Taylor Swift's concert film made a whopping 97 M this weekend which means it is already in the Top 20 for the year. If it it can get up to 175 M it will be in Top 10

I watched the latest Mission Impossible movie last night. Did anyone else who has seen it find themselves wondering when Tom Cruise was going to utter the line: 'My name is Hunt, Ethan Hunt' ?

The Taylor Swift movie continues to make big bucks. By this weekend it should be in the Top 12 of the year...

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
The Taylor Swift movie continues to make big bucks. By this weekend it should be in the Top 12 of the year...

I was going to go see it because it's been a slow week, and I haven't gone to see a concert film in the theatre maybe since The Band.

Then I heard that people are dancing and singing in the aisles and generally annoying everybody who went to hear and see Swift. I don't need to get into an argument. I'm too old for this ****.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

All I can say is I am glad I jumped on her $20 signed CD deal during covid season. Gave one to my niece and she loved it!

A discount chain got several thousand CD's in and one of them was the signed edition of one her CD's, I gave to my daughter. Cost me a whopping 1.06 cents.

A few years ago took my daughter to see Taylor Swift in Nashville. I will admit she puts on one heck of a show. Luckily, my daughter has moved on and Rush, The Replacements, Steely Dan, America are not touring!

So although the Swift concert is still predicted to be #1 at the box office this weekend, Martin Scorsese's "Killers of the Flower Moon" is also opening. Since it is Scorsese, there has already been an avalanche of rave reviews for this 200M dollar, 3 1/2-hour production starring the 2 D's, DeNiro and DiCaprio. Good for them and I just wonder why it's necessary?

The story is true and is pretty straight forward. In the old days, it could have made for a 90-minute Western movie. As I don't see where there needs to have any added big special effects, I don't know why it should cost this much. Star salaries? Bloated runtime? Masterpiece excess?

The problem I have with Scorsese's films is sometimes the subject, but always the over-the-top production, which has only gotten worse with every new project. Less is more never seems to occur to him, or his peers for that matter. His films are too long, too serious, too preachy, and I think too much of everything to be entertaining. He really doesn't like films just for the sake of entertainment anymore and has said just that.

So while I'm sure "Killers of the Flower Moon" will put him back on the Oscar stage, I can't help but think that if he had cut it in half and hired some good actors nobody knew, he might have made a better film that a lot of people just wanted to see for the enjoyment of it.

Taylor Swift's film is up to 130 M in the U.S. and just passed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Currently at # 16 for the year. Should pass Fast X, Elementals, Creed 3 and Transformers by next weekend.

So "Five Nights at Freddy's" has pulled off the surprise #1 this weekend with 78M in theatres, while streaming at the same time. That is probably a big deal in the platform wars.

Well, its horror right before Halloween so maybe it shouldn't be surprising, but it sounds like a particularly unpleasant little tale to me. Never heard of the video game myself, so couldn't say how faithful it is.

Taylor Swift's film is up to 150 M.

That makes it #15 for the year. Should be up to #12 in a few days.

Another 25 M, and it will knock Indiana Jones out of the Top 10.

I saw Five Nights and thought for the most part it was a very basic horror film. I didn't hate or love it. What it does have are untapped concepts that if handed to a good writer could be really great.

This first film with its drive to PG13 and game history felt like it didn't need to explain itself when it probably should have. It does have a built in very dark origin story if the writers are willing to push the boundaries and exercise some real creativity.

Given that it was made on a $20M budget it is already a hit worthy of a sequel.

Would appear that Priscilla Presley is going to get a more realistic treatment in a film by Sofia Coppola.

Some sources are predicting a weak opening for The Marvels on Nov 10, as low as 50 M

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Would appear that Priscilla Presley is going to get a more realistic treatment in a film by Sofia Coppola.

I don't know about more realistic, certainly more from her point of view, as she has endorsed this film and is promoting it. I still kind of doubt we are going to get the true drama in that family, and they are actually downplaying Elvis in this movie. Without the big musical numbers and with a well-worn history, I can't see why most people won't yawn at this one.

"The Marvels" trailer did nothing for me.

Up to Black Widow I had seen every Marvel movie in the theater.

The Marvels is going to be the 4th film since not to get my box office bucks. I have passed on 6 DC movies since Birds of Prey.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Some sources are predicting a weak opening for The Marvels on Nov 10, as low as 50 M

People have been predicting this since it was announced. It's budget ballooned to where there's no way it'll be a success. Unless Iron Man shows up in it unannounced and buzz spreads like crazy, it's going to fail.

Personally, I haven't been this excited for a Marvel film since Endgame. I thought the first Captain Marvel was excellent, and I really enjoyed the Ms. Marvel series. I just want to be entertained for 2 hours. Every Marvel film has succeeded in doing that for me, whether I loved it or just thought it was OK. Well, not the last Spider-Man movie. It made a ton of money and I practically hated it, which hurt because Spidey is my favorite superhero.

And now Blade is riding reports of a smaller budget. I like the idea of Mahershala Ali as the character, just not sure what is left to do with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
and they are actually downplaying Elvis in this movie.

Actually, that is what I mean by more realistic.

Taylor Swift's concert film is up to 166 M making it # 12 for the year domestically.

6 M more and it will pass Mission Impossible

8 M more and it will pass Indiana Jones.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Taylor Swift's concert film is up to 166 M making it # 12 for the year domestically.

6 M more and it will pass Mission Impossible

8 M more and it will pass Indiana Jones.

One article estimates Swift fans spent $93M per live show in tix, merch, travel, food, hotel and special clothes to wear at the show.

Budget on the film is between $10 and $20M.....looks like her days of top ramen and mac n cheese are over!

Watching this madness it is difficult not to think about when the bottom is going to drop out.

In my area, Swift sold out Levi's Stadium (49ers home field) a few months ago but then so did at least one other singer. Swift will always have a following but the money does stop pouring in at some point because somebody new with the hot new sound pops up and becomes the big deal. It happened to Aretha Franklin, John Denver, well, everybody actually, but sometimes, some like the Queen of Soul got a comeback later.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Taylor Swift's concert film is up to 166 M making it # 12 for the year domestically.

6 M more and it will pass Mission Impossible

8 M more and it will pass Indiana Jones.

One article estimates Swift fans spent $93M per live show in tix, merch, travel, food, hotel and special clothes to wear at the show.

Budget on the film is between $10 and $20M.....looks like her days of top ramen and mac n cheese are over!

Watching this madness it is difficult not to think about when the bottom is going to drop out.