MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Weekend Estimate by Klady… IN 3DDDDDD


Be Sociable, Share!

85 Responses to “Weekend Estimate by Klady… IN 3DDDDDD”

  1. EthanG says:

    “How to Train Your Dragon” should not by any measure be written off yet…it’s only 10 million behind “Monsters vs Aliens”, and that film had to deal with “Hannah Montana” and “17 Again” in its 3rd and 4th weekends. “Dragon” doesn’t have any kiddie competition AT ALL until its 6th weekend. It’s not going to become DWA’s 4th franchise probably, but has an outside shot at matching MvA.
    Has “The Runaways” expansion been officially scrapped yet?
    Looks like that “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” trilogy is happening=(
    Titans must have some terrible word of mouth…

  2. Joe Leydon says:

    The Runaways is supposed to open Friday here in Houston.

  3. marychan says:

    The wide release expansion of “The Runaways” had been scrapped; the film will only add 200 theaters on this Friday.

  4. Rob says:

    About to drive 20 mi north of Boston to check out Don McKay. (Yes, 2 of those 7 theaters are in Danvers and Methuen, MA.)

  5. Foamy Squirrel says:

    “The films clearly benefits from many positive reviews; it proves that critics do still matter in some cases.”
    Correlation is not causation. There’s far too many variables here to point at critical reviews and say “They did it!”
    (The same holds true the other way though – it’s equally impossible to prove that critics had no effect)

  6. David Poland says:

    I would agree that in a limited release, critics do still matter.
    But let’s not go nuts. We’re talking about 500 people in each of 87 locations over the course of a weekend.

  7. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Still, if you want to be professional about it you should probably make an effort to ask attendees what influenced their decision rather than guess.
    At the very least, it could provide pointers of where to focus efforts for future releases which is useful for when you don’t have multimillion dollar P&A budgets.

  8. EthanG says:

    If “Kick-Ass” converts its hype into being at least a mid-level hit, Lionsgate will enter May with a higher domestic gross in 2010 than Universal. Somewhat meaningless in actuality, but boy that should be a wake-up call.

  9. Joe Leydon says:

    The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo would seem to me to be a textbook example of a movie that benefits from favorable reviews. Just like Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. The latter was so dependent on critics that my Variety review is quoted on the DVD packaging.

  10. Joe Straat says:

    Well, it wasn’t so much the positivity of the reviews as reading a bit about the story and being interested in it. However, being that I live in the middle of Nebraska and am at least two hours from a theater that might possibly have it, I settled for reading the book since I didn’t want to wait for DVD. But hey, somebody somewhere got some money from the publcity.

  11. a_loco says:

    You know, looking back at Dragon Tattoo, I liked it while I was watching it, but the movie is kind of a mess, especially in the last half hour.
    At first, I was jazzed to see Fincher signed up for the remake, because I wasn’t expecting him to be a slave to the source material, but the best parts of the movie have nothing to do with the story, so I don’t know how to feel about that.
    In short, I don’t think anything more than a serviceable thriller can be made from that movie, unless they ditch the main storyline (and the male protagonist) altogether and create a new mystery around the girl.

  12. movieman says:

    I think the major reason “Dragon Tattoo” is doing (relatively) well for a 2 1/2 hour subtitled film is that it’s based on a well-liked best-selling novel. The (generally) favorable reviews–which were good, if hardly “Vincere” or “Mother” caliber- probably didn’t matter one way or another to fans of the book
    Considering the numbing mediocrity of most of the studio films released so far this year (“COTT,” “Valentine’s Day,” “The Bounty Hunter,” “Percy Jackson,” “Tooth Fairy,” “Cop Out,” etc.), it’s kind of remarkable that three 2010 releases (“Greenberg,” “Vincere” and “The Ghost Writer”) are terrific enough to have made my ’09 10-best list. And that three others (“Mother,” “Shutter Island” and “Fish Tank”) are nearly as good.
    Reasons to be cheerful?

  13. LexG says:

    The CLASH numbers might go down when the masses realize that the TRAILER MUSIC isn’t even in the film, that it is in fact NOT scored to the SINGLE MOST HORRIBLE PIECE OF MUSIC ever concocted.
    I waited the whole goddamn movie for it to turn up, and it never did. JUST LIKE THE ARCADE FIRE SONG THAT ISN’T IN Where the Wild Things Are:

  14. Don Murphy says:

    David and 4 chan Critics for Dragon Tattoo? NOT The fact that it is based on a trilogy of International bestselling books? Critics? Fucking Pathetic!

  15. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Hey, marychan is pretty cool guy and doesn’t afraid of anything! >:o

  16. Plz see Mother. It’s much better than The Host, which you probably wet yourself over.

  17. martindale says:

    “Titans must have some terrible word of mouth…”
    How do you figure? Are you referring to its weekend multiplier? It’s a genre film, plus it opened on Easter weekend with many young people having the day off, so it was going to be more frontloaded on Friday. We’ll see how it plays out in the following weeks.

  18. EthanG says:

    “How do you figure? Are you referring to its weekend multiplier?”
    It got only a B CinemaScore, and yeah the internal multiplier was bad even for genre. “300” had an identical Friday but finished with 7 million more without Thursday screenings…yes I know it was Easter. We’ll see how it plays out..

  19. Movies ALWAYS have bad multipliers on Easter weekend. Isn’t that why this movie opened this weekend in the first place since it could have a huge opening day and the Easter Sunday would be able to cushion the “omg bad word of mouth!!!!” impact?
    “only a B” is that bad? Sounds decent to me for a movie that is apparently being eviscerated.

  20. jeffmcm says:

    I went and saw Mother today and liked it very much.
    I still like The Host better.
    Also I hate to agree with Don ‘LXG’ Murphy, but I’m sure that the book’s popularity has more to do with Dragon Tattoo’s popularity than critical support.

  21. leahnz says:

    re: titans
    i spent the entire movie distracted by sam’s EXTREMELY short mini skirt. lordhavemercy

  22. chris says:

    Agreed that “Mother” is better than “The Host.” But “Memories of Murder” is better than both of ’em.

  23. Don Murphy says:

    Jeff- when you die you will be missed by no one. Ever wonder why?

  24. David Poland says:

    Obviously the book franchise matters… but if it mattered THAT much, the film would be doing tens of millions.
    Again… whether Don likes it or not… there are places where specific kinds of audiences do engage criticism. Movies that are on arthouse screens with limited marketing dollars tend to draw that niche. And to argue that there is NO niche in which critics matter is just silly. There is no arthouse distributor who will argue that critics are irrelevant to their business.
    No one has said longer or louder – not even Don – that marketing dollars overwhelm critics’ voices and have for years. For over a decade, “opening weekend has nothing to do with the film itself” has been a THB mantra.
    But when you are on 87 screens and spending on ads as though 87 screens was a lot, the potential ticket buyers are looking for some way to decide on whether to attend. And without significant marketing, this often falls to critics… usually the local ones. This is why NYT, LAT, and Ebert can actually affect dollars for these very specific titles in their markets.
    And to sit there and claim that critics can’t even sell a few thousand tickets in 87 markets is just rhetorical overkill.

  25. leahnz says:

    weirdly “dragon tattoo” was released in cinemas here several months ago (following a heavy TV ad blitz) and is already out on DVD, seemingly akin to the int’l release pattern of ‘taken’, which debuted in cinemas here months before and was already out on DVD at the time of the US theatrical release

  26. Foamy Squirrel says:

    I see this kind of thing happen all the time in my work – “X happened. Y happened. Therefore X caused Y”. It’s possible to build a semi-persuasive case by accumulation of circumstantial evidence, but until you establish a causal link you’re just making shit up. I’ve seen companies spend ridiculous amounts of money setting up campaigns before they’ve asked consumers a single question – and then wonder why it didn’t go as well as they hoped.
    Yes, critics might have caused the bump for dragon tattoo, just as the book franchise might have caused it. But at this point there’s no clear evidence either way. And possibly the worst thing you can do is try to “prove” your case when you’re already convinced of the answer – Coca Cola tried that in 2004 when they released Dasani water in the UK. They did extensive research to establish that UK consumers didn’t care about the water source. Research participants thought Coke were asking them to choose between glaciers, mountain springs, and aquifers – within 2 months it turned out that Dasani was actually treated tap water from the Thames. Half a million bottles were yanked off the shelves 10 weeks after launch following a public relations debacle which culminated in independent testing demonstrating the treatment introduced potential carcinogens into the water.
    Dubious hypothesis + bad research designed to confirm the hypothesis = absolute disaster. If Coke, one of the best companies in the world at managing brands, can screw this kind of thing up anyone can.

  27. Chucky in Jersey says:

    @marychan: “Chloe” has flopped thanks to SPC distribution. At the Regal Union Square in NYC, 2 prints first week, 1 print second week. At the AMC Neshaminy outside Philadelphia, full set of shows first week, last show only second week. At the UA Southampton on Long Island, 1 week and out.
    Had “Chloe” been released through Screen Gems-Columbia it would have done a helluva lot better.

  28. marychan says:

    Well said, David. (I should add that “dragon tattoo” did only have very small ads in many newspapers. ) Many mainstream films don’t need good reviews for doing well at box office. But many art films and foreign-language films are simply unmarketable without getting mostly positive reviews.
    Not only David and me, some other professionals also said that niche films need the support of recognized critics. (ie. SPC’s Tom Bernard, Landmark Theaters’ Ted Mundorff, Samuel Goldwyn Films’ Michael Silberman)
    leahnz: “dragon tattoo” just follows the int’l release pattern of many foreign-language films, because most of foreign-language films need longer time to get picked up by US distributors.
    Chucky in Jersey: Considering its release pattern and mostly terrible reviews, the US box office result of “Chloe” is definitely not bad. At least, “Chloe” has grossed higher than

  29. SJRubinstein says:

    Was at a belated Passover seder on Saturday and this pushing 80 year-old woman and her husband couldn’t stop telling people how much they loved the “Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” movie and recommended it all around. They are also big fans of the books and the woman was over-the-moon that her library actually got the third book, published overseas but not available in the US until next month, this past week.
    The pair then agreed that the American version will cut too much and probably suck.

  30. Don Murphy says:

    David P and 4chan – well you can easily prove your position and smack me down by linking to the reviews for Dragon that are driving people into the cinema.
    Or, more than likely, not.
    Because the critics thing is done.

  31. Stella's Boy says:

    Here is some anecdotal evidence (though generally I agree with Don that critics don’t help much these days). My mom is a pretty big movie buff. She sees on average about 5-6 movies a month in theaters. In the last month or so she’s seen The Ghost Writer, Crazy Heart, Valentine’s Day, Shutter Island and Alice in Wonderland. She likes everything from chick flicks to art house fare. Yesterday I asked her if she saw a movie over the weekend. She said no; she was thinking about going to see Chloe on Saturday but ultimately decided against it because the reviews she read were all negative. Is it possible that stronger reviews for Chloe results in better box office?

  32. David Poland says:

    Again, Don… overkill.
    This is not brain surgery. If you want to drive 1 million+ people to cinemas, the critics thing is done.
    If I can drive 50 people to the movies – and I think I can – and there are 200 others like me – the number is probably bigger, including one in each market Dragon Tattoo is playing in – then 10000 people x 2 paying $10+ is $200,000 at the box office. Then add on Roger Ebert in Chicago or NYT in NY with the ability to drive, say, 3000 people each to the box office on one weekend on their own authority. X2, another $120k in the coffers. You’re at over $3800k per screen on 83 screens on critics.
    Not major numbers… but strong indie numbers. And hardly a hysterical defense of critics.
    Is there also an audience for the book? Obviously. Are there other considerations? Obviously.
    But the false idea that critics have ZERO value is as silly as saying that a dumb movie that does a strong multiple of opening weekend is not well-liked by a segment of the audience.
    It’s also as silly as saying that good reviews assure an audience on a larger scale just because you release wider.
    Honestly, Don, you live in a glass house on this. Transformers audiences were not suckered. But people didn’t go see Valentino: The Last Emperor based on marketing… though word of mouth did build… in the niche that the film played well within.
    As noted above, the numbers on Chloe – as well as Black Dynamite – are a reflection of how it got released. The numbers on Hurt Locker were also a reflection of how IT got released, though much like Precious, it probably had a glass ceiling… but in the case of Hurt, it didn’t even get close to that ceiling.
    Meanwhile, Apparition stepped in shit with Boondock Saints 2, a brand that sold – like porn – via the grass roots for the first film with very little traditional movie marketing.
    Paranormal Activity didn’t sell because of the movie itself… or the critics… it was just clever, tricky marketing.
    Runaways and Mother have a similar per-screen. The former is likely almost all from ads and publicity about its stars. The latter is likely almost all from publicity driven by critics. The two situations couldn’t be more different.
    But you, Don, just want to repeat to yourself, as Michael Meyers must do behind the mask, “the critics thing is done.”

  33. Don Murphy says:

    The Critics Thing is Done… and you haven’t said a thing to dispel that notion. My question was a simple one- point to a review. Instead I got paragraphs about other films. WHAT critic is driving these people to see this wonderful film?
    Runaways is a story you SHOULD be covering- about how this numbskull Bill Pohlad fucked the filmmakers by pulling $10 m in P and A that was promised. Runaways is not driven by critics.
    MOTHER is a bestselling film in Korea by the director of HOST, the biggest film in Korean history. That is driving Mother, not critics.
    Paranormal was a crappy film that sold because people like to be scared.
    No David- Hurt Locker and Precious were LOVED by critics- and no one gave a fuck, at least about Hurt.
    Not sure what you are trying to say about Transformers- despite critics it was the number one grosser in 2009 FOLLOWED by the #1 DVD sales even after the bad reviews. Critics meant NADA.
    I do not believe critics have meant anything for any films in at least three years. Because, again, listen closely- with the internet, EVERY ASSHOLE is a critic.
    I repeat- if Brian Orndorf is a “critic” who is aggregated by Rotten Tomatoes, then my three year old nephew is a critic as well.

  34. The Big Perm says:

    DOn, if you go to a site like CHUD, and a movie gets a great review…people outright say they’ll watch it due to that review. Come one, some critics have fans who like and trust their opinions, and these critics will sway people.
    My favorite and best web reviewer, Outlaw Vern, gets people to rent movies based on his reviews as well.
    I never would have heard of Mother without reviews popping up. And I’m not sure how many people would say they’d have to see it simply based on The Host, since Mother doesn’t have a monster in it.

  35. Mikkel says:

    To sum up a lot of the above (and somewhat paraphrasing Stella’s Boy’s anecdote about his mum (Stella?) above):
    Isn’t the case that people do not go to movies because of the reviews (ie. causation), but that bad reviews would possibly make people _not go_ to said movies? In other words, reviews rarely create the interest (in the case of Dragon Tattoo the books are more important here), but it might, in some cases, determine whether the influence eventually presents itself in a trip to the cinema.
    Therefore critics still matter – although not as much as some people think or suggest.

  36. The Big Perm says:

    If someone REALLY wants to see a movie, they will. If it seems like it may be “okay” and they’re on the fence, they might look up reviews and see what people say. I still do that.

  37. Noah says:

    A film like MOTHER isn’t exactly filling the airwaves with ads heralding its arrival. Chances are, most people were flipping through the paper or looking online and found a review for MOTHER, saw that it was directed by the guy who did THE HOST and saw that it was a positive review. Then, they shrugged and said, “wow, I didn’t realize it was out, I’m gonna go check it out.” The truth is that reviewing a film, positively or negatively, is still the best way for an indie or foreign film to get marketed. Since, you know, they probably can’t afford to buy huge newspaper ads, billboards or TV spots.

  38. Krazy Eyes says:

    Don is 100% right that nowadays any asshole can be a critic but I think he’s wrong on just about everything else.
    I nearly always pick which films to go see (or not see) based upon the reviews of a few select critics who’s opinions I trust. I can’t be the only one doing this, right? I think Don is confusing critical consensus with the power of a single well-respected critic. I don’t give a rat’s ass what Brian Orndorf thinks about a film and I doubt anyone else does either.

  39. Rob says:

    Vincere wasn’t on my radar at all until reviews popped up when it opened a week or two ago in New York. Then it got four stars in the Globe last Friday, and because of that I’m making a point to catch it this week.
    I assure you I wouldn’t have even heard of Mother were it not for critics’ dispatches from film festivals and the effusive reviews once it opened. Unlike you, Mr. Murphy, I don’t follow Korean box office very closely.

  40. Stella's Boy says:

    Reviews got me really excited about A Prophet. Before reading a review a few weeks ago I had never heard of it.

  41. EthanG says:

    “only a B” is that bad? Sounds decent to me for a movie that is apparently being eviscerated.”
    In CinemaScore language, where a C is failure, a B on opening weekend (which always generates higher scores) is not good news for a genre film like this. Presumably, the fanboys have mostly rushed out already to see Titans, and anything below a B+ means word of mouth just isn’t a factor. $140 mil looks to be the domestic ceiling…if not less.
    It’ll turn a profit worldwide, but not enough to spawn Leterrier’s promised trilogy…thank the lord. Also, good news for Tarsem’s “War of the Gods.”

  42. LexG says:

    Yeah, I’m always thankful that 12th grade Physics wasn’t graded on the CINEMASCORE curve, or I’d still be back in Mr. Braxton’s science lab for the 20th consecutive year flailing at covalent bonding.
    Like, who the fuck gives everything a solid A and considers a B to be an abject failure? And I say that as THE EASIEST MARK IN THE WORLD, who’s just happy to be seeing a movie and probably would rank 75, 80% of what a I see a nice, charitable B-minus or B. Which still seems like a perfectly fun movie.
    But there’s executives out there poring over the CINEMASCORE results for, say, OLD DOGS, pulling their hair out going WHERE DID IT ALL GO WRONG? when those Friday CS results come in. Like, can you believe it, the vast majority of TOTAL IDIOTS only think that OLD DOGS is an A-minus, B-plus, WHAT A FAILURE. As in, with 100 representing a PERFECT MOVIE AND ONE OF THE GREATEST EXPERIENCES OF YOUR LIFE, something like CLASH OF THE TITANS or OLD DOGS getting a staggering, you’ve-got-to-be-fucking-kidding **85%** means the audience response was disappointing???
    It’s the weirdest grading curve ever, where every middling movie is expecting to poll a straight A-plus, 100%, four stars. Who’s voting in Cinemascore, Roger Ebert?

  43. R.A. Bartlett says:

    I think it’s about averages. The idea is that most people aren’t the most demanding and enjoy the experience, so they give out easy A’s. If you start seeing B’s, there means there’s a segment of that pool that hated it enough to bring the average down.

  44. Earl Hofert says:

    Hey, the grumpy old man behind “Double Dragon” and “When She Was Out” is frothing at the mouth again–let’s all gather round and watch. Besides, his continued obsession with Bryan Orndorf would seem to prove that at least one person out there is hanging on to the every word of at least one critic.

  45. Foamy Squirrel says:

    “I’d still be back in Mr. Braxton’s science lab for the 20th consecutive year flailing at covalent bonding.”
    Or Edward Cullen, the kid who failed 12th grade over 70 times.

  46. LexG says:


  47. Brett B says:

    I’m going to see Girl with the Dragon Tattoo because I read Ebert’s 4-star review and it sounded great. This happens all the time with smaller non-genre movies that I would never know existed if it weren’t for the weekly movie reviews. Don Murphy is delusional for arguing that critics have ZERO impact on anything.

  48. SJRubinstein says:

    I think you can’t discount Roger Ebert’s emerging role as the “film critic-at-large” of Twitter with the sheer amount of followers and Re-Tweeters he has. He’s been banging the drum pretty loudly for “Dragon Tattoo” for a few weeks now.

  49. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    As being involved in arthouse distribution I can categorically say that critics do matter in terms of arthouse product. You’d have to be a fucking idjit to think otherwise, or at least a producer with a major chip on his shoulder towards one fanboy critic.
    Don saying TATTOO’s rep as a bestseller drove that film into good numbers is fucking myopic. If we only relied on bestsellers to sell tickets, we wouldn’t have been stuck with NY Times Bestsellers bombing left right and centre over the years. Numbers of books sold being extrapolated into potential boxoffice numbers is a truly mad science. I will beat to death with a dildo, the first person who mentions Harry Potter as some defining example.
    Don however is very much on point when he says that critic’s effectiveness towards mainstream audiences is virtually nil. Where’s he off again is that he states its only happened in the last three years.
    Mainstream criticism has never driven audiences to hits. Mainstream audiences drive mainstream audiences.

  50. jeffmcm says:

    Don Murphy at this point is obviously not arguing in good faith. He’s blathering and foaming at the mouth with weak arguments that he apparently believes will be believed if he repeats them loudly enough. And it’s all because he has a vested interest in critics not being around in the future to point out how shitty the movies he makes are.
    Either that or he’s just an idiot. Or both.

  51. Don Murphy says:

    jeff This is not You need to learn the difference you waste of flesh.

  52. jeffmcm says:

    Try arguing the point for a change instead of hurling random insults. You’ll live longer if you can stop drinking the rage-ahol.

  53. LexG says:


  54. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Since critics are so important to arthouse releases, I assume you’re tracking which ones are important for what kind of releases at various locations.

  55. Don Murphy says:

    Thanks Lex. Jeff doesn’t have a team.
    His sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped him get a job, a film career, or laid.

  56. David Poland says:

    You’re arguing right past any logic, Don. No point in me continuing to try to discuss rationally.
    You are right. The perception of Runaways’ potential was never going to happen as a “critics movie.” Absolutely. And Apparition doesn’t have the money to lose on P&A when $10m in P&A wouldn’t have much changed the fate of that film.
    Much the same is true of Hurt Locker, a much more popular critics movie, but needed to be sold as a mainstream thriller to get over financially. Summit got it cheap, played it cheap, and got extremely lucky that the award season fell the way it did. You are right… the critics couldn’t push it past $15m.
    And I agree… critics don’t have the juice to push anything much past $10 million… or less. Geeks don’t have the juice to push anything past about $15m these days. These are niche plays… but you want to claim the niche doesn’t exist at all… which is BS.
    Unlike others, I am not mocking Trannys as a business model. Critics thinking they have a single percent effect on wide release movies are fooling themselves. But these are apples and oranges. But you are too busy reacting to read that I already wrote that.
    Have a nice day.

  57. The Big Perm says:

    Don’s perspective is skewed because he’s never been close to a movie that had critical acclaim, so he doesn’t really know about such things.

  58. Earl Hofert says:

    Jeepers, what did this Orndorf guy do to Howling Mad Murphy to get him so grumpy? Did he pan a movie made by one of Murphy’s loved ones? Suggest that the artistic reach of “Double Dragon” might have exceeded its grasp? Speculate that “Apt Pupil” might have been better with Ricky Schroder?

  59. sultry says:

    My reason for wanting to see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is not the critics, not the books — I want to see Europe’s highest grossing film of 2009 and Sweden’s highest grossing ever. I’m thinking that there must be some reason all those people went to see it!

  60. The Big Perm says:

    SJRubinstein is right though…just looked at Ebert’s Twitter. Dude has 126,000 followers. Are we wanting to say that he’s not influencing any of them to see any movies? Come one Don, admit that in general you’re right, but it’s not a 100% rule.

  61. David Poland says:

    Note: I do not condone Don’s attacks on Brian Orndorf. And I am not an Orndorf reader or anything. It just seems harsh and personal.
    I am not going to censor Don on this account. And I hope Brian won’t sue me as a result, as I am, like it or not, legally responsible for libel on this blog. But as I feel Don is being personal, I also suggest that Orndorf just thicken up the skin and deal with a hater. No publicity is bad publicity, right?

  62. David Poland says:

    Just ask the owners of the Music Box in Chicago.
    Ebert can fill its 850 seats.
    Does that mean he can send in a few thousand Chicago movie lovers in a weekend? Yeah.
    Not enough to cover Michael Bay’s KY bill for Trannys 3 auditions. But in context, significant.

  63. Earl Hofert says:

    Just for the record, I am not Orndorf and I have never met the man. It just seems that whenever Mr. Murphy comes on here to bitch about critics, he always singles him out in what seems to be a strangely arbitrary manner that just strikes me as curious.
    That said, I will gracefully withdraw from the fray.

  64. Don Murphy says:

    Oh a man’s work is never done.
    1- You are not responsible for libel on this blog unless you write it, David. Decades of court decisions support this. The DMCA supports this. Neither you nor aol are considered publishers. I sorta wish that were NOT true but it is.
    2- Orndorf to me is the human summation of excrement. He was caught by me spamming IMDB with links to his “reviews” begging people to read them. His writing is the level of a third grade mongoloid. He is everything wrong with the world, IMO. Someone who should be flipping burgers passing himself off as a film critic when he doesn’t have the intelligence of a prawn. AND Rotten Tomatoes aggregates his “reviews”. He is singled out because he embodies, as few do, the shittiness of teh internets.
    3- Earl aka Anonymous Loser Poster 34168- Ricky was in the version mounted TEN YEARS before mine and they ended up running out of money. I applaud the cheap shot at Double Dragon, a film I produced a year out of film school, you are the first (okay, 345,124th) to mention it. But Apt Pupil? You may be the first Ape to attack that one. I would attack one of your films in kind, except, well there aren’t any. Those who can’t do teach and thos who can’t teach, review, it seems.
    4- Perm, baby- I never said Twitter doesn’t influence things. Although I think the million plus followers of Ashton Kutcher or my pal Neil Gaiman probably have way more influence than the Gallo- Jinxed Ebert. Twitter ain’t criticism son and you are pushing it- we both know that don’t we?
    5- David, what did Bay do to you? KY? Is that even funny?

  65. “MOTHER is a bestselling film in Korea by the director of HOST, the biggest film in Korean history. That is driving Mother, not critics.”
    I’m in the minority, but I sorta hated The Host and yet I still really wanted to see Mother because of what I had seen in trailers and the reviews. Granted, I ended up seeing it at a media screening so the distributor won’t exactly be getting my cash, so… umm… that’s a shame for them.

  66. LexG says:


  67. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Don – I hope you’re not the basis of one of the characters in The Goldfish Pool…

  68. Boone Hawkins says:
  69. Don Murphy says:

    Brian Orndorf, the Cancer for the Critical Community at Large
    Well said little anonymous troll. Well said. Now let’s take the short amount of time needed to send you back to the nothing basement from whence you came.
    —> You actually show up to defend Internet Movie DoucheBags, the LEAST reliable site on the net, where they allow defamation on their message boards, charge for movie ads while allowing people to slag them, rip off customers with inaccurate information and promises and use WENN as a news source. Already you sound like a loser know-nothing nobody.
    —> I had to have Orndorf’s spamming reviews going back to 2008 removed from IMDB just to teach the worthless boy a lesson about a year ago. That is why you had to go back to KABLUEY ( an apt metaphor for your life) to find one. No, IMDB does not exist to gather spam for other reviewers. But there’s no need to learn ya, my retarded friend- that link you posted will be removed in an hour or two. Because IMDB does NOT support it and I have demanded it.
    —>You post a link to a guy named tucknate who seems to like While She Was Out, because, well it’s a good film, Mr. Nothing. I also notice that he is a subscriber to IMDB Pro. This makes him insane because he pays like $15 a month in order to get ripped off and provided false information about movies and stars. I am not a subscriber to IMDB Pro and never have been or will be – I would rather throw the money out the window or send it to LEXG’s hooker and gin fund that give it to IMDB Pro. Whoops, looks like your points are falling.
    —> I do not include the execrable human being Brian Orndorf in all my posts, only those that involve the end of film criticism. OHHH, another blow to Mr. Nobody.
    —>Famed manipulator of the truth? I said he spammed IMDB and was a pathetic human being. Both are true.
    —> Dread Central is now banned from any access to any future Don Murphy movies. When I am done they will likely end up banned from multiple studios, reduced to reporting on others’ reporting. They are already sorry for their crimes and have removed several of their offending articles, but I do not forgive. Why cite them at all since they acknowledge their guilt and have been punished for it?
    —> Funniest shit evah, “embarrassingly low Tomatometer”. You do realize you wrote that, right Brian, I mean “Boone”? A grown man used the word “Tomatometer”, not a kindergarten student, a GROWN MAN. And how can it be embarrassing, Mr. Nobody, if in fact it counts among its “crtics” losers with random websites and fucking failed film teachers? Your attempt to attribute value to it is embarrassing.
    —> I tried to search you with David’s feeble search mechanism and well, it seems you just signed up for this posting, Brian, I mean Boone. It’s pathetic that you tried this with your betters and tiresome that I had to smote you so just go back to your unviewed blog and eat the crow you usually dine on.
    BRIAN ORNDORF the cancer for the critical community at large.

  70. Earl Hofert says:

    I will let someone else make the obvious comment that being banned from a Don Murphy production is somewhat akin to being banned from your local Jack in the Box franchise after complaining about the quality of the food.
    Yes, I am aware that the Ricky version of apt Pupil was a decade or so before yours–that was a bit of admittedly failed humor. Perhaps if you imagine it being told by a racially insensitive robot, it will seem funnier.
    As for the rest, you have certainly schooled me–the kids still say that, right–in a most unreserved manner from which I couldn’t possibly recover. I apologize for any asparagus I might have allegedly cast upon “Apt Pupil” or “Double Dragon,” a film any Hollywood player would be proud to call his own, provided that said Hollywood player was Jerry Colonna.
    As for the rest of your logical and even-tempered argument, I believe I speak for at least a couple of people here by offering this in tribute

  71. Don Murphy says:

    Earl Now the kids say you were PWNED which you were, totally, and your pathetic attempts at followup humor (asparagus?) are also teh suck.

  72. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Good news for LexG’s Hooker and Gin Fund!

  73. Don Murphy says:

    HookerS- plural….sheesh!

  74. Don Murphy says:

    Whoops- I notice I made the initial mistake and hang my head in shame….

  75. Foamy Squirrel says:

    I think you might be a bit optimistic if you think $15 is going to get hookerS (plural) and gin.

  76. Don Murphy says:

    For Lex it’s a start….

  77. Cadavra says:

    Isn’t it getting a little crowded in there with so many of you guys in the sandbox?

  78. Foamy Squirrel says:

    If there’s enough room for all the voices in my head, then there’s plenty for everyone else.
    Don – don’t suppose I prevail on you to give Hasbro a nudge on my behalf? Liz in subsidiary licensing has been dragging her feet on a project of mine for over a month now. Things were much faster back when they were being repped by CAA…

  79. Don Murphy says:


  80. storymark says:

    I must admit, much to my surprise, I’ve become a bit of a fan of these OCD tantrums.

  81. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Eh… I wouldn’t ask you to stick your neck out terribly far for Anonymous Internet Dickhead #5,672.
    If you’re cool with just saying “I’d appreciate it if you doublecheck this enquiry” then I’ll drop you some details through the MrDon hotmail, otherwise I’ll just continue gritting my teeth.

  82. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Foamy just let it go. No one will front for your spec of MARTIAN MATTER : THE MOVIE

  83. Don Murphy says:

    It’s cool

  84. Don Murphy says:

    “The fact of the matter is the book is so popular that the performance of the film defies the pattern for the normal foreign-language film,” says Music Box’s Ed Arentz.,0,2051308.story
    Now everybody please EAT ME!

  85. jeffmcm says:

    Such a charmer.

Leonard Klady's Friday Estimates
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