Saw the House with a clock in the wall, last weekend at a preview, good fun film (in my opinion)

Happytime Murders has made 24 M worldwide, which is totally abysmal.

It had a budget of 40 M. Where was the money spent ? What a major bomb ! Embarrassing for everyone involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I kind of hope that The Happytime Murders puts an end to Melissa MaCarthy's movie career as an unfiltered leading star, producer, writer, whatever. It probably won't, but it might slow her down. She makes these movies with her husband and its like no one can tell the difference between comedy and pure raunchiness. Even when they start out well, they just go too far, which is fine if it were funny, but its not.

I think Happyland was sold to the studio along the lines of Roger Rabbit, which still is a brilliant bit of film. Instead of mixing in characters from a cartoon world, let's use puppets. I mean it could be amusing if you had a smart script that adults could find funny while still bringing their children. But not as a R rated movie with all sorts of bad taste scenes included.

From the look of the reviews Happyland is going down as at least the worst movie of the decade. Now that alone will probably increase the audience because a movie that awful has to be seen, right? No, not really, not if McCarthy's in it.

"The Predator" has so far made a paltry 40 M in the U.S. and 94 M worldwide (total)

The film's budget ? 88 M.

That is the key to these new films it seems. If made for $25M - $50M, all mainstream, wide release films at least break even. But when the budget is $50M - $200M, not counting promotions and advertising, there is the danger of losing a lot of money, even though the films may make $300M plus.

Take The House With A Clock In Its Walls, #1 this weekend. It was made for $40M. It did better than expected at $28M. It is regarded as a success that will make enough money by the end to maybe spawn a sequel. Yet 28M is a far cry from Solo's opening weekend, which is regarded as a bomb because the film went way over budget and will not make money despite an impressive worldwide total. That's why box office lists and numbers are not all equal and don't tell the whole story just by themselves.

BTW I saw THWACIIW yesterday and it was a fun film for what it was. The kids in the theatre seemed to enjoy it and there were more unaccompanied adults then I thought. Maybe they read the books. I never did, so I won't use that as an excuse to go and see what is aimed at 12 year olds.

It's a harmless film, not really too scary, and not all of the CGI scenes look that good, maybe better on kids. I guess that's why it stayed under $40M, not state of the art Star Wars effects. Black and Blanchett are a good pair for the most part. Blanchett in particular is on a roll since Thor, Ocean's 8 and now House. I couldn't sit through most of her serious art movies, but I guess dumbed down works for me. Anyway find a kid or pretend you have a kid and go, IMHO.

They estimate that SOLO cost about 250 M to make and another 150 M to promote, and the worldwide gross has been less than 400 M...

So a real financial failure there.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
They estimate that SOLO cost about 250 M to make and another 150 M to promote, and the worldwide gross has been less than 400 M...

So a real financial failure there.

Which is why Disney has suddenly said its slowing down on the Star Wars movies. Nothing like red ink to kill the buzz.

BTW, regarding my likening the House With A Clock etc., I'm an adult and the horror is mild. Some people think it should be a PG and maybe it is too scary in some places for kids under 8 or those easily frightened. Eli Roth, who is a director whose work I previously haven't liked, did say that it is meant to be kid horror. Roth was one of the forerunners of torture-porn with Hostel and the even worse Green Inferno, but I guess he sees more upside breaking into mainstream films now. This one is his biggest opening take.

Just wanted to put in that kiddie disclaimer so nobody gets mad at me.

"Venom" (the Spider-Man villain) has his movie coming out this weekend. We'll see how it does. From what I have read, it seems like there have been alot of negative reviews.

I enjoyed The House With A Clock In Its Walls and I'm not 12 either. Watched "A Star in Born" last night and that has to be a HUGE hit

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
"Venom" (the Spider-Man villain) has his movie coming out this weekend. We'll see how it does. From what I have read, it seems like there have been alot of negative reviews.

Yeah its getting like one star in most places, but they were still predicting 60M last I heard. I really don't think Venom is a great character to make your "hero". I think they are trying to cash in on the Hulk and Deadpool comic vibes, but Venom is pretty dumb looking and he eats people.

Its interesting that the film is officially made by Sony and only given as associated with Marvel, like Marvel doesn't want to claim it as part of their collective universe. This is one I'm skipping on for now.

Meanwhile A Star Is Born is getting great reviews. This is literally the umpteenth time they have done this same story under the same title in movies, but under 30's have probably never seen any of them.

I haven’t been to the cinema for a year now - really falling out of love with the whole thing, despite loving film. Anyway that’s a rant for another day.

I will be venturing out for the new Halloween film in a few weeks and will be interested to see how well that does. It’s tracking to make good money, has some good reviews and strong buzz and the trailers look VERY good. It looks like a rare occurrence where the feel of the original film has actually been captured. Haven’t been as eager to see a new film in a long time.

Well Venom over shot its $60M prediction and pulled in an October record of $80M on opening weekend. Not bad for film with lousy reviews and a minimal advertising campaign. Image if it was a good movie.

By comparison A Star Is Born with great reviews pulled in $40M. Not bad, but this is why we keep getting comic book characters.

I really don't know if going to the movies is the only entertainment out there, if we have way more people going, or if its just because the prices are so inflated, but like I said someplace in here, nearly every week we are breaking a box office record this year.

That being the case, I would be surprised if the reimaged Halloween is not a smash hit, no matter what it ultimately looks like, which should be an old-fashion slasher. I like both Jamie Lee Curtis and Judy Greer, so if I watch it eventually it will be for those two actresses.

Looks like "Venom" is doing better than expected. So far, 377 M worldwide on a budget of 100 M

While "First Man" (about the 1969 moon landing) is not doing so well. Only 24 M gross worldwide on a 59 M budget

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
While "First Man" (about the 1969 moon landing) is not doing so well. Only 24 M gross worldwide on a 59 M budget

I didn't think First Man would be a subject that draws a big audience. It worked for Apollo 13 and the Right Stuff, but now we barely have a space program and all the real original Astronaut stories have been told. I don't think anyone cares if the first man on the moon fought with his wife over it.

Melissa McCarthy has a new one coming out as a drama called "Can You Ever Forgive Me". It's the true story of a woman writer who started to forge and sell fake celebrity letters. As much as I like autograph collecting, I don't see this subject matter as being riveting to an audience either.

On the other hand the new Halloween is getting good reviews and it's almost Halloween, so that would seem to be the next winner.

Hi Raven,

I saw "First Man" a few days ago. I thought it was good as a movie, the story it wanted to tell, if you didn't live during the 60's or study that time. One of my friends hated it because he's really into history particularly the space race against the Soviets and he is also just old enough to remember that time. He said it had inaccuracies including technical details and at least one scene that never happened. The film also did no justice to Buzz Aldrin. That I didn't like especially if he was portrayed the way he was just for added drama. I don't like it when a revered fictional hero is "updated" or "reimagined" as a character longtime fans don't recognize and it's really hard to take when movie people take aim at an actual hero.

The scene that never happened (and I won't spoil it here) did seem unlikely and over-dramatic and a bit of a rip-off of at least one other movie.

The whole Apollo program leading up to the moon landing was born out of a JFK speech and it had a lot riding on it especially after JFK was assassinated. There was plenty of drama just in playing the story straight without shoehorning in more drama. I think "First Man" was a product of filmmakers not having much connection to that story. They decided it needed a spin on it - more exploration of emotions with less interest in facts.

"Apollo 13" was another space race drama but a much better movie because the filmmakers recognized the real story had at least as much drama as anyone could dream up.

Jess

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
While "First Man" (about the 1969 moon landing) is not doing so well. Only 24 M gross worldwide on a 59 M budget

I didn't think First Man would be a subject that draws a big audience. It worked for Apollo 13 and the Right Stuff, but now we barely have a space program and all the real original Astronaut stories have been told. I don't think anyone cares if the first man on the moon fought with his wife over it.

Melissa McCarthy has a new one coming out as a drama called "Can You Ever Forgive Me". It's the true story of a woman writer who started to forge and sell fake celebrity letters. As much as I like autograph collecting, I don't see this subject matter as being riveting to an audience either.

On the other hand the new Halloween is getting good reviews and it's almost Halloween, so that would seem to be the next winner.

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:

"Apollo 13" was another space race drama but a much better movie because the filmmakers recognized the real story had at least as much drama as anyone could dream up.

Jess

Thing is, 'Apollo 13' over dramatised a lot of the events that took place too. For example, the CO2 levels never got to the dangerously high levels suggested in the film. They exaggerated the emotional levels too for dramatic effect. By the sound of things, they have taken this to a whole new level in 'First Man'. I think I'll wait until it turns up on TV.

Just a thought, but I wonder if this film still includes the usual disclaimer at the end about 'any resemblence between people living or dead is purely coincidental'

Well then, I look forward to seeing your comments after you see it.

At the end of the movie there is a statement that says something about NASA being involved in the making of it but that doesn't mean it's an endorsement.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin F:

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:

"Apollo 13" was another space race drama but a much better movie because the filmmakers recognized the real story had at least as much drama as anyone could dream up.

Jess

Thing is, 'Apollo 13' over dramatised a lot of the events that took place too. For example, the CO2 levels never got to the dangerously high levels suggested in the film. They exaggerated the emotional levels too for dramatic effect. By the sound of things, they have taken this to a whole new level in 'First Man'. I think I'll wait until it turns up on TV.

Just a thought, but I wonder if this film still includes the usual disclaimer at the end about 'any resemblence between people living or dead is purely coincidental'

[QUOTE]Originally posted by catskilleagle:
The film also did no justice to Buzz Aldrin. That I didn't like especially if he was portrayed the way he was just for added drama. I don't like it when a revered fictional hero is "updated" or "reimagined" as a character longtime fans don't recognize and it's really hard to take when movie people take aim at an actual hero.[QUOTE]

At least Buzz Aldrin is still living and I really haven't heard if he disagreed with how he was portrayed in the film.

Both Neil Armstrong and his wife are deceased and unfortunately writers can get away with anything they want to say once people die. That's the law, you can't defame the dead and the families can't sue. So there is a lot of reimaging going on with deceased celebrities and its usually to pick them apart because dirt is what sells, dramatically speaking.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Looks like "Venom" is doing better than expected. So far, 377 M worldwide on a budget of 100 M

Hm, well I was visiting some friends on Sunday and Venom got mentioned. The reaction/questions posed by my friend's wife and next door neighbours wife may explain some of the extra ticket sales. The discussion went something like this:

Me: Venom has done surprisingly well at the US box office
Dawn: What's Venom ?
Me: Another superhero movie starrring Tom Hardy
Dawn: Does he take his shirt off ?
Me: No idea but quite possible.
Dawn (to Tracy): What night are you free ? I'll book the tickets. Tom Hardy with his shirt off is worth the ticket price even in a crappy superhero movie.

Sounds like the same reason why so many guys saw Wonder Woman. No?

Gail Gadot didn't take her shirt off in Wonder Woman . . . .