Weekend Estimates by Year End Klady
The odd shape of this holiday weekend seems to have thrown a lot of number crunchers for a loop. No big deal… odd weekend with a Friday New Years Eve. I’m still trying to figure out the odd drop – compared to how other films grossed on Friday – for Black Swan on Friday, which there was no sign of on Saturday or Sunday.
It’s a sign of how stupid – a harsh, but accurate word in this case – box office coverage is when it obsesses on whether True Grit beat Little Fockers. It’s another one of those things in modern movie coverage that dumbs down the conversation, especially in this case. #1 Fockers is a relative flop, about $60 million behind its predecessor’s gross at the end of the holiday. #2 Grit is a an epic success for The Coens… for Westerns… the 11th best New Year’s Day gross in history. Talking about their rank is, well, rank.
In terms of comparing last year’s New Year’s weekend to this years, again, apples and oranges… but not because the world has changed, but simply because the product released this holiday had a clear absence of mega-movies. No Avatar. No Sherlock Holmes. No Chipmunks sequel. Those films meant three December movies over $135 million at this moment in their history (including $352m for Avatar)… and this year, none. There are only two $100 million-plus grossers from December so far… Tron Legacy and Fockers. And the only other film really aspiring to that kind of number over the holiday was Narnia 3… which will just barely get to $100 million after another few weeks. (Keep in mind that most of these titles will drop in the mid-40s – mid-50s next weekend, post-holiday.)
But the flip side is that this December is a lot deeper. There are eleven films with weekend grosses of over $5 million this weekend… and only seven last year.
Obviously, the marketplace can expand more than it has this season. But part of what happens is that opportunity changes when you have the mega-movies running and a multiplex that might have a second screen running a popular per-screen film like The Fighter or The King’s Speech has that screen occupied by the fourth screen for that mega-movie. Also, if you look at the distribution decisions, you see some titles being a bit more aggressive in this slot than they might have been knowing that there were more giants in the field and that the fight to get the best screens would be that much harder.
This is one of those areas where exhibitors are a little schizophrenic. Having recently had the conversation with John Fithian, head of NATO, I know that he knows that a broader range of films succeeding in the marketplace and having longer legs is good news for exhibitors. On the other hand, exhibition is the one area where the number of tickets sold really does matter, as there is more money in concessions than in 3D bumping, if it means fewer people in the theater. Likewise with a strong, more balanced field of movies than a few mega-titles at the top, sucking all the air out of the room, but delivering a lot more bodies to the theaters.
It’s a real issue… live for today or live for the future of the industry. The answer is almost always the short-sighted one, for both distributors and exhibitors. The problem is, you can’t pick your spots. So it’s hard to say that you object to studios wanting to try day-n-date while you are perfectly happy pushing films though your theaters faster than excrement through a Christmas goose. Plenty of people think I am a finger wagger… but I simply understand that there is a price to pay for short-term thinking… it’s the difference between morality and situational morality… all the same.
But I digress…
Burlesque looks like it will be the lowest grossing Screen Gems movie of 2010… while being the most expensive film the division ever made.
In Oscar chatter, the True Grit train moves forward with muscle, The Fighter is solid, if not spectacular, Black Swan is in tweener land, open wide enough to be saturating their strongest markets (1553 screens), but not full out, and The King’s Speech is dragging its feel in anticipation of awards more than the others, expanding to 700 screens to take what advantage they could of the holiday.
CURRENT DOMESTIC GROSSES OF CONTENDERS
Toy Story 3 – $415m
Inception – $293m
Shutter Island – $128m
The Social Network – $93.2m
The Town – $92.1m
True Grit – $86.7
Black Swan -$47.3
The Fighter -$46.4m
The King’s Speech – $22.7m
The Kids Are All Right – $20.8m
127 Hours – $10.4m
Get Low – $9.1m
Winter’s Bone – $6.2m
Rabbit Hole – $420k
Blue Valentine – $270k
Another Year – $170k
Biutiful – n/a
All of my critics who’ve accused me of underestimating Coen Bros. grosses should feel chagrined right about now ’cause I got this sucker right.
Said that “TG” would become the Coen’s top-grossing film by the end of the holiday weekend, and it has. The only question now is just how high this sucker is gonna fly. Could $200-million be within reach by the time awards season is done (i.e., late February)?
Glad to see that “The Fighter” is finally picking up some steam, and the steady-as-she-goes “Tourist” continues to amuse and–okay, I said it–
delight. I’m not a huge fan of the Depp/Jolie starrer, but it’s pretty impressive that a movie everyone had written off as dead after its mediocre opening weekend could ever reach $55-million. Factor in the int’l grosses (which are sure to be considerably higher) and an add’l $15-million (or so) domestic, and it’s not looking like the gargantuan flop most had expected. (Sony’s “How Do You Know” and Fox’s “Gulliver’s Travels,” however, are entirely different stories. Yowza!)
Finally watched my “Casino Jack” screener last nite, and was pleasantly surprised. It’s a lot better than the mediocre reviews/grosses (and zero awards traction it’s accrued so far) would have indicated. While I would have loved to seen “David Mamet’s ‘Casino Jack'” (Jack and his boys club reminded me of characters out of a Mamet play), nobody here has anything to be ashamed of: it’s a briskly paced, rambunctiously entertaining and juicily acted romp. Would a different distributer (say, Weinstein or Roadside Attractions) have made a difference? Just asking.
Nice, if inconclusive bow for “Blue Valentine,” but “Rabbit Hole,” sadly, continues to struggle.
MM, fellow critics were too busy praising the Coens to realize how accurate your prediction turned out to be. Very impressive sir. Very impressive.
Was it really that bold of a prediction to suggest that a PG-13 remake of a popular John Wayne movie starring a well-known recent Oscar winner plus Matt Damon would gross more than $74 million? I know there aren’t too many Western box office smashes, but considering the pedigree, it doesn’t seem like predicting that True Grit would be a success was extremely outlandish or anything like that. And even if it’s holding decently, isn’t $60 or $65 million total for The Tourist still a pretty huge failure, domestically speaking?
Can someone help me out…
How was Burlesque SG’s most expensive film? I didn’t see it, but from the ads it looked like the whole movie took place on a single soundstage/nightclub set.
Did anybody prtedict True Grit would outrgross The Tourist, Gulliver’s Travels AND Yogi Bear?
It’s 2011 and Nobody Stills Knows Nothin’.
Was Yogi Bear ever deemed a sure thing? Sites like The Numbers said it was hard to read whether or not Yogi Bear would be a breakout, Alvin and the Chipmunks type success or a flop. The Tourist never looked good and from the moment TV spots and trailers debuted, it seemed like the consensus was that disappointing box office was inevitable. Gulliver’s Travels is the one that seemed most like a sure thing. Maybe I’m misreading things. Are most analysts and industry folk and the like truly shocked by the way True Grit is performing?
I wouldn’t call Burlesque a bomb. $40 million domestic is better than Crossroads and Glitter, FWIW.
Did anyone really expect a lot more than that? Aguilera isn’t as popular as she used to be and Cher…well, I’ll just stop there.
Lane: BURLESQUE had several splashy production numbers, and yes, a lot more than one set. I believe the budget was $55 million, which is actually quite reasonable for a film of that scope, and the money’s certainly onscreen.
Also, I think it needs to be noted that the original TRUE GRIT’s fame stems almost entirely from the fact that it won Wayne an Oscar. Without that, it would be about as well-known today as THE SONS OF KATIE ELDER (another Wayne/Hathaway western that almost every responsible film historian considers vastly superior).
Cadavra: And, better still, it inspired Four Brothers.
GULLIVERS TRAVELS looked awful. Like one of Black’s fake trailers in TROPIC THUNDER. But then so did LITTLE FOCKERS. Irony!
Cadavra, you’re right on the money, and one could also argue that many people who read Portis’ novel way back when were likely disappointed with the Hathaway version. They certainly would have more right to complain than some petulant spaz who is offended that a book was adapted again by more talented filmmakers and insists on calling it a “remake” when that’s not the correct classification.
Spaz? Moi? You wished death on someone. Fuck you and whatever you think, and it is a remake because anyone who knows anything about westerns could tell you that The Duke’s version was true to the book as well. Go look for the articles, they are out there, but you are a Coens Fan-Bitch. You really believe all that shit you post about them, so continue to live in a world where a remake is not a remake. Sure, it’s an ADAPTATION of the NOVEL. Sure it is and this is why I loathe coen brother fans.
That douche aside, Paul, a lot of people thought Yogi would be another Chimpmunks. Gulliver’s always had the stank on it for some reason, yeah it’s probably god awful, but how would anyone know because hardly anyone saw it, and go look at recent Western grosses Paul. This one, I believe, will make double any recent Western. Of course, Cowboys Vs Aliens will most likely beat True Grits gross but that depends on if you consider it a true Western or not.
As far as I could tell Gulliver’s Travel was mentioned in the same conversation as Night of the Museum. Jack Black is a nickelodeon regular, School of Rock is immensely popular with the tween set, and he got much kid cred from Kung Fu Panda, so on paper, GT is supposed to be a slam dunk. Its actually a bit baffling that this one isn’t even a mediocre hit, at least $75M like Yogi Bear, given the best box atmosphere in the Christmas season.
And I dont buy Movieman`s spin on Tourist`s $55M. Isn`t Johnny Depp supposed to be the biggest box office star in the world, and Anjelina Jolie arguably the biggest female box office star. She just did Salt to over $100M and JD did Alice in Wonderland to over $1B and you get $55M from pairing them up in a big, extravagant, flick. This isn`t some risky project with a tough subject matter where your leads are playing unlikeable characters like Seven Pounds. It may reclaim ground internationally but at $37M, I don`t know how much markets it has left to be released in, but for now, this one`s a turd.
And I do think True Grit is a true shocker, Jeff Bridges is not big box office by any means, Matt Damon, while a draw has had a mediocre run this year with Green Zone and with another acclaimed director in Clint Eastwood who has a better track record at the box office than the Coen`s ,and his presence did not help Hereafter that much. People seem to forget that No Country was a box office surprise in itself at $74M, and now we are taking it for granted that surprises will continue to repeat themselves. I don`t think that anybody can truly say that remaking a John Wayne western is the formula for a $100m grosser.
Having said that, I`m sure some other studio is as we speak, looking for The Sons of Katie Elder to be it`s next acquisition and salivating at the prospect of bringing some of these popular stars in a showdown, think Kevin Costner, George Clooney, Kurt Russell, Gary Oldman, Mickey Rourke, all with guns blazing.
Is Shutter Island still really a contender? It was a solid movie and Scorsese is always a possible nominee, but hasn’t the movie pretty much been forgotten by now?
If you want to vote for DiCaprio and his thinking man’s blockbuster, you vote for Inception.
If you want to vote for the intense descent-into-madness mindfuckery, you vote for Black Swan.
I could have swore some studio has been trying to remake the Sons of Katie Elder for like 16 years or some crazy shit. Four Brothers is basically that film but a real remake would probably do some bank. I just wonder if we start getting a shitload of westerns next year?
True Grit will do 200 mill and more I bet.
IO, I said that I realized Westerns don’t exactly light up the box office. But when you consider everything (the rating, the star having just won Best Actor, a very famous co-star, well-known Oscar winning directors, a remake of a popular movie), it seems to me that it had a lot working in its favor, more than enough to make up for the genre’s lack of recent success. I would never have guessed that it would make more than $74 million in a week or 2, but I am not surprised at all that it’s the Coen Brothers highest grossing film.
IO: I took another look at the 1969 True Grit the night before I saw the new version. And while I think the Coen Brothers’ version is superior in every way — the ’69 original is indeed more faithful to Portis’ book than I had remembered. And a lot more faithful than many people (here and elsewhere) currently are acknowledging. In fact, I’ll go one step further: Glen Campbell’s much-maligned performance as Le Boeuf actually works quite well in the context of Hathaway’s film. Unfortunately, Campbell kinda-sorta blew his chances for a movie career the following year when he starred (alongside Kim Darby again) in another Charles Portis adaptation, the deservedly obscure Norwood.
Paul: very good points.
Torpid: it does seem likely because it’s not like The Green Hornet and True Grit share the same audience or anything.
Joe: Thank you Joe.
Guess I “wished death” on the wrong person. At least Lex (well, his persona, anyway) was self-aware enough to acknowledge his miserable meta-life inbetween his crazy rants.
IO, however, has gone over the edge into total blind delusion.
Poland, you dumbass how is a profitable movie like “Fockers” a flop? Will someone not make money here?
You want to kid youself and us that the third film was ever going to be as successful as “Meet The Fockers”?
Pro-tip: One of these two was the sequel to “Meet the Parents” and the other one wasn’t.
Paul- I seem to recall a number of bloggers on this site mocking me for even suggesting that “TG” would become the Coens’ top-grossing film by the end of the holiday season (i.e., today), let aloneby the end of its run. (Some Hot Bloggers seem to have an exaggerated sense of the Bros. box-office history.) For me it looked like a slam-dunk from the start: all the planets seemed to be aligned for this kind of (Coen) breakout success. Let’s just say that it was a long time (25 years) coming.
If “Tourist” winds up at $70 domestically, I’d consider that a Pyrrhic victory of sorts. Yeah, it cost more than it should have, but for a movie whose death was gleefully reported in certain quarters as early as December 11th (the day after it opened), the fact that the damn thing actually played throughout the holiday season is kind of a noteworthy achievement. And anyone who buys the party line about Depp and Jolie being “the biggest movie stars on the planet” should take a closer look at their actual b.o. histories. Unless they’re in a mass-marketed
franchise/tentpole (the “Pirates” movies; “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”/”Alice in Wonderland;” “Wanted;” “Salt;” the “Tomb Raider” series; etc.), things start looking a little spotty (“Finding Neverland,” “Changeling;” “Beyond Borders;” “Sweeney Todd;” “Secret Window;” “Mighty Heart;” “Sky Captain;” et al). In comparison with the numbers for some of those films, “The Tourist” figures actually look kind of acceptable.
I know where Bulldog is coming from: I’d heard the same “Night at the Museum” comparisons with “Gulliver,” too (and the movie really does have many of the same virtues/problems as the “Museum” flicks as far as I’m concerned). But that was months before it opened. By early December, the flop sweat was already visible. (Didn’t Dave allude to “train wreck” rumblings for both “GT” and “Yogi Bear” in early December?)
Personally I’m surprised that “Yogi” has done as–relatively–well as it has. My personal theory is that the reason it underperformed (and “GT” flopped) was that there were simply too many (kid-centric) movies released at the same time…and in a down economy. The brand names (Disney/”Tangled;” “Tron;” “Potter;” even “Narnia 3”) all did pretty good. The rest had to scramble for table scraps. The disparity in grosses certainly wasn’t because (say) the “Chipmunks” movies were so much better–or had less obscure (to 21st century tykes) source material–than “GT” or “Yogi.”
Thanks, IO.
Blind delusion? You just had a respected critic pretty much piss all over your assumptions. Whose being blindly delusional towards something? Hmmm?
Seriously though Laz, go eat a pizza. Do something else with yourself instead of posting on this blog because much like Jeff MacMahon before you… YOU SUCK AT THE INTERNET!
Proman, you forgot to add; “THIS IS FUCKING HATE SPEECH DAVID!” Seriously that’s the best fucking line anyone has ever uttered to David… EVER!
Proman/Maxim… I’m thinking this must be a character you’re doing. Defending How Do You Know and now Fockers 3. Funny.
…let’s all just pray that the success of the “Grit” remake doesn’t encourage lesser talents to get their grubby little hands on 1969’s other iconic westerns.
I can just imagine a PG-13 “reimagining of “The Wild Bunch;” or a ‘tweener-friendly “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” (starring Taylor Lautner, that blonde dude Sam from “Glee” and Miley Cyrus perhaps?)
I haven’t read Portis’ novel, so I’m just going on what I’ve previously read. And Joe still didn’t say that Hathaway’s film was more faithful than the Coens version.
You, on the other hand, disregard readily available facts and commonly-held truths. And when they’re pointed out to you, you steamroll over them with another hyperbolic comment that fails to admit your error. A remake is a remake only when it fits your illogical and contradictory rules.
You’re an idiot.
MM: I am shocked we have not had multiple Wild Bunch remakes over the last 42 years. It would have made crazy sense in the freaking 80s, if they could have gone all EXPENDABLES back then, but there’s too many iconic westerns just sitting there almost asking to be remade. Even if the remakes would be almost certainly be unwarranted.
David: Reel back the fucking hate speech man. REEL IT BACK!
Laz: I am an idiot because I am not bending to your definitions and not accepting your truths as a Coens fans. They aren’t my guys, I could give or take their films, but you are responding the way that you do because of being a FAN. You are defending your people, good for you, but let’s not act as if it’s for any other reason. It’s a remake, It’s going to go down as a remake, and when the Oscar voters do not give it BP. It will most likely be because it’s a remake.
With your idiot comment: you lack the god given sense of a pack mule. You are nothing more than an empty vessel. Go see if you can find your soul and come back when you do not respond like an acerbic monkey.
Seriously, you don’t get the point of hyperbole, and you are giving me shit? Really? You also lack reading comprehension during your furor over someone slamming your beloved, not even trying anymore, Coen Brothers: “IO: I took another look at the 1969 True Grit the night before I saw the new version. And while I think the Coen Brothers’ version is superior in every way — the ’69 original is INDEED MORE FAITHFUL to Portis’ book than I had remembered. And A LOT MORE FAITHFUL than many people (here and elsewhere) currently are acknowledging.”
Get bent, douche.
You said no remake has won BP. You then claimed The Departed wasn’t a remake, even though its only source material was another film.
You also claimed the Coens always get a free pass. I alerted you to the low critical reception and Coen fan response to Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, and still you keep repeating your foolish proclamation.
Anyone who has the reading comprehension level of a 7th grader could be on this blog and see how wrong you are.
Laz: The DEPARTED is adapted and I believe it was nominated for BEST ADAPTED SCREEN PLAY. If you go and watch Infernal Affairs. You will realize that if it were a complete and utter remake of INFERNAL AFFAIRS.. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER MOVIE! Adapted is different, especially when it’s a foreign film, but feel free to feel the same way about My Fair Lady.
Again, you missed the point of the free pass and I explained it to Froggy in another thread with my Wachowskis analogy. The Coens can make shit film after shit film but because they are the Coens, they will get way MORE FUCKING SLACK THAN ANY OTHER FILMMAKERS WORKING TODAY! That’s the point and I have made it at least five times.
Finally, again, YOU ARE A COENS FAN! Why not be a fan of David Fincher? HE AT LEAST TRIES! Seriously, you are a Coens fan pissed at someone being down right frustrated with those guys getting more slack than people more deserving. It’s my fucking opinion, asshole. If you have a problem with my opinion that’s fine and good, but much like the shit you post on here from your chubby little fingers… THERE’S NO RIGHT OR WRONG! Even 7th graders with reading comprehension troubles can figure that out.
..while I’ll grant you the idea of, say, Tarantino remaking “The Wild Bunch” is mightily intriguing, I’m scared he might have the Holden and Ryan characters yammer away on horseback about Madonna videos or Big Macs while dodging bullets.
And/or stick an old Brian Eno or Iggy Pop tune into the final shootout/bloodbath. (Hey, David Bowie’s 1982 “Cat People” somehow made it’s way into WW II in “Inglourious Basterds,” didn’t it?)
For the record: I didn’t claim that Hathaway’s version was more faithful to its source material than the Coen Brothers’ version. (Actually, the Coens’ version sticks somewhat closer to the book, to the point of repeating the book’s melancholy conclusion.) But the Hathaway version has gotten something of a bum rap. As IO and others have pointed out, Hathaway’s version (like the Coens’ film) takes some dialogue practically verbatim from Portis’ book.
BTW: Wasn’t there talk just a few years ago that someone was going to do a modern-day version of The Wild Bunch involving drug smugglers?
Now an “adaptation” of the Peckinpah masterpiece is one thing. And the drug smuggler hook sounds kind of cool actually.
A watered-down (inevitably PG-13) “remake” by a McG (or another lesser light) is something else entirely.
If you remove the three Pirates of the Caribbean pictures and three of the biggest Tim Burton fantasy pictures (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sleepy Hollow and Alice in Wonderland), then Johnny Depp’s biggest grossers are Public Enemies at $97 million and Chocolat at $71.5 million, a number that The Tourist may pass. Yes, it cost too much, but this was not in Depp’s safe zone, so it should not have been expected to perform like his big-budget fantasy pictures. As for Jolie, if it tops $66 million, it becomes her biggest grosser that isn’t a cartoon (Shark’s Tale, Beowulf, Kung Fu Panda) or a pure action picture. Again, the film cost too much, but it’s a solid entry in their respective box office filmographies.
I never know how to read those theater average numbers for limited releases unless DP explains them… Are those Blue Valentine numbers good or bad?
Was gonna see it the other day in Hollywood, but per the online “seating chart,” every single seat was full. If ever there was a type of movie that doesn’t lend itself to a PACKED CAPACITY ROWDY CROWD CHOMPING ON POPCORN, it’s the morbid Blue Valentine/Rabbit Hole/Biutiful type stuff. Just odd to me to sit in a PACKED ROOM watching abject misery with everyone texting and chattering.
That’s the kinda stuff where I want to hit a matinee with like two other middle-aged sadsacks nine rows away so I can get choked up like a total douche.
Agree with you Scott on the Depp numbers, which is why I raised the point. Sometime ago on this blog there was a thread arguing about who is the biggest box office star between Will Smith and Depp, and in my mind, box office star means opening anything you’re in. Depp’s numbers come from franchises and remakes of well established properties.
Slightly disagree on Jolie in one regard, while this is not truly an action flick, Jolie is still the action figure here playing against depp’s fish out of water character. I think the filmakers were relying on Jolie’s action cred to sell the action aspects of this film. It wasn’t being sold as a drama, but sort of hybrid. She was no damsel in distress in Tourist.
I agree with you that just looking at their respective b/o performances this is not a disastrous result, but it’s also a bit of the expectation game at work. When Knight & Day and Bounty Hunter open to $20m and Depp/Jolie open to $16m and has the benefit of the Christmas season to help cushion your numbers and you’re struggling at $55M, you gotta go “damn, if it wasn’t for Christmas, this thing might not have beaten Killers.”
Does anyone for a second doubt that if Will Smith were in the Depp role, that this thing wouldn’t be over $100m by now?
I am not sure if people would buy Will Smith in the same role as Depp. Big Willie is Big Willie but he does not have Depp’s level of sex appeal, and The Tourist’s trailers sold it as “HOT SEXY PEOPLE IN DANGER”. I am not sure if it’s the same film with Big Willie Style would work because Big Willie plays vulnerable and steamy about as well as Keanu plays a villain.
IO is now using Fincher as a stick to beat the Coens with. He at least tries?? Are you fucking kidding me? I love the guy’s stuff, and was one of the biggest defenders of Benjamin Button, but he’s remaking a foreign film that just came out. That is some weak-ass shit. I’ve got more respect for the Coens revisiting material from 40 years ago than Fincher for doing an American version of a huge international blockbuster which doesn’t need one, not to mention returning to the serial killer well for a THIRD TIME.
You’re a piece of work. And if the Coens are getting a “free pass” after making “shit film after shit film” (both inaccurate), what kind of gold ticket does Clint Eastwood have?
He’s Fincher. Fincher makes everything he does vital and important. Why do you think people are praising TSN as much? It’s not the script as much as it’s the way Fincher and co. made that film. Seriously, if you think his version of the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo will not blow the Swedish film out of the water, then obviously we are living in two different worlds.
Oh yeah, he’s EASTWOOD. Come on, you should know the difference between the real innovators and EASTWOOD!
It probably would. But there is no way that Smith in Pirates turns that franchise into a billions grossing series. Ditto for Alice in Wonderland. Pirates is what it is because of one reason: Johnny Depp. He is the only actor who can make the claim that a franchise guranteed to gross over 800 million ww would not exist without him. And don’t give me Daniel Radcliffe or olando bloom shit. Potter, rings, and pirates would have grossed the same without them. Pirates 4 will prove this.
You know what i loved about the Pirates 4 trailer. The number of practical shots i saw. I know there’s going to be a boatload of special FX in a movie like PotC, but the trailer was cut with a lot of nice, practical shots. That is very encouraging.
Yes but Keira Knightley >>> Penelope Cruz.
By a ZILLION TRILLION BILLION fucking miles.
Cruz isn’t even sexy.
Cruz is a thousand times hotter than Knightly. Nothing against Keira but c’mon Cruz is one of the hottest people on the planet, Keira’s a cutie who can pout.
Smith doesn’t have sex appeal. Christ, have you ever talked to a woman? They love the guy. Plus, as someone mentioned above, Depp’s sex appeal doesn’t sell tickets, its his family films that make him huge and noone is going weak in the knees over Willy Wonka. If Smith had stayed attached to The Truth about Charlie that would have easily topped 100 mil instead of tanking as it did.
And they need to leave the Wild Bunch the hell alone. There are only a handful of movies I would consider untouchable and Bunch is certainly on that list. If Tarantino needs to make a western he should go back to the Leonard well and make Gunsights, its more tailored to his tastes. If they need remake recognition Valdez is Coming would be a good candidate.
Cruz’s nose-to-mouth distance has always bothered me.
Plus Spanish chicks aren’t sexy.
KEIRA POWER. Cruz does have better hair though, and I like the height. But she’s too Spanish.
Knightly’s skin-to-bone distance is my problem. Plus Cruz has actual breasts.
Which is of course secondary to the fact that Cruz is a much better actor.
LexG, how about Salma Hayek? Too Spanish as well?
have you just met lex? salma’s boobs have more fat in them than the stew’s whole body
Penelope Cruz is basically a little person. Give me a Brit with some height any day of he week over a tiny little person whose sun I would block by standing in front of her. Cruz is also not even close to as good an actor as Knightley in English.
Lex and IO: By any chance, have you two guys ever seen Monument Avenue?
The Ted Demme movie? Yes, like it quite a bit, especially the first third of it, which is just basically Leary and his dipshit crew rolling around getting loaded and doing movie trivia on endless late nights in their rundown Boston suburb… Movie doesn’t add up to a whole lot overall, but the sense of place and that looking-for-trouble at 3am low-stakes petty crime vibe is pretty perfect.
Wait, what brought THAT up? In any case, Ted Demme seemed to get better and better. (Life is pretty terrific, too.) Sad that he died so young.
Wait, Penelope Cruz is a LITTLE PERSON? Always seems pretty coltish and tall and lanky to me, in that Hathaway way. I do like her much better than Salma. Actually I like Cruz fine, she just doesn’t ring my bell for some strange reason even I can’t explain. The accent is part of it.
Whenever I hear you and IO and a few other people on this blog talk about what women are and what aren’t hot, I feel a bit like Bobby, the character Denis Leary plays in Monument Ave.
For the benefit of those who have never seen the film: Early on, there’s a scene where Bobby and some buddies are drinking beer and sniffing cocaine in Bobby’s living room when their long-and-winding conversation turns to Hollywood babes and their physical attributes. After someone completes a graphically detailed account of what he’d do with Michelle Pfieffer or Jamie Lee Curtis under the right circumstances, Bobby abruptly ends the wishdreaming by bluntly announcing that none of the women they’re talking about would ever, not even in a million years, have anything to do with any of them. A friend disagrees: “Hey, you never know.” To which Bobby replies: “Yeah, I know.”
HAHAHAHAHA! AWESOME scene.
Lex, yeah, she’s maybe got an inch or two on Shakira and Shakira is 4’11”! Nevertheless Joe, THAT IS SOME FUCKING HATE SPEECH RIGHT THERE :D!
BTW: I know Leary has had great success with the Rescue Me series, but I’m a little disappointed that he hasn’t had more of a film career. He was terrific in Monument Ave., had a great supporting part in Suicide Kings, was effectively cast against type in True Crime, and made a lasting impression in a couple of flawed but interesting indies (Love Walked In and Double Whammy) that never made it very far past the fest circuit. Back in the day, he would have been perfectly cast in film noir thrillers.
Also: I was including myself in that “any of them” reference. LOL. Even though I was a perfect gentleman with Salma back in the day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBfBh7rwG98
He was also terrific in the Thomas Crown remake. And managed to be genuinely menacing in JUDGMENT NIIIIIIIGHT, despite being a motormouth Irish comedian playing the most fearsome gangster in hip-hopped-out urban war zone. Man that movie rules.
Great in True Crime, and still inconceivable that his wife was cheating on him with Clint, who looked 20 years older in that than he does in 2010.
Cruz floundered a bit in English language roles since people didn’t really know what to do with her. But in the last few years, Vicky Christina and especially Elegy she matched all the fine work she had done in her native language.
I cannot recommend Elegy enough, everyone should really seek it out. Lex, I think it would be especially pertinent to you since it is about an ageing guy who hooks up with a 22 year old and the anxiety of it causes him to sink the relationship. Fantastic cast and criminaly overlooked by audiences and award-givers.
I liked a lot of things about True Crime, a very under-rated film that deserves some sort of rediscovery. I guess what I liked most of all is Clint Eastwood — still typecast by many of my liberal brethren as some sort of hard-core, party-line conservative — making a movie that is unmistakably — well, if not anti-capital punishment, than profoundly skeptical of capital punishment.
Leary had the Wahlberg role in Departed but RM scheduling interferred. Wahl was fine in the role but I can just imagine Leary delivering the lines with a lot more conviction.
Joe, HOW DID YOU SEE PAST THE RACK OF POTATO CHIPS? DID YA BUY SOME STEAK SAUCE? Let’s do SPEED ZOO!
I want to really like True Crime, but man, that thing is loaded with some odd, mundane details. You’re watching an endless 2.5 hour movie with endless scenes about where a rack of chips was placed at the time of the crime. Pump that shit up, Clint.
Wait, is Penelope Cruz playing 22 in Elegy? Again, I’m not piling on her, ’cause she’s cool (just not hot)… but she’s never, ever looked a day under 30.
Yeah I dig Cruz as well and good on her to master another language.
I’d like her to master something else, if you know what I mean.
YEP YEP.
HIYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Joe, its funny that they choose Pfieffer and Curtis since they were always the subjects of “what that guy?” astonishment due to their attachments with Fisher Stevens and Christopher Guest.
re: leary, it’s weird to think after a career that didn’t seem to quite live up to his potential, denis’ legacy to an entire generation – and perhaps his most well-known (and maybe even most-beloved?) ‘role’ – could be his turn as ‘diego’ in the ice-age series, in which he is just terrific (particularly in the first one – i fell in love with diego thanks to denis and i still am after all these years and crappier sequels. i just adore denis)
Hact: Maybe that’s what gave the guys hope? LOL.
Leah, Diego is rather awesome, so let us go with that angle.
In fact, I’ll go one step further: Glen Campbell’s much-maligned performance as Le Boeuf actually works quite well in the context of Hathaway’s film.
I second that, Joe. But I still think Campbell’s greatest contribution to the 1969 “TG” was his lovely, if oft-derided theme song. It’s one of the few instances where incorporating the movie title into the song works without seeming cheesy or ridiculous. No knock against the (also quite lovely) song used in the closing credits of “TG” 2010, but I would’ve loved it if the Coens had gotten Jack White (or another contempo artist with Coen-approved hipster cred) to do a remake.
Dennis Leary has irritated me since his Bill Hicks rip-off MTV bullshit. But that’s me;]
I’ve never bought that claim that Leary ripped off Bill Hicks. The guy died 20 years ago. Shouldn’t Leary’s career have died also decades ago for lack of new material?
Bill Hicks is not dead. He faked his death, got some surgery, and became some radio guy. Seriously, google it.