!!!

Be Sociable, Share!

21 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady”

  1. Chucky in Jersey says:

    No print ads for “Be Kind Rewind” in NYC … an omen that New Line was throwing away a obvious loser.

  2. the keoki says:

    Truly an embarrassment of riches. Obviously everyone is home working on their Oscar pool and making Guacamole for Sunday night’s first Jon Stewart zinger.

  3. And Charlie Bartlett beats Larry the Cable Guy by a whole $1000!!1!!1!

  4. movieman says:

    No surprise about “Vantage Point” topping the weekend chart.
    Hope it turns out to be a one-weekend wonder cause it’s an insidious pile of dung.
    Repeat after me: Pete Travis is not the new Paul Greengrass; Pete Travis is NOT the new Paul Greengrass; no ****ing way is Pete Travis the new Paul Greengrass!
    Glad to see that some of you bloggers share my affection for “Charlie Bartlett.” Since it’s doubtful that anyone will actually pay to see it in a theater, I hope that “Charlie” eventually finds an audience on dvd. The flawed but earnest “Be Kind Rewind” looks like another non-starter theatrically. But like all of Gondry’s films, it should pick up a small, if passionate following somewhere down the road.
    Thankfully the toxic fumes of “Witless Protection” (has there ever been a movie with such a poetically apt title?) won’t be infesting multiplexes for long. The only question(s) is how/why Mamet alter ego Joe Mantegna and Bergman/Coen Brothers veteran Peter Stormare agreed to sign up. Are they really THAT hard up for a paycheck?
    Strange how the “wide” break of “U2-3-D” translated into just one or two evening shows per theater where–at least in these parts–it’s sharing a screen with daytime occupant Hannah Montana (fourth week and counting!). But I’m guessing “U2” will have longer legs in digital/3-D houses than Ms. Cyrus.
    Looking ahead to next weekend, will “Semi-Pro” open as big as “Blades of Glory”? Or will the R-rating place it more in the “Anchorman” camp? Does the mildly (very “mildly”) charming modern-day fairy tale “Penelope” have a shot at the tweener audience? Or will it be d.o.a. after sitting on the shelf for a year and half? And is Sony making a critical error by opening “The Other Boleyn Girl” wide rather than opting for a platform release?
    Despite uindistinguished direction by first-timer Justin Chadwick, “Boleyn” is actually a tad better than anticipated.
    Both Portman and Johansson ace their British accents and acquit themselves nicely. I think the problem audiences are going to have with the movie is that there isn’t a single sympathetic character in the mix. Anne is portrayed as a conniving vixen; Henry comes across as seriously pussy-whipped; and Johansson’s Mary seems like a throwback to classic female victims, even though she’s the only one who gets a “happy” ending. But Bana–with that smoking hot “Troy” beard–is a total stud muffin. Bana should have a proviso written into his contract that he must be bearded (or at least goateed) in all of his movies. Without facial hair he’s just kind of…dully handsome.
    And “Persepolis” widened (a scooch) last weekend in northeastern Ohio. Of course, all the Regal ‘plexes that opened it–day and date with the former arthouse exclusive–
    dropped it to just one show a day after the first week.

  5. Nicol D says:

    “Hope it turns out to be a one-weekend wonder cause it’s an insidious pile of dung.”
    Vantage Point reminded me of the sort of programmer thiller that Touchstone pictures used to release at this time of the year in the late 80’s like Shoot to Kill. Not bad. Not great. Actors who are well known but nobody who is really A list.
    A servicable Saturday night popcorn programmer.
    It is nowhere near as bad as people are saying but not great either. Although it is exactly the type of film that the crtics overtrash more due to ideological reasons that it being actual pure dreck. Much in the same way the Bourne movies are vastly over-rated for ideological reasons.

  6. Wrecktum says:

    “Vantage Point reminded me of the sort of programmer thiller that Touchstone pictures used to release at this time of the year in the late 80’s like Shoot to Kill. Not bad. Not great. Actors who are well known but nobody who is really A list.”
    LOL. Touchstone was doing that through the mid-90s. Remember ’95’s Bad Company with Laurence Fishburne and Ellen Barkin? Released in late January.

  7. Stella's Boy says:

    Nicol, you’re saying critics are being overly harsh on Vantage Point because of their political beliefs? I have not seen it, so I have no idea what the movie’s ideology is.

  8. jeffmcm says:

    Stella, you have to be easier on Nicol. He’s Canadian.

  9. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Based on my math there may have been maybe 60 screens showing THE SIGNAL to completely empty houses all weekend …. was this just another over hyped (by the geeks) Sundance genre pic that probably shouldn’t have gone out theatrically at all?
    Am I the only one who though Ellen Page’s performance in Juno not worthy of all the hoopla.. her Hard Candy perf was worth the acclaim but she’s not even the best onscreen in Juno. I even thought Garner was better!

  10. Jimmy the Gent says:

    I think the ’95 Bad Company is lost gem. It was trashed by most critics as a disposable, early-in-the-year spy thriller. I think Touchstone didn’t have a clue how sell a twisty adult thriller that contained one of the best sex scenes of its time. (Probably the black-white pairing scared studio executives.)
    Both Langella and Spalding Grey provided solid supporting work. I think Ebert was the only major critic to see the movie for what is: a top-notch exercise in style.
    Beginning of ’95 was actually pretty decent. Before Sunrise, Miami Rhapsody, The Brady Bunch Movie, and Higher Learnig came out within the first six weeks of the year. And don’t forget Polanski’s Deaht and the Maiden.

  11. Botner says:

    Let’s be honest here. Given New Line’s track record of late, we can fully expect the legacy of SEMI PRO to be the ‘film where Will Ferrell finally jumped the shark’. This will probably underperform miserably, contiuning the studio’s sting of bad luck (Hairspray aside).

  12. jeffmcm says:

    Does anybody know how it’s tracking? I can’t imagine it opening to less than $25m.

  13. L.B. says:

    Just saw THE SIGNAL. A fine example of what you can do with clever screenwriting and directing to make up for your budget limitations. Not all of it worked for me, but it showed some real creativity and intelligence and I hope the creators are ultimately rewarded for their work as they move on.
    Also saw IN BRUGES. Always great to see Gleason and Feinnes rock the casbah and probably my favorite Colin performance. Not exceptional, but nicely done.

  14. movielocke says:

    Charlie Bartlett was awesome. It’s a great era for comedy.

  15. Christ, The Brady Bunch Movie is so amazing I can barely speak now that you mentioned it.

  16. JBM... says:

    Vantage Point is an epic waste of time.
    Stop — rewind that…
    .emit fo etsaw cipe na si tnioP egatnaV
    11:59:57am — :58 — :59 — 12:00:00pm
    Vantage Point is an epic waste of time.

  17. Nicol D says:

    Perhaps if the president were played by Nick Nolte and the secret service agent by Tom Selleck, Vantage Point would be a perfect Touchstone film for that era. Steve Guttenberg could play the tourist.

  18. But who would Kurt Russell play?

  19. Nicol D says:

    Captain Ron, of course!

  20. L.B. says:

    Nah. Watching Jack Burton try to figure out how to rewind the assassination video would be worthe the price of admission alone.

  21. Scott Mendelson says:

    JBM – thanks for a hearty laugh. By the time the fourth viewpoint story began, the audience was yelling the numbers out loud.
    Re – random thoughts on Vantage Point (mega-spoilers):
    First off, I’m stunned that this film received a PG-13. Aside from the subject matter, the violence is copious, brutal, and just bloody enough to be realistic.
    My friend and I correctly guessed the mystery villain from the trailer (hint – which known actor doesn’t have an apparent reason for being in the movie). And there is a dead give away right in the first ten minutes. Gee… Quaid says that control won’t answer. Then Fox says that he’s already talked to control. Then Quaid calls control again and they still don’t answer. Wait a minute… how come Quaid can’t reach them but Fox can? Besides, any story that has a bunch of evil foreigners killing civilians and police has to invariably reveal a white American as one of the lead bad guys, to even things out (24 did this every season after the first one).
    The only reason that the bad guys’ plan doesn’t work perfectly is that the driver of the getaway van, having already caused or ordered the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, chooses to swerve in panic so as to not run over a young child in the street. My wife and I just had a baby, so she’s sometimes over-sensitive to kids in peril, and even she commented on how dumb that was.
    As Forrest Whittaker is racing through the streets, to either chase the secret service men or to save the child in peril, was anyone else tempted to shout out ‘run, Forrest, run!’?
    In true chronological order, Matthew Fox spends months/years as a double agent, arranges the entire scheme, then is INSTANTLY caught on film by Dennis Quaid right as the plan goes into motion.
    The entire climactic car chase was pointless as the President was not in the car being chased and the occupants of said car perished without giving our heroes any information of substance.
    When we finally find out what happened to the alleged Mayor’s bodyguard, ask yourself what happened to Richard T Jones and the other secret service agent that were right behind him in the previous ‘viewpoint’.
    Casting Bruce McGill as a red-shirt secret service agent wrongly led me to believe that he wasn’t quite dead. Still, he helped make that viewpoint my favorite segment of the film (of course he was also a red shirt cop in Cliffhanger, but he wasn’t the crusty dependable character actor that he is now).
    Scott Mendelson

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