So, will 17 Again be a slightly smaller He’s Just Not That Into You, an dead-on Race to Witch Mountain or a slightly bigger Bride Wars? This is roughly where this Zac Efron fluff(er) fits. Somewhere between an eventual $60 million to an eventual $95 million
http://www.soulduster.com/ on: Friday Estimates by Klady
http://www.rehabsandrentals.com/ on: Friday Estimates by Klady
Joe Leydon on: Weekend Estimates by MacKlady
Abi on: Weekend Estimates by MacKlady
betavaftrar on: 3-Day Estimates By Klady That Made The Clown Cry
Tashie Jackson on: Friday Estimates by Klady
Jeffrey Boam's Doctor on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
DiggityDawg on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
David Poland on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
berg on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
Friday Estimate by MuthaSmurfin’ Klady
4 Day Estimates by Vehicular Klady
Friday Estimates by Green Klady
4 Day Estimates by Wolfpack Klady
Weekend Estimates by Screaming Rio Klady
Friday Estimates by Rio de JaKlady
| Friday | Screens | % Chg | Cume | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Gross | Thtr | % Chgn | Cume |
| Venom | 33 | 4250 | NEW | 33 |
| A Star is Born | 15.7 | 3686 | NEW | 15.7 |
| Smallfoot | 3.5 | 4131 | -46% | 31.3 |
| Night School | 3.5 | 3019 | -63% | 37.9 |
| The House Wirh a Clock in its Walls | 1.8 | 3463 | -43% | 49.5 |
| A Simple Favor | 1 | 2408 | -50% | 46.6 |
| The Nun | 0.75 | 2264 | -52% | 111.5 |
| Hell Fest | 0.6 | 2297 | -70% | 7.4 |
| Crazy Rich Asians | 0.6 | 1466 | -51% | 167.6 |
| The Predator | 0.25 | 1643 | -77% | 49.3 |
| Also Debuting | ||||
| The Hate U Give | 0.17 | 36 | ||
| Shine | 85,600 | 609 | ||
| Exes Baggage | 75,900 | 62 | ||
| NOTA | 71,300 | 138 | ||
| 96 | 61,600 | 62 | ||
| Andhadhun | 55,000 | 54 | ||
| Afsar | 45,400 | 33 | ||
| Project Gutenberg | 36,000 | 17 | ||
| Love Yatri | 22,300 | 41 | ||
| Hello, Mrs. Money | 22,200 | 37 | ||
| Studio 54 | 5,300 | 1 | ||
| Loving Pablo | 4,200 | 15 |
| 3-Day Estimates | Weekend | % Chg | Cume |
|---|---|---|---|
| No Good Dead | 24.4 (11,230) | NEW | 24.4 |
| Dolphin Tale 2 | 16.6 (4,540) | NEW | 16.6 |
| Guardians of the Galaxy | 7.9 (2,550) | -23% | 305.8 |
| Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles | 4.8 (1,630) | -26% | 181.1 |
| The Drop | 4.4 (5,480) | NEW | 4.4 |
| Let's Be Cops | 4.3 (1,570) | -22% | 73 |
| If I Stay | 4.0 (1,320) | -28% | 44.9 |
| The November Man | 2.8 (1,030) | -36% | 22.5 |
| The Giver | 2.5 (1,120) | -26% | 41.2 |
| The Hundred-Foot Journey | 2.5 (1,270) | -21% | 49.4 |
Review: Little Women (no spoilers) - The Hot Blog
Box Office First Look - The Hot Blog
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree - The Hot Blog
Glad to see Sin Nombre doing well, it’s quite good.
Um, I was going to see State of Play in Hollywood this afternoon, but the Arclight (major L.A. movie theater, for those who don’t know) is, like, CLOSED AND SHIT?
How can that even be? Movie theaters don’t even close for Christmas day. Per their web site, it’s closed for some reading is fundamental type kids’ shit???? What the hell? How does that work?
Is every one of the 14 theaters packed with three-year-old kids wetting their pants on the seats having STORY TIME?
Obviously the movie’s playing elsewhere and I barely care about it anyway, but that’s some random, weird fucking bullshit.
I’m not sure where the mature audience went for films like State of Play, nor am i sure where Russell Crowe’s career went.
Good for Zac Efron. Maybe he’ll end up a little more Anne Hathaway and a little less Lindsey Lohan.
It’s funny how quickly you forget Disney’s role in the career launch of so many actors and musicians.
Shia, Ryan Gosling, Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, Anne Hathaway, Christina Aguleira, etc etc etc.
Then again it was also the home of Hillary Duff, Lindsey Lohan, and Miley Cyrus who i doubt will transition well into an adult career.
Why do we think this is a new trend?
Using 26 years of Sean Penn as an example…
Taps – $35,856,053 – 12/9/81
Fast Times at Ridgemont High – $27,092,880 – 8/13/82
Bad Boys (1983) – $9,190,819 – 3/25/83
Racing with the Moon – $6,045,647 – 3/23/84
The Falcon and the Snowman – $17,130,087 – 1/25/85
At Close Range – $2,347,000 – 4/18/86
Shanghai Surprise – $2,315,683 – 8/29/86
Colors – $46,616,067 – 4/15/88
Casualties of War – $18,671,317 – 8/18/89
We’re No Angels – $10,555,348 – 12/15/89
State of Grace – $1,911,542 – 9/14/90
Carlito’s Way – $36,948,322 – 11/12/93
Dead Man Walking – $39,363,635 – 12/29/95
She’s So Lovely – $7,281,450 – 8/27/97
The Game – $48,323,648 – 9/12/97
U – Turn – $6,682,098 – 10/3/97
The Thin Red Line – $36,400,491 – 12/25/98
Hurlyburly – $1,798,862 – 12/25/98
Sweet and Lowdown – $4,197,015 – 12/3/99
Before Night Falls – $4,242,892 – 12/22/00
I Am Sam – $40,311,852 – 12/28/01
Mystic River – $90,135,191 – 10/8/03
21 Grams – $16,290,476 – 11/21/03
The Assassination of Richard Nixon – $708,776 – 12/29/04
The Interpreter – $72,708,161 – 4/22/05
All the King’s Men – $7,221,458 – 9/22/06
Milk – $31,841,299 – 11/26/08
If “Sin Nombre” is allegedly doing so well why is it not in any suburban megaplexes? Focus Features doesn’t realize that people in Latino enclaves don’t go to arthouses.
That’s right, Chucky. Focus Features doesn’t know what they’re doing, so they should listen to you.
You’re a wee bit delusional, dude.
Rules absolutely matter in genre movies. In fact they matter more in genre movies. I always felt that the way the Matrix sequels twisted and complicated the mythology of the first movie is what doomed them to failure.
What’s the Sean Penn listing for? I’ve read this entry three times now, and I’m lost as to how Sean Penn got brought up.
Observe and Report deserved to add up to more than a date rape controversy and a 2nd weekend DOA status. Jodi Hill still doesn’t have a lot of directing chops; and I’m THIS CLOSE to vomiting blood the next time a movie has more than 30 music cues and looks more like a fucking music video marathon than a film; but O&R has some of the best DNA from Bad Santa, Happy Gilmore, and Napoleon Dynamite. Not to mention that the ending was gonzo hilarious.
I feel good!
Jody Hill, rather.
I’m also trying to figure out the Sean Penn thing. Who is this conversation intended for?
Transporter 3, Lionsgate’s pickup from Fox, was nothing to brag about in November, but it did outgross all of the films DP mentions here at $31M.
Monsters vs Aliens passes Fast & Furious. That is just too cool.
Space:The Imagination Station is going to be showing all 10 Star Trek movies in a row starting Sunday April 26 til Thursday. Our brains are going to be goo by the time we march down to see the new Star Trek….
It was intended as an illustration of how “adult drama” is a genre that has been alive and dead for decades.
Yes, the studios are not in the drama business, as a rule. No, it’s not a lot worse now than 5 years ago or 10 years ago or 20 years ago, really.
What happened to Russell Crowe? Nothing! He’s had 4 openings better than State of Play in his entire career! (Five, if you include A Beautiful Mind, which had a few weeks in limited release before going wide.) And 3 of the 4 were, in great part, action movies… American Gangster, Gladiator, and Master & Commander.
Aside from the three Oscar Best Picture films and Gangster, Crowe has zero additional movies that have grossed as much as $65 million domestic.
Look at all the great dramas Penn has done over the years… and how little almost all of them earned.
People bemoan this stuff as some terrible change in the market… but the market is quite stable. Big dramas don’t do big business, as a rule. It is the ones that crack $40 million or $50 million that are the exceptions.
To better illustrate the point, you should have picked an actor with much more potential to have a hit than Sean Penn. His biggest hits, The Game, Mystic River and The Interpreter, can always be attributed to another factor (Douglas, Eastwood, Kidman at her peak) and he is rarely the seller but most likely the reason the films did not do better. Put a more audience friendly, sexy actor in the Interpreter (like say…Russell Crowe) and it easily goes over 100…I saw that thing on an airplane and laughed all the way to England.
People put Crowe on a different level because he has had major breakout hits and can connect with an audience. The comparison of the two is not really valid. Penn has never had Crowe’s appeal either in terms of sex appeal for women or attracting a male action/thriller skewing audience.
Crowe was/is an actor that could have had major box-office clout but chose projects that did not really go in that direction. Penn has never had that potential. His hits have been flukes.
A much better comparison for Crowe’s potential is Denzel Washington, who has major acting chops but chooses respectable commercial projects as opposed to dramatic non-entities like Crowe has been angling for.
re: penn, so help me i just can’t let that idiocy slide
‘His biggest hits, The Game, Mystic River and The Interpreter, can always be attributed to another factor (Douglas, Eastwood, Kidman at her peak) and he is rarely the seller but most likely the reason the films did not do better. Put a more audience friendly, sexy actor in the Interpreter (like say…Russell Crowe) and it easily goes over 100’
that is just flat out preposterous, nicol. you just don’t like sean because he’s a big commie-loving, gay-portraying socialist agitator. that statement is flat-out preposterous.
‘Penn has never had Crowe’s appeal either in terms of sex appeal for women or attracting a male action/thriller skewing audience.’
oh really? are you, in fact, a woman? as an actual woman, not someone who seems to think he knows how all women think for some bizarre reason, penn is far more appealing to me than crowe and i can safely say sean has always appealed to women, he’s a bit like rdjr in that respect
‘People put Crowe on a different level because he has had major breakout hits and can connect with an audience. The comparison of the two is not really valid. Crowe was/is an actor that could have had major box-office clout but chose projects that did not really go in that direction. Penn has never had that potential. His hits have been flukes.’
that’s just sad, nicol. and delusional to boot.
With all respect to Penn’s acting talent, no movie has ever been sold on the strength of his sex appeal. (the only one I can remember that sets him up as romantic lead is ‘Down at the villa’ which even Poland forgot) Both Crowe and Downey Jr. have been exploited in that way.
NicolD may not be 100% right on but he’s hardly delusional. I love Penn as an actor, he’s done some amazing work but I don’t think you can ‘safely say he’s always appealed to women’. As actors I place both Penn and Crowe in the top five actors working today.
If Penn floats your boat, fine, but as for ‘appealing’, give me Crowe any day, he’s appealing as Wigand, McAffrey, or Maximus, makes no difference to me. He’s appealing (to me) because he’s a terrific actor, he’s smart and I like the choices he makes.
I actually logged on to respond to David with a “Thank you” for his comments. Crowe’s total B.O. cume would be much higher if he chose movies like Oceans 1-27 or X-Men, 1-14 (he was offered Wolverine, BTW). Recently he’s been making movies for the adult audience and they just don’t show up at the theater in droves, preferring the comfort of watching DVDs in their homes on their elaborate entertainment systems. State of Play has had good reviews and hopefully WOM will give this engrossing, thought-provoking thriller some legs.
At BOM today I read that SOP’s audience was comprised of 55% women, 75% over 35, and when asked why they chose the movie, 66% said because of Russell Crowe and 52% said for the story.
For the record, I have not seen Crank 2.
But part of what made Crank 1 work was that, amidst all the mayhem (which, gore and body count-wise, was actually was relatively restrained until the climax), we had an undertone of a man realizing that he had wasted his life on the very day it was to end (to say nothing of the irony that he was killed in retribution for the one murder he chose not to commit). Yes, it was trashy, loud, and anarchic, but it worked on its own limited emotional scope because the filmmakers stuck to their guns and actually killed Statham at the end.
Alas, the sequel seems to betray the limited investment that anyone had in the characters of the first film. Not only is he now not dead, but apparently he is in a position to save his own life for good if he can recover his um… stolen heart. People can certainly relate to the idea of knowing you’ve only got hours to live and taking revenge on the people who murdered you. I don’t think many people can relate to the idea of having your heart stolen, replaced with an electric heart, then having to get your original heart back from various gangsters.
Again, I have not seen the second film, but part of the appeal of the first film was its simple and (almost) plausible concept. The sequel seems like simply ‘can you top this’ carnage for the sake of itself. On the plus side, when I see the second film, I think I have the first two or three paragraphs of my review already written.
Leah – nary a soul saw The Game because of Penn. He was barely in the A&M as it was all based around Douglas and “From The Director of Se7en”. Hell, he was a last minute fill-in for Foster. Was he good? Yeah. Was he a draw? Minimal.
Mystic was an Eastwood ensemble, so in that regard he was instrumental. There was appeal in the idea of Bacon, Robbins and Penn together. As for Interpreter, Kidman was in her massive studio sell-off at that point.
State Of Grace sums Penn up perfectly. One of his most accessible roles, it was barely released because he had become such a trainwreck. But if it sat on a shelf and was released before The Departed, we would have been talking nominations and Penn’s biggest box office hit.
As for Nicol’s politics coming into play, Penn purposely made himself toxic to a broad audience. He’s gold to small movies, poison to big ones because that’s how he wanted it to be since Carlito’s Way. I don’t know enough about his Stooges role, if he’s even signed anything, to guess on the logic. Gut reaction says payday.
huh? i just re-read what i posted, and the only thing i can think is perhaps i didn’t narrow down nicol’s particularly preposterous quotes enough from his longer statements; if not, my bad, but that’s time-consuming and i couldn’t be bothered. obviously my comments were misunderstood, or people didn’t bother to read them and link back to nicol’s statement before they posted.
(and the russel-fanciers delurk! russel is repulsive, for the record, and he’s my countryman by birth so i don’t say that lightly)
cythia – re: nicol: ‘he’s hardly delusional.’
nicol’s statement that penn’s ‘hits have been flukes’ is delusional, fueled by his right-wing hatred of penn.
‘With all respect to Penn’s acting talent, no movie has ever been sold on the strength of his sex appeal. (the only one I can remember that sets him up as romantic lead is ‘Down at the villa’ which even Poland forgot) Both Crowe and Downey Jr. have been exploited in that way.
wait on, polarbear, where did i argue a movie HAD been sold on penn’s sex appeal? i disagreed with nicole’s blanket assertion that ‘Penn has never had Crowe’s appeal either in terms of sex appeal for women, blah blah blah’, which is a ridiculous thing to say because nicol d is not the arbiter of what women find sexy the world over, sex appeal being a subjective thing and all, HE just personally hates penn. (you women that do find crowe sexy must be swayed by his accent or something, i don’t know a single chick who doesn’t prefer penn to crowe, mainly because i know heaps that love sean and NONE that fancy crowe)
and martin s, my comments to nicol were:
a) he’s in no position to say what women find appealing, b) that his assertion that sean’s hits have all been flukes is absurd, and c) that sean is the reason the films he has been in haven’t done better is absurd. all that stuff you said is well and good but has pretty much nothing to do with my responses to nicol.
Heavens, leahnz, no need to get so defensive, or so nasty, no one is calling Penn ‘repulsive’ and Crowe is a long way from that. Some have been saying that Penn has sold movies because of his talent and Crowe has sold movies because of his talent as well as his appeal to women. Sorry, I think they are correct about that.
And, yes, sex appeal is subjective, you know ‘heaps’ who find Penn appealing, I know ‘scores’ who find Crowe appealing, I’m sure ‘gobs’ find Pitt appealing and ‘oodles’ find Jackman appealing, there is no need for name-calling.
Crank 2 deals with the implausible conceit by making everything else in the movie not just implausible, but batshit insane. The only action movies I’ve ever seen that were this nuts were Japanese.
It’s not meant to be related to. It’s a slapstick comedy on crack and porn.
golly gee, cynthia, sorry if i’m not dainty enough for your liking!
i don’t know if you’ve met me before, but man, that wasn’t me being defensive or nasty, that was just me saying what’s on my mind. i think nicol d is full of it and i don’t mind saying so, consequences be damned. and i didn’t think my reply to the responses my comment elicited was particularly ott (not for me anyway, i’m a bit of a spaz); i also don’t feel the need to put on a pink petticoat and set out some doilies while i sugar-coat my comments, that’s just not me. i may be hell on wheels and i’m sure people here take me the wrong way all the time, but at least i don’t pretend to be something i’m not.
and the reason i called big russ repulsive is because…i find him physically repulsive, as do many women i know. it wasn’t ‘name-calling’, just expressing an opinion, releasing my inner gag reflex. that chicks dig big russ, i can live with that – but damn, i don’t have to abide by it! (and for the record, i think russel is a talented actor, tho i think he’s gone off the boil concentrating on family lately, and good on him. i hope he blows me away again like he did way back when in ‘romper stomper’ and ‘the insider’)
When have movies been sold on Russell Crowe’s sex appeal? Gladiator perhaps, but that had far more bigger assets that made it a hit. Master and Commander? Nah. A Beautiful Mind was an Oscar bait title. And then movies like The Insider, A Good Year, Body of Lies and State of Play he was hardly at his peak of his good looks (of which he seems to have regained with the cropped hairdo and slimmed down figure for Nottingham).
Only Cinderella Man was in some way, but… well, we all know what happened there.
I bet that Robin Hood will be sold partly on Crowe’s sex appeal. And People Magazine has put Crowe in their top 10 ‘Sexiest Men Alive’.
Ironically, leahnz ad hominem attack of Nicol is more about his politics than Nicol’s assessment is about Penn’s.
Leah – c) that sean is the reason the films he has been in haven’t done better is absurd.
It’s not absurd. It’s valid. The guy has alienated more people over a longer period of time than any other actor I can think of. Whether it’s his current political high-horse or his assholish 80’s persona. But that’s also why he’s such a respected talent; people expect his booze-soaked douche-persona to seep through in his performance, but it doesn’t.
I also don’t see the analogy between Penn and Crowe since Crowe’s smallest films are as big as Penn’s largest.
I saw Sin Nombre at a multiplex in Evanston,. IL which serves north suburban Chicago which is white and wealthy. Saw it weekend before last on the first Friday night it was open here and the theater was pretty crowded.
I am also glad it is finding an audience. I missed it at Sundance and thought it was quite good.
This past Friday I saw Sugar at the same theater and it played to a small audience. I liked it, especially as it ended realistically. Missed it at Sundance as well. Not that they are comparable but if I had to chose between Sin Nombre and Sugar I’d take Sin Nombre.
Dramas don’t do well because they’re made for grown-ups, and nobody grows up anymore.
I think the overall point DP was making is true, adult dramas (absent of Oscar heat) tend not to get big audiences or big opening weekends. And State of Play is doing what it was probably going to do, we’ll see what the legs are. I’m seeing it later this week, but if it’s better than Body of Lies…well, that’s not asking too much.
The Crowe-Robin Hood makes sense to me. If you think about what Crowe’s biggest movies have been, historical ‘action/adventure’ films, seems like a natural fit. now, WHY do we need another Robin Hood movie, is another question.
Crowe, I do think, is an incredible actor. I haven’t loved all the work he’s done. But him as Bud White, Jeffrey Wigand and Jack Aubrey is such amazing work. Each are desert island flicks for me.
Who knew dissing Sean Penn would touch such a raw nerve with Leah? It’s like someone blasphemed him.
“Dramas don’t do well because they’re made for grown-ups, and nobody grows up anymore.”
But State of Play isn’t even a “drama” drama; it’s a thriller, much like Duplicity was a comedic caper flick. You’ve got guys shooting guns and Russell Crowe hanging off a speeding car. Hardly the most grown up of material on the face of it.
Straight up dramas (like, say, a Revolutionary Road) don’t usually do well because their advertising winds up selling misery, desperation, heartbreak, unhappiness, disappointment, etc. Basically everything that turns people off when they want to go have “a good time” at the movies.
A great drama can be just as rewarding as an action flick or a funny ass comedy, but advertising that promise is soooooooooo hard. Either the film comes off weapy, or stolid, or pretentious, or limp. I dunno, I’m weird: I love to be moved by a movie, but if a film advertises itself by telling me how much its going to move me, I could not be more turned off. I’d rather go see Crank 2 than something offering me that.
I honestly think most people haven’t a clue about Penn’s extracurricular activities. Tell a random person on the street in Idaho and I bet they wouldn’t have the foggiest idea about his association with Castro or whatever.
Kami, actually, I’d have to beg to differ. Penn has DEFINITELY been demonized in the U.S., ESPECIALLY in the so-called heartland, for his political leanings. He is a very, very frequent easy potshot on the hugely popular O’Reilly program and on talk radio, and to millions of right-leaning Americans, he is the very face all that’s supposedly “wrong” with Hollywood in particular and leftist thinking in general.
Re: Penn and Crowe,
The photo that came out yesterday of Crowe as Robin Hood proves my point perfectly and illustrates why the Penn/Crowe comparison is not valid.
People say “What happened to Crowe” because he has demonstrated he – can – connect with an audience in a popular adult hit.
His Robin Hood, with Scott directing, has real potential to put him back in the box-office big leagues. The only thing Penn could do that might make him a genuine box office draw is if he starred in More Fast Times: Professor Spicoli!.
Penn is a fantastic actor. Even the most rabid poltico on the right will admit that. But Penn has deliberately chosen roles that alienate him from audiences. That’s why he called Cage a sell-out a decade ago. Crowe has not done that. Crowe tries to pick hits (State of Play, Body of Lies) but has just made some off choices.
As for Penn’s sex appeal…of course I can measure that based on the culture. I am sure that some women find Penn sexy, but he has never been or sold as a sex symbol. I do not have to be a woman to know that. Johnny Depp…many women find sexy and is a sex symbol. Cannot say that with Penn. That’s just a reading of pop culture.
Not every criticism of Penn is rooted in politics. He has carved the career he has and by his own choice has not wanted to connect with audiences in hits. Crowe has not done that. That is why the comparison is invalid.
And for the record, I do not “hate” Sean Penn. I own a third of the films on that list and even paid to see Shanghai Surprise in the theatre. How many of you Penn supporters can say that?
Lex – Demonized? Potshots? You’ve wandered off your celeb reservation. BillO’ didn’t make Penn. Penn showed what kind of dunce he was all on his own. I’m guessing you never read his waxings from abroad.
He was a tabloid dick in the 80’s, personified that image and loved it. When you start a trend like punching paparazzi and f’ing Madonna, you own it. His image in the “so-called Heartland” went through the meat-grinder decades ago and now he’s targeting that same group of people for his adult dramas. Then you get to add-on his political life.
I don’t think most people realize Penn is so ripped. He doesn’t show off his body in movies that often.
http://cityrag.blogs.com/main/2007/08/sean-penn-tople.html
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5599/1260/320/sean%20penn%20muscu%20cd.jpg
Count me among those baffled by the claim that a man can’t know who women find attractive. Obviously when Nicol said “women don’t find him attractive,” he didn’t mean there aren’t ANY. He meant that sex appeal isn’t a major draw compared to other actors of his fame and stature. This is a totally fair reading of the pop culture tide. What, leahnz, do you not think yourself capable of knowing if men generally find Penelope Cruz hot or not? And sure, anybody can find anecdotal exceptions to anything.
But it doesn’t matter: regardless of Penn’s popularity for one reason amongst one half of the moviegoing populace, Nicol’s overarching point is that Crowe is a substantially greater box office draw than Penn (demonstrably true) and that “The Interpreter” would have made twice the money with Crowe instead of Penn as the male lead (not demonstrably true but, IMHO, a perfectly reasonable inference drawn from the track records of both men).
Two easy ways to lose an argument:
1. Support your position by saying, “I know lots of people who…”
2. Attack your opponent instead of his argument.
With regard to the latter, for all I know Nicol *is* unduly biased against Penn for political reasons. For all you know, he *isn’t*. It scarcely matters, because if Nicol is biased, that doesn’t mean he can’t be right about what he says, and if he isn’t, that doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong. Alleging ulterior motives right out of the starting gate is a sure way to head an intelligent and possibly edifying debate off at the pass. Then the discourse becomes about attacks and defenses and not at all about the exchange and examination of ideas.
Sam – Shhh. Rules of debate and argumentation are bound by logic and require a dismissal of emotion. This is the web, after all.
oh martin s, how mature and non-snarky of you
🙁 wow, i guess you guys really let me have it, huh. since i’ve been so lovingly and often mentioned in this this thread, i guess it would be rude not to respond:
‘With regard to the latter, for all I know Nicol *is* unduly biased against Penn for political reasons. For all you know, he *isn’t*.’
sam, if you’d read nicol’s comments here over the last how many years and knew anything about him, you wouldn’t bother saying that. (and funny how nicol drops back in sounding all rational w nary an absurd exaggeration to be found in his latest comment, well-bolstered)
‘Alleging ulterior motives right out of the starting gate is a sure way to head an intelligent and possibly edifying debate off at the pass. Then the discourse becomes about attacks and defenses and not at all about the exchange and examination of ideas.’
oh brother, professor poopypants. this is the thing: i think nicol is a right-wing shit-stirrer who says annoying crap to piss people off by design and make himself sound like some kind of ‘truth-keeper’ and ‘standard-bearer’, time and time again (see his recent comments re: ‘borat’ and ‘bruno’ for example). is there some rule i’m unaware of that i have to have ‘intelligent, possibly edifying’ debate with nicol, and a professorial-like ‘discourse and exchange and examination of ideas’? for one thing, that never works because nicol rarely responds when asked to explain his statements. and for another, sorry if i’m not playing by your rules, i just go with how i feel, and nicol’s often scathing, overreaching comments that reek of holier-than-thou conservatism really get up my nose.
to clarify, excerpts from nicol d’s 19 april 6:05 post – rife with exaggerations and made-up stuff re: sean penn – and my thoughts as i had intended in my original post, which seemed fine in my head at the time but i obviously stuffed up being far too vague, as follows:
‘but [penn is] most likely the reason the films did not do better’
i still find this statement patently absurd. so for ‘the game’, ‘mystic river’, and ‘the interpreter’, penn is the reason they did not do better at the box office? really? all of them? just ‘the interpreter’? or is nicol talking about all penn’s flicks? ‘colors’ would have done better w/out penn? milk, better w/out penn? 21 grams, better w/out penn? carlito’s way, better w/out penn? etc etc. i don’t see how this comment is defensible.
‘Penn has never had Crowe’s appeal either in terms of sex appeal for women’
men can certainly know if another man is a sex pot, sam, but nicol can not possibly know that for all women, ‘penn HAS NEVER HAD crowe’s appeal in terms of sex appeal’. i know plenty of chicks who’d take penn in ‘u-turn’ over anything crowe’s done
‘Penn has never had that potential. His hits have been flukes.’
so according to nicol, all penn’s hits have been flukes (and would have done much better financially w/out him to boot). mystic river: fluke. the game: fluke. lesser successes: dead man walking, carlito’s way, colors: all flukes (and better off w/out poison penn). come on, that’s just making shit up.
i will say, there is obviously a much deeper right-wing hatred of penn than i was aware of. i knew he’d gone off the deep end a bit and pissed people off during the bush presidency (perhaps having a dimwitted, dangerous extremist moronic crusading christian zealot surrounded by war mongers fucking up not only his own country but making things worse the world over was more than socialist-leaning penn could bear), but i don’t buy that penn has been ‘box office poison’ for the last 20 years (whatever you’d like me to believe martin s) and personally i think people secretly love it when actors punch out the the paps (god knows i do, blood-sucking vampires); if anything that would have made penn even more intriguing to the violence-loving, voyeuristic masses.
i’m sure i haven’t addressed all the comments thrown my way, but that’s all my brain can process right now
When I saw The Game, I didn’t even know Sean Penn was in it.
“Penn is a fantastic actor. Even the most rabid poltico on the right will admit that. But Penn has deliberately chosen roles that alienate him from audiences.”
Sean Penn has chosen stances that alienate him from audiences, but I don’t see how he’s chosen roles that do so; at least no more than other actors. It’s my belief that the magnetism of his performance in “Milk” is the bulk of what kept that movie from getting lost in the winter drama crush.
leah, you posting “perhaps having a dimwitted, dangerous extremist moronic crusading christian zealot surrounded by war mongers fucking up not only his own country but making things worse the world over was more than socialist-leaning penn could bear” makes you no better than what you are claiming Nicol of doing. Now when I read your postings, I will consider you far left just like you consider him far left. And your scathing, overreaching comment that reeks of holier-than-thou liberalism, just shows that you wanted to pick a fight. You made this discussion about politics. I hope this isn’t too snarky for you.
Leah may have overreached, but she was right in that Nicol wouldn’t have made his comments if not for his well-known dislike of Sean Penn.
‘This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.”
– candid, unscripted g w bush
hey, i wasn’t overreaching, i was exaggerating! no, but honestly, what part did i get wrong re: bush?
dimwitted – and moronic – check (i don’t really have to explain that one, do i? see plethora of bush clips on letterman for proof); dangerous – check (just ask all those dead iraqi kids); extremist – check (bush wasn’t exactly middle of the road, just ask all those dead iraqi kids, or even the living people in desperate need of stem-cell research, etc); crusading – check (see quote above, bush in revealing ‘unscripted’ mode); christian zealot – check (by nature ‘born again christians’ tend to be fanatically committed christians, ie: ‘zealots’); and surrounded by war mongers – check (see chaney and the bush administration). maybe sometimes the truth hurts?
and monco, unlike nicol, 99% of all my comments don’t have some paranoid, left-wing bent designed to stir the pot and make myself out to be the arbitrator of quality and self-appointed smoter of the vast right wing conspiracy in film and higher education
Sean and Russell both annoy the F out of me, and both need a slap across the head. Maybe they both should be in the three stooges movie so they can get smacked around. I’s pay to be in that movie so I wack Penn with a 9-iron and throw a phone at Crowe. Fun times, and a creative way to raise financing from the public, mais oui. Both their wives would pay, heh heh.
Despite my open scorning of both ‘personalities’, they are both great actors rewarded with Oscar for the wrong movie.
Penn should have won for At close range…and Crowe, Insider or even Romper Stomper, but no one would know the latter since it is a perfect example of excellent AUSL cinema, of the early 90s when the US wasn;t highy aware of them down unda.
Chill to Susan Boyle Crying me a river!
She should be the next Bond chick. Break the mold:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI2DxkrgpgQ
I’d pay to be in that movie…and highy should be highly.
Maybe Leah’s just having a bad week, given her ranting here and her defensive posturing about Star Trek in the other thread. Whatever’s the case, she’s not exactly covering herself in the glory of sound, reasoned argument.
LOL, lota
wow, blackcloud, there’s no need to speak about me in the third person as if wasn’t reading your comment. i thought this was a movie blog, a place for people to express themselves re: movies and movie-related stuff, not the national debating chamber requiring sound, reasoned arguments in dulcet, conservative tones with perfect english and a stick up yer butt.
god forbid people should be individuals with different personalities and opinions and get riled up and speak with emotion and from the heart, and not like a perfectly behaved and reasoned drone. how dull. were you expecting me to be contrite because you guys criticised me? did i have the gall to come out and defend myself, or ‘rant’ as you call it? as lt. ripley would say, i’m happy to disappoint you.
(i can’t wait till ‘trek’ opens and hear the deafening silence from aris p and wrecktum in particular. and it’s funny how even though wrecktum wasn’t exactly non-defensive and courteous and charming and covering himself in the glory of sound, reasoned debate in our trek brouhaha the other day, no one is telling him he’s badly-behaved; could it be because i’m a GIRL who dares to ‘rant’ and disagree with people and speak her mind just like the boys, yet when i do it’s somehow more worthy of derision? i wonder)
“Penn should have won for At close range…and Crowe, Insider or even Romper Stomper, but no one would know the latter since it is a perfect example of excellent AUSL cinema, of the early 90s when the US wasn;t highy aware of them down unda.”
LIAR! Iknewaboutromperrtomperassoonaspetertravers revieweditforrollingstoneandirentedthemovieassoon asitbecameavailableonhomevideointheU.S.!! (huff, huff, GASP…huff…).
And I’ll even go one level more obscure for you, Lota – What about “Proof”? “Romper Stomper” got renewed attention once Crowe because a star in the states, but “Proof”, which is a great film, unlike the wobbly Stomper, remains almost entirely unknown and really never spoken of, even though it also carries an excellent Hugo Weaving performance.
The US may not have been highly aware of Australian movies in the 90s(are they now even?), but movie lovers damn well were, thanks to stuff like Proof, Romper Stomper, An Angel At My Table, Strictly Ballroom, Bad Boy Bubby, The Piano, The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Muriel’s Wedding, The Sum of Us, Angel Baby, Children of the Revolution, Love Serenade, Blue Murder, The Quiet Room, Shine, Blackrock, The Castle, Kiss or Kill, Oscar and Lucinda, The Boys, Head On, The Interview, Two Hands, etc.
hallick, i’m gonna rant now so you’d better brace yourself for a shitstorm the likes of which you have never seen!
(nah, but the following are not australian but proudly NZ movies: ‘an angel at my table’, ‘the piano’)
“could it be because i’m a GIRL who dares to ‘rant’ and disagree with people and speak her mind just like the boys, yet when i do it’s somehow more worthy of derision? i wonder)”
Of course not. I think you’re being facetious when you say that, since you are surely aware of the reactions IO, LexG, and Chucky in Jersey elicit. No, it’s because after Martin S (and others) pointed out that Nicol was making a valid argument about how Sean Penn’s movies have performed at the box office, and some of the reasons for it, you persisted in attacking him (and his politics) and not the substance of his argument. They objected once more, and you doubled down on a weak hand, then obfuscated it with your irrelevant diatribe about Dubya.
Star Trek: you could well be right, but Aris and Wrecktum have strong grounds for being skeptical. You have the advantage of having seen it. Once the rest of us have in a few weeks, I am sure we will have some heated, passionate debates about it. (Star Trek usually has no other kind!) Arguments in which I am certain you will participate with your usual antipodean humor and grace.
Leah, you should know by now that only certain people are allowed to express opinions in a strongly worded manner around here. Once anyone else does it we’re having a “bad week” or are “exaggerating” or just people look at us funny like “what got up them? don’t they know to not have opinions of their own?” etc. The number of times I have been told my opinion is flatout wrong around here is ridiculous.
BTW, The Piano is partly Australian. It was co-funded by the Australian Film Commission and it won AFI Awards and all!
And Australian films were at their international peak in the ’70s and then again between ’88 (Evil Angels and Dead Calm especially) and about ’98. There was Two Hands in ’99 with Heath Ledger, yet his death proved that not too many people, even film fanatics, had seen that excellent movie. Although 2001 briefly flourished again with Moulin Rouge!, Lantana and The Dish.
well, blackcloud, i appreciate the response. i do feel you’ve been quite condescending here, as have some others in their comments to/at me. my last (exhausted) hurrah on the subject before i dive head-first into a vat of limoncello:
you said:
‘No, it’s because after Martin S (and others) pointed out that Nicol was making a valid argument about how Sean Penn’s movies have performed at the box office, and some of the reasons for it, you persisted in attacking him (and his politics) and not the substance of his argument’
well, no, that’s not true, i most certainly did take nicol to task for specific things in his original diatribe against penn from the very start, i just did a shitty job of it. and i don’t agree that martin s made valid points about nicol’s assessment of penn, because they didn’t actually address my points to nicol (which granted were too vague so it all turned to custard).
i’m still not sure why you think my 3 problems re: nicol’s snide anti-penn diatribe, which i reiterated today in a more concise manner above, are weak and/or refuted either the first or second times (no one’s actually said anything after this second go except about bush, so), did you actually read it? i’ll say it yet again: sean is clearly not the reason ‘mystic river’ (or ‘the game’ or most of his other movies for that matter) did not make more $ – people did not shine on ‘mystic river’ because that ‘dastardly sean penn’ was in it, that is nicol’s delusion. further, nicole clearly can’t speak for all women as to penn never having had crowe’s sex appeal; and finally, clearly all penn’s hits haven’t been flukes, that’s silly. so how are these arguments weak? i still don’t see it. maybe i need a pair of glasses.
and as jeff pointed out, this is not the first time nicol has had a go at penn because of his dislike of the man and his politics, and i have no doubt in my mind that nicol’s politics are behind this current ‘diss’ of penn; if you and martin s and mystery do not agree, that’s your prerogative, but it’s not like i’m pulling nicol’s prior bad taste for penn out of thin air)
re: trek, again, i feel as if you and perhaps others didn’t actually read what i said. my problem with aris p and wrecktum was not their skepticism about trek, which is perfectly understandable, but the fact they both spoke disparagingly about the film as if they’d seen it, calling it i think it was a ‘dud’ and a ‘mess’ respectively, acting as if they know something about the film, which in fact they don’t. THAT is what i took them to task over, that and that alone, and i thought i made that quite clear, but i guess not. i’m starting to wonder if people don’t understand a word i say for some bizarre reason, it’s rather disheartening. and i’d point out wrecktum said some rather rude things to me, which i can certainly handle, but i’m not sure why you have an issue with my behaviour and not his.
now i’m going to go have a drink and watch a cool flick and get the image of the ever pompous nicol d smirking at me from canada out of my head
thanks, kam! 🙂
(yeah, that’s right, ‘the piano’ was a nz/australia and i think another country? co-production)
ANNA PAQUIN RULEZ. GREATEST AUSTRALIAN CHICK EVER. Except maybe Naomi Watts, Elle McPherson, or Rachael Taylor.
Also, leah is pretty consistently cool and awesome. What’s all this shit with dudes bagging on her? BAD FORM. Christ, to think I’m considered some tactless sexist asshole. Didn’t some of you guys also run off that other cool chick who was posting briefly a few months back?
i got distracted reading/watching that ‘heckler’ thing but thanks lex luthor, and you know i know you know anna p is a kiwi so consider your ears boxed