2014 Summer Movie Review
Finally saw Amazing Spider-Man 2 and it was every bit as underwhelming as the critics and fans reported . Too long , cheesy dialogue , Electro as silly a villain as Mr. Freeze in Batman and Robin , too long between action scenes and the end was just a convoluted mess with too much jammed into it . And still no Jonah Jameson , besides just a couple of mentions of him . Just the another Spider-Man movie bridging the first and the next one is all this one was . C- .
Not a Godzilla or XMen fan so I'll probably hold off until the Seth MacFarlane western comedy or the Cruise sci fi movie .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXxqG4aqwY4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUmSVcttXnI
Zombo Got distracted so I forgot to post my review of Spiderman. Overall, completely agree with Zombo.
Visuals/3D was easily 9/10 (nothing is perfect.) The action scenes and Spidey swinging around the city looked amazing in IMAX 3D. 3D has come a really long way from the Avatar days.
Unfortunately, the storytelling was only 5/10 for me. The relationship development between Peter and Gwen was a nice element but somewhat disjointed. The development of the villains was downright awkward; especially the part of the Rhino. You can see that they were trying to build up for the third movie and it unfortunately caused this movie to suffer.
emaxxman Godzilla: 8/10 for storytelling, 9/10 for visuals/action scenes.
Great movie overall. It's what a Godzilla movie should be instead of that crap Roland Emmerich/Dean Devlin abomination in the 90's.
The first act sets up the premise and I thought it was done very well. A lot of Internet banter suggests that it takes too long but I didn't think so at all. It was very well paced and before you know it, the big guy made his appearance. The movie was 2 hours long and it didn't feel like that at all.
Once Godzilla makes his appearance, they show some restraint too. The movie provides a nice buildup of action before the final act. Even the reveal of the atomic breath was done well. My only complaint is that I wished he used it more; it probably would've diluted the impact but that's the fanboy in me talking.
The human story is fairly well done; there is enough interest in them to enhance the movie. Cranston delivered some very good scenes. Olsen's acting skills are wasted though. Let's be honest here though - all anyone cares about is Godzilla in this movie.
THIS MOVIE NEEDS TO BE SEEN IN IMAX 3D!!! 3D was well done but it's the massive IMAX screen that really draws you into the massive destruction.
I enjoyed Draft Day.
You know it was fiction, because the Browns had a good draft. LOL
Andy Loigu Ok, you thought Godzilla was a great movie but AS2 sucked? Sounds like you're hooked on the silly Tobey Maguire Spiderman movies. These movies are better than the originals. Sorry.
Metsman That's a big conclusion from little data points.
I actually liked AS1 a lot with Garfield as Spiderman. In fact, I like him more than McGuire. With that said, AS2 has tough to overlook flaws.
The storytelling in Godzilla, while not perfect either, was way better than AS2. AS2 suffered from the same problem that Spiderman 3 suffered (which BTW, I consider to be the worse Spidey movie to date); too many character stories to develop in a short period of time with somewhat campy acting. Electro and Venom were caricature-like. Even Paul Giamatti's role was wasted (and I consider him to be a great actor.)
AS1 (with the Lizard) was on par with SM1 (with the Green Goblin.) However, SM2 with Doc Ock was vastly better than any of the other movies. The acting and storytelling was well above any of the other entries.
See here for my original (and favorable) AS1 review:
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/414370
The only thing that made Godzilla good was monsters fighting each other and Godzilla's atomic breath was cool. Other than that it was a forgettable movie. Spiderman fighting Electro and briefly with Green Goblin along with Peter and Gwen's relationship and her tragic death, had me more interested.
Debating on whether Godzilla - who my 7yr old is a big fan of- would be good for him. Looks like they have too much "human" story. May have to see it before he does.
Blackcat I don't think Godzilla had too much human story. If you look back at all of the classic Godzilla movies, he's in those comparatively less than the 2014 version. What I would be concerned with is if he would get scared. There are scenes where soldiers are tossed around by the other monsters; one scene even has the create eating them. It's quick and not overly graphic but it may scare a young kid. You'll have to be the judge. Just wanted you to know.
Jeez Metsman...spoiler warning about Gwen would be nice for those that haven't seen it. LOL.
A friend saw ASM 2 and thought Spider Man is pretty much over , it took Webb only two movies to make a bad movie rating only 53% on Rotten Tomatoes . If the rumors of it needing to gross 750 million to cover production and promotion costs are true it might not make it there .
Trailer for the Flash tv series looks decent .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj0l7iGKh8g
Also a new Guardians of The Galaxy trailer was released today . Looks very different from any Marvel movie ever made and I want to see this one in IMAX .
http://themoviebox.net/4872
i liked the godzilla movie with Mathew Broderick, cant wait to see the new one,
i read that it has a climate change message/opinion in it? is that true?
BrotherDog So you were that guy who liked that POS movie ? Climate change/global warming is mentioned in the 1973 Charlton Heston movie Soylent Green . So it's not like it's anything NEW .
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/synopsis
I thought it was more of an "environment change due radioactivity in the soil" message. I have to admit - I didn't think the movie was that bad...BUT it wasn't a Godzilla movie and I'll never consider it to be one. I'll still watch it when it comes on TV. It was a mindless Independence Day style movie with a big lizard.
Regarding the Flash, the teaser trailer during the last episode of Arrow was cool. It looks good but I also liked the previous CBS series. Speaking of which, Arrow was phenomenal this year. The storytelling, characters, and action just got better and better for a TV-based superhero show.
I heard that Agents of Shield got better but I stopped after the 3rd or 4th episode. Those early episodes were awful. Haley Atwell (mmmm....) is getting an 8 episode run of Agent Carter during Agents of Shield's hiatus next season.
i think the 90's godzilla movie has got a overly harsh bad rap, i'm not sure why, it's not that bad a movie, it has multiple interesting subplots, good action scenes. interesting support characters
i really liked it; am i living an empty life?
what is the message in the new movie? climate changes for lots of reasons?
93 million dollar opening weekend means we will be seeing a sequel, that's a given.
Sequel already approved. It did $200M worldwide.
The 90's movie wasn't a bad summer popcorn flick. It gets its harsh criticism because it was supposed to be a Godzilla movie and it was nowhere near that. It was just another "misunderstood" creature movie...kind of like Cloverfield.
They talked about climate change but not in the current political sense. Basically, they stated that these creatures existed on the surface millions of years ago when the Earth was more radioactive. They fed off of the radiation. As the Earth changed and the radiation on the surface decreased, the creatures dove deeper down into the Earth (and sea) to be closer to the core where it was more radioactive.
If there was a deeper allegory to today's global warming debate, I sure missed it.
maybe it's warning about the dangers of increasing radioactivity on the surface from building new nuclear power plants? or maybe it's saying we need to build more nuclear plants?
nuclear power represents an effective way to reduce carbon emissions and generate lots of low cost electricity, but it sure is not acceptable to the global warming crowd.
maybe the new Godzilla is speaking to that ?
here's one opinion about Godzilla's message:
The film opens at a huge quarry, where humanity’s insatiable thirst for fossil fuels (or diamonds or platinum or something) has uncovered a terrifying secret: a pair of radioactive MUTOs (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms). The point here, nominally, is that man brings about his own destruction by despoiling the planet. However, it’s worth noting that the one of the MUTOs immediately attacks a nuclear power plant, while the other, later, attacks a repository of nuclear waste. In this, the MUTOs feel like close cousins of the worst of the greens, those folks who demand action on climate change yet mindlessly attack nuclear power—the sole technology that could allow us to maintain our standard of living while reducing carbon emissions.
As the film progresses, the intellectual center of the picture is revealed to be Dr. Ichiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe), who takes an almost zen-like approach to the MUTOs. He believes that Godzilla, who he has been searching for his entire adult life, is not a threat to humanity but a part of Earth’s natural biosphere. The giant lizard exists to “restore balance.” Serizawa also laments the “arrogance of man” for thinking he can control nature; the good doctor believes that the only way to stop the rampaging MUTOs is to let Godzilla fight them and kill them, to let nature run its course. The leaders of men disagree, opting to try and gather all three of the giant creatures into the same area off America’s west coast, where they will be destroyed by a thermonuclear warhead. This plan backfires, leading to a nuke threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans.
There’s a lot going on here, but think about it this way: Serizawa, the only man who seems to grasp the true nature of the issue facing humanity, believes that the ecosphere will heal itself, will restore its own balance. He denounces mankind’s belief that we are able to drastically impact the environment in such a way that would make it uninhabitable. In other words, the Earth is a massively complex system, one that we can’t really damage by pumping a little excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We can, however, make things radically worse for mankind by arrogantly believing in our own ability to ruin, then fix, the world. The nuclear bomb that threatens to wipe out San Fran represents mankind’s fumbling attempts to fix a problem it has no ability to impact—it is a rather explicit denunciation of the urge to “do something!” even though we have no idea what to do. We can make things much worse for ourselves, but we can’t really stop nature from running its course. And nature will be just fine regardless of what we sentient apes believe—or do.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/17/review-godzilla-anti-global-warming-alarmism-block/#ixzz32DHB5z96
Yah China and India polluting the atmosphere with their 1.3 and 1.2 billion people and their pursuits to join the middle class is nature taking it's course . In the meantime our useless pols from both sides of the aisle keep sending U.S. jobs over to Asia . Nature and Stupidity taking it's course !
I've been told population growth is causing global warming.
Must be all that flatulence. LOL
That "nature restores balance" message is all very heartwarming. The article doesn't say anything about how it was man that awakened the beasts (Serizawa's words in the movies) and was thus partly responsible for the destruction. Also, in the meantime, while nature is restoring balance, it also didn't acknowledge that said restoration was at the cost of massive destruction and death of man and man-created things.
So, is the message you want to send is man can do whatever it wants because nature will find a way to fix it? Are you willing to accept whatever method nature chooses to restore balance? Let's assume man can't reverse global warming. What's the fix? The raising of temperatures until man is wiped out and new a dominant species takes over?
Lastly, nuclear power is great until that reactor in your backyard fails and you lose your health and home. I'd much prefer solar, wind, and geothermal technology to replace fossil fuel along with making stuff like cars and electrical devices more efficient.
it is true that the main theme in the original Godzilla movies was that mankind caused the beasts to awake, mutate and come into being.
the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan at he end of ww2 was the inspiration for Godzilla, the horrors of nuclear destruction was a main driver of the whole genre'
i don't necessarily agree with all of the opinion piece, but i do think that we could be generating more of our power from nuclear reactors rather than burning fossil fuels, it is cleaner and more efficient, and has environmental impact.
so this movie has that original intent and authentic theme in it and that's a good thing.
the concept that we as humankind (and as individuals) should be making the right responsible decisions for our future is refreshing as it is compelling, and it is a good reminder that our choices have consequences.
"the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan at he end of ww2 was the inspiration for Godzilla, the horrors of nuclear destruction was a main driver of the whole genre'"
The new movie twists that around. I'm not spoiling anything since it's revealed in the trailers. The premise is that all of the atomic bomb testing was not really testing but efforts to kill Godzilla back in 1954. It's a great twist that allows this movie (a sort of sequel) to build on the original.
You should really go see it. Based on the above discussion, I think you would really like it.
emaxxman, do you think that we can ever generate enough power from solar, wind and geothermal to power the 220,000,000 passenger cars that are on the road every day?
And that doesn't even take into account all of the tractor trailers shipping goods from coast to coast... lots of energy there, too.
From what I've read, that's going to be the problem... the existing electric grid with our current load demand might be able to have the coal-fired and nuclear-power plants replaced by alternative sources... but all those vehicle miles are not going to be supported, either by the existing grid (imagine 220,000,000 people plugging in their electric cars at once... the grid can't handle that many air conditioners) or by the total power generation.
ianimal "emaxxman, do you think that we can ever generate enough power from solar, wind and geothermal to power the 220,000,000 passenger cars that are on the road every day?
And that doesn't even take into account all of the tractor trailers shipping goods from coast to coast... lots of energy there, too."
OK, this is a movie thread guys. Let's save the deep discussions for some other thread.
However, to answer your question...maybe we won't have to. You're implying that the solution is ONLY to come up with alternative power sources. We also need to reduce our power consumption too (including vehicles). Solar/gasoline powered hybrids, and more mass transit could be an alternative in the short term until we figure out a safe, clean, alternative power source.
Can we ever cover 100% of our needs with solar or wind? Maybe not. Would it be great if we could cover 50% of our needs with solar or wind? Absolutely!
i'm gonna rewatch the Matthew Broderick godzilla cause i happen to have it on dvd, i'll see if i can glean any ties of authenticiity to the original movies
and Zombo: soylent green was a great scifi movie, one of the best. thanks for bringing it up.
we need more 'real' scifi movies instead of the star wars stuff.
farhenhit 451 is another good one, (the book was much, much better, everyone should read it)
they had a chance to make a good movie with 'I , robot' but they missed it, read the books from asimov to really get what he was going for. (started as bunch of short stories in 'amazing stories' magazine, later collected into a 90 page novella, then published as a real book, then became a series of books.)
planet of the apes is another really good scifi story, the book is much better than the movies, can't wait for the new movie to come out.
"we need more 'real' scifi movies instead of the star wars stuff."
Heresy!
Check out Oblivion for a great thinking man's sci-fi movie.
Equilibrium , Outlander , and Looper are a few more .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raleKODYeg0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZBoXCLG_28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iQuhsmtfHw
Equilibrium was interesting - not sure how I feel about it. Looper was pretty good. I'll have to check out Outlander. Never even knew about that one.
It's pretty good starring Jim Caviezel , Sophia Miles , John Hurt (Kane from original Alien movie), Jack Huston - metal masked vet Richard Haro in Boardwalk Empire, and Ron Perlman . Spaceship carrying lawmakers and alien monster crash land amid the iron age vikings on earth . You almost feel some empathy for the Moorwen creature whose own world was taken away for development by humans .
http://putlocker.bz/watch-outlander-2008-online-free-putlocker.html
saw last years will smith and son movie last week, it's possibly the worst movie ever made. really, really horrible movie, and really, really, horrible scifi,
hated it, even on 16x in spots it was slow and boring . . . . .
saw Prometheus last week for the first time, liked it, not really great, but quite passable,
is it the precursor to alien?
im going to the library for outlander, never saw it, or heard of it, but anything with vikings in it is ok with me
Prometheus was awful , first said to be a Alien prequel then it was just denied saying it happened somewhere in the alien universe on an entirely different planet number designation . It was like let's find the dumbest scientists on earth then shoot them off into space so they can coo to giant alien snakes like kittens and not be able to zig out of the way of a giant round alien spaceship rolling in a straight line towards them . Leave it to Lost smoke monster bad writer Damon Lindelof who also ruined the second Trek reboot story too by doing a reverse Wrath of Kahn on Kirk and Spock . Heard there was going to be a Prometheus sequel due to the I'll watch anything (that's not government propaganda movies ) foreign audience grosses - good luck with that as the original girl with the dragon tattoo (Noomi Rapace) looks for gods and finds only monsters !
actually it was stupid in places, like making friends with an unknown alien creature by reaching your hand out? and then getting consumed by it? i did fast forward through some of it, and yes the last few mins were lacking substance and believability.
yep it was a long way to go to find out there are no answers.
hope they dont make a sequel
X-men DOFP was an excellent character-driven comic book movie. It's amazing that Bryan Singer managed to make the best X-men movie to date (and finally one that does the X-men mythos justice) but totally missed with Superman Returns.
3D was done well. It's a shame that it wasn't shown in IMAX. There were many action sequences that could've benefited from the bigger screen and better audio.
The movie does a very good job of balancing so many characters. Wolverine was decidedly less maniac this time around; gave Hugh Jackman the chance to do some real acting.
The sequel, alluded to the end credits scene, should be awesome too (especially for former comic readers.)
Never went to see an X-men movie in the theater since none ever matched the 90s animated series . Director Brian Singer is horribly overrated too - read that it was full of vast unexplained plot holes .Next comic book movie for me with be Guardians of The Galaxy unless that Cruise movie Edge of Tomorrow was based upon some kind of graphic novel .New trailer is awesome .
http://themoviebox.net/4872
Ironically, I had only seen X3 and X-men First Class in the theaters. My kids were really young when X1 and X2 came out so I didn't get to see many movies in the theater. Of course, X3 and Xmen Origins: Wolverine were so bad that I hesitated to see First Class. I didn't even see The Wolverine in the theaters because of the first one.
DOFP does have some plot holes but it's not because of the movie itself. It's because of the screwed up continuity introduced in X3 and Wolverine 1. They sort of corrected them but couldn't undo all of it. If you just accept that X3/W1 were garbage and ignore them, then all is fine.
If you're an X-men fan, this is one that is finally worth watching. With all of the others, I felt they hit only around 80-90% of the X-men potential.
Don't really care about that series which for me has gotten very stale with the wipe the mutants out , don't wipe em out plots stretching over six movies and 14 years . In fact the only Brian Singer movie I ever cared for is the almost 20 year old The Usual Suspects . Edge of Tomorrow is getting good critic reviews so far and that will probably be the next one I see , with possibly A Million Ways to Die In The West a 6 dollar Bowtie Theater movie .
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/edge_of_tomorrow/
The Usual Suspects was a great movie for sure. I agree regarding the repetitive Xmen theme. The fact that "The Wolverine" strayed away from that is what made it a welcome change of pace IMO. I think Spider-man is suffering from the same repetitive staleness.
Edge of Tomorrow looks like it could be a really good movie. Malificent looks like it could be entertaining but I think I need a break. It's been quite a run in May for movies.
X-Men Days of Future Past was awesome. Can't wait for X-Men Apocalypse. I've been waiting for Apocalypse to be in one of these movies for years. They should do the Age of Apocalypse story line with this movie. Maybe have Days of Future Past be the first movie of a trilogy and have the timeline change be the reason Apocalypse comes calling.
Saw Malificent with the family this past weekend. It was a very entertaining movie. We only saw it in a standard (non-IMAX, non-3D) movie. You can tell that it was made to be watched in IMAX though. Lots of great widescreen, sweeping camera views.
It's a great movie for the young ones if you're looking for a family movie.
Saw Edge of Tomorrow at the 6 buck all day Tuesday Mansfield Bowtie theater (they still have trouble putting the entire picture on the screen with the wording on the tv broadcasts in the movie going off the bottom of the screen) and it was funny and action packed . Although I didn't think it was worth a 90% Rotten Tomatoes critic's positive rating compared to 54% for Oblivion which I liked better .I also saw that X-Men movie online and it had some funny bits in it as well , especially Quicksilver zipping around the Pentagon's kitchen in 1973 to Jim Croce's Time In A Bottle !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNWVxTAsHD4
http://putlocker.is/watch-edge-of-tomorrow-online-free-putlocker.html
http://putlocker.is/watch-x-men-days-of-future-past-online-free-putlocker.html
My husband and I went to see Jersey Boys. I didn't care for it. Saw the Broadway show twice, much, much better than movie.
kayaking Say what you will about the lack of quality storytelling in his films, Michael Bay can craft an amazing pedal to the metal action movie. Transformers was an incredible visual and aural feast...and it had dinobots!!!! Dinobots people!!!
Fans of the series will love it. If you didn't like previous movies, there is nothing here for you.
If you have Netflix and HBO on demand - I recommend these series: House of Cards and True Detective. I found both to be incredibly addictive and full of intrigue. Love watching them at my own pace without commercials, too.
Rebecka House of Cards and True Detective are awesome ! You might also try Netflix series Orange is The New Black and Lilyhammer . Lilyhammer is an actual Norwegian tv series staring Steven Van Zandt with subtitles except when Van Zandt talks .It's just like Silvio from the Sopranos going into witness protection in Norway !
Has anyone seen "Tammy"? Im not a fan of Melissa McCarthy, but the previews look funny.
botheredbyuu2 True Detective was slow in the middle, but definitely made up for it in the end. Almost done with S2 of HoC. Love both.
bbu2, I thought the opposite. Preview for 'Tammy' looked god awful. My wife commented that she's quickly becoming the female Sandler. I'm starting to agree.
MeisterNJ Is she the one that was in The Heat with Sandra Bullock? If so, I'm thinking she likely doesn't have all that much range as an actress; if you've seen one of her movies, not much reason to watch a second, lol.
Yes and she is also Molly, on Mike & Molly, on Ch 2. Also was in
Bridesmaids.
I think she is more ridiculous then Adam Sandler.
Bridesmaids is hysterical. Never watched more than 5 min of Mike and Molly. It's ok.
Sandler was pretty ridiculous early in his career with Big Daddy, Happy Gilmour, Billy Madison, Water Boy. I enjoyed those. I even liked 'Spanglish' where he was somewhat serious. After that, all downhill, bottoming out with 'That's My Boy'. That movie was horrendous. Never bothered with 'Grown Ups'.
Oh, you should check out Grown Ups. Very funny. The other comedians in the movie helped to make it funny.
Hmmm. IDK bbu2, based on your review of the Tammy preview, I'm skeptical of your recommendations...haha.
Adam Sandler with Kevin James, Rob Schneider, David Spade and Chris Rock? It should have been a lot funnier than it was; the writing was awful.
New Transformers? 2 hours and 45 minutes. Cut out the hippie and it's down to 2-15 and a much more enjoyable movie.
btownguy ianimal - But just Sandler alone risks a total flop. The others maybe, but he alone could sink a guaranteed hit.
GC They need to get rid of the human element in Transformers. I didn't give a rats ass about Mark Whalberg and his daddy/daughter issues. Prime and the autobots need to take center stage not humans.
Dawn of the planet of the apes was a really good movie. Probably the best story of the big summer movies this year IMO. It explored some pretty intense themes such as parental motives, sacrifice, bigotry, and war.
If movies have to make twice their budget these days , since the theater gets around half , then the latest Apes movie is tanking badly with little foreign interest . ASM 2 barely went over 200 million domestically and fell short of the 750 million minimum gross wanted by Sony Pictures .The awful latest Transgender movie made tons of money , since those turds always do - no matter how bad they stink . All in all it's been a disappointing bad summer movie season so far . Here's hoping Guardians of the Galaxy and the Sin City sequel are decent in August .
Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman looks more like Zena the warrior princess . DC blows it again in a live action movie !
http://www.people.com/article/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-photo-batman-v-superman-comic-con
One picture is hardly going to doom the movie. WW has had many different costumes over the years. Besides, don't you think she would look kind of stupid in a red, white, and blue bustier with a metal gold eagle for cups in a live action movie?
Theaters get half the money? I've always heard that theaters get next to nothing from the box office, which is why there's 1000% markup on popcorn and soda.
It looks like a low budget tv costume . In fact the Flash costume for the CW tv series looks better than that ! No wonder Marvel leaves DC in the dust in live action movies ! Granted the new Avengers movie has poor costumes for Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch , but they aren't mainstream iconic comic book characters . Well at least she isn't wearing pants like the shelved NBC pilot WW . Bad enough they already cast a horrible wooden actor like Ben Affleck for Batman !
Scarlet Witch not a mainstream iconic character? What?! She's been a critical piece of the Avengers mythos for decades and is one of the most powerful mutants in the Marvel Universe. Now, she may not be a household name but neither were Thor or Black Widow. True Marvel fans know who SW is and how big of a role she has played in the Avengers. Vision, her "hubby", is another major member of the team.
Regarding the pants, the New 52 version of Wonder Woman has pants and they look pretty good. Much more modern and reasonable. The old costume was simply a bunch of geeky comic book artists drawing out their fantasies.
http://flemzytwopence.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/the-new-52-presents-damaged-dc-heroes/
Theaters start out with about 25% of the box office for the first week and get a bigger percentage of the box office each week after opening week eventually getting somewhere between 45-50 % of the box office for a movie - a movie people actually go to see not a dud . Hell if they had to make it on their shitty overpriced candy , popcorn, and soda most theaters would be closed ! And I've heard the movie studios get even less than 50% profit for foreign sales once marketing costs , distribution , and various blah blah blah (creative Hollywood accounting) are taken into account .
A lot of theaters "have" closed. And the ones that stay open make a lot more $ from the concession stand than they do the box office, irrespective of whether you personally buy anything or not.
You're right in that they take a higher percentage of the ticket price the longer the film is in the theater; however, they sell a hell of a lot less tickets. Most movies make 90% of their gross in the first 2 or 3 weeks. 25% is probably on the high end to start as well; most start at 20% and it's not unheard of for theaters to get none of the box office for blockbusters during the first week, such as was the case for a Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. Do you really think that movie studios are going to spend $200M to make a movie and give half their gross to theater owners? Not even close...
Many theater owners have lamented that they aren't in the movie business, they're in the candy selling business.
Went to see A Most Wanted Man last night and wound up seeing Chef. I got the time/location wrong. It was good. Better than I expected. Still want to see A Most Wanted Man. Read the book last year. John Le Carre is a very gd writer.
Twice the gross is what the studios say they need to make to turn a profit . Whether that is creative accounting BS or not who knows ? The movie studios have their own politicians in their pockets just like any other big corporation . Take Forrest Gump for example costing 55 million to make , raking in 677 million at the box office worldwide , yet Paramount still claims they lost 62 million on it .
Box office performance
Produced on a budget of $55 million, Forrest Gump opened in 1,595 theaters in its first weekend of domestic release, earning $24,450,602.[1] Motion picture business consultant and screenwriter Jeffrey Hilton suggested to producer Wendy Finerman to double the P&A (film marketing budget) based on his viewing of an early print of the film. The budget was immediately increased, per his advice. The film placed first in the weekend's box office, narrowly beating The Lion King, which was in its fourth week of release.[1] For the first ten weeks of its release, the film held the number one position at the box office.[44] The film remained in theaters for 42 weeks, earning $329.7 million in the United States and Canada, making it the fourth-highest grossing film at that time (behind only E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Star Wars IV: A New Hope, and Jurassic Park).[44][45]
The film took 66 days to surpass $250 million and was the fastest grossing Paramount film to pass $100 million, $200 million, and $300 million in box office receipts (at the time of its release).[46][47][48] The film had gross receipts of $329,694,499 in the U.S. and Canada and $347,693,217 in international markets for a total of $677,387,716 worldwide.[1] Even with such revenue, the film was known as a "successful failure"—due to distributors' and exhibitors' high fees, Paramount's "losses" clocked in at $62 million, leaving executives realizing the necessity of better deals.[49] This has however also been associated with Hollywood accounting, where expenses are inflated in order to minimize profit sharing.
Zombo
I'm guessing you're quoting Wikipedia without giving them credit? I see you cut and pasted the footnote numbers along with the text. You really should either provide a link or at least give them credit when you rip off their stuff directly. It's only fair.
Phil D. Yah it's the Gump Wikipedia write up . I always usually put From Wikipedia before the article , but it was late and I was tired so I forgot . I hope this isn't going on my permanent internet record .
Credit late is better than credit never - I certainly won't be trying to put it on your "permanent record". I remember that one from my school days too. I wonder if they're still holding onto my "permanent record" somewhere???
Top 10 movie trailers better than the movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC4JlGtkC9M
Guardians trending at 90%+ on Rotten Tomatoes. My preferred review site gave it 4 out 5 stars. I wasn't planning on seeing but will have to now.
I wait for movies to come out on Red Box. Rather spend 1.28 then 12.00+ to be disappointed. Not surprised theatres are closing.
Tuesdays are bargain days at Mansfield Cinema. $6.00 each day & evening.
Most Wanted Man is good. Phillip Seymour Hofman's last flick, I believe.
EVV I haven't been disappointed yet this year. I go to the movies only for those where a big screen adds to the experience...basically the big summer blockbuster action movies. I also go in with the proper mindset too. If I'm going to see Transformers, I don't expect to see an Oscar-worthy story. I want to see robots pound the living crap out of each other. If I go to see the Hunger Games, I expect a well-told story with action.
With that said, I'll never pay theater prices to see some art house flick, comedy, romance, or a mystery drama. None of those need a big screen (at least not one bigger than my big screen at home.)
Which theaters are closing? I see bigger and better theaters opening up. The ones closing are the neglected, dirty, crappy AV quality theaters. You can't charge $12 for a crappy experience and expect to be in business for long.
What boggles my mind is the crappy one in Washington right at the rt. 57 intersection. I don't care if it's only $5. $7 gets you a great experience at the AMC in Rockaway.
I saw Edge of Tomorrow in 2D on a Tuesday at Mansfield Bowtie since it was one week and done in IMAX at AMC , so I figured a buck cheaper and save some gas money as the darker Real D 3D kinds of sucks compared to IMAX 3D anyway . Seat backs were low with squeaky seats , the movie volume was much lower than AMC , and the theater was hot as they didn't turn on the AC until the main feature (first showing) actually started . Hard to believe they charge 9.50 for a regular 2D movie and people actually pay it on days other than Tuesday when the Bowtie in Ledgewood is 7 bucks (like AMC) on any other day than Tuesday when it is 6 bucks . Blame it on the high price of gas I guess . Next week I'm going full AMC IMAX for Guardians of The Galaxy ! 92% positive on Rotten Tomatoes .
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/guardians_of_the_galaxy/
5 minute trailer ;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbHFSf47MIQ
Guardians was crazy good. It was one of the best comic book movies yet and that's saying a lot considering how good Spider-Man 2, Captain America 2 , and The Avengers were. The visuals need to be seen in IMAX to be fully appreciated.. I'm real interested in seeing the box office take...the 10:30 am showing was packed a half hour before start time.
We watched Noah Saturday night. What a terrible movie. It played like a C-class post-apocalyptic movie. Russel Crowe is the same character in all of his movies lately. The only character I really like of his is the villain in Virtuosity.
Give me a break emaxxman. Crowe has done a lot of much better roles than in Virtuosity.
Master and Commander, Gladiator, American Gangster, Robin Hood - all the same. While I enjoyed those movies, he was the same stoic, relatively emotionless character...just like his portrayal of Noah. At least in Virtuosity, he showed some emotion. Now, granted, I didn't see A beautiful Mind.
Saw Guardians too emaxxman. My daughter (12) is a HUGE Marvel fan and has seen all the movies and said this one was the best yet. It's not my cup of tea but I go cause she likes them. I think the take on that movie as of last night was 170 million. Not too shabby.
jaemae Well, don't go and see Les Miserable for Crowe. His singing ain't so great. Same stoic and moody character though.
One movie that he wasn't the same was Cinderlla man. That was a very good movie. Showed a bit more emotion there.
No messing with Gladiator, emaxx. Dems' fightin' words! Haha.
I saw Les Miserable - wife's choice. I got into the story so the singing was bearable. I'm not a big fan of musicals though.
I didn't see Cinderella Man. I loved Gladiator. I bought the DVD when it came out. His portrayal in that movie was very good...and then he portrayed the same actor in countless other movies. Hey, I liked Man of Steel too and thought he was cast well...but it's the same stoic character.
Maybe Noah was just so bad that it tarnished his accomplishments in my eye temporarily.
I would say the singing was bearable in Les Miserables (home office dragged me to it as well). At least they were straightforward about it, using the actors' real voices and didn't try and snazz it up post production.
I would definitely recommend Cinderella Man. Crowe and Paul Giamatti were very good, as was the actor who played the Dancing Bear, Max Bauer.
Was there EVER a production of Les Miserables that was play-acted instead of a friggin musical adaptation? It's a shame that such a great novel consistently gets such a pedestrian treatment as a musical.
Saying Russell Crowe always plays the same part because his temperament doesn't change is like saying Clint Eastwood always played the same part. The Outlaw Josey Wales had pretty much the same temperament as Dirty Harry who had pretty much the same temperament as William Munny in Unforgiven who had pretty much the same temperament as Walt Kowalski in Gran Torino, lol.
For a relatively unknown Russell Crowe movie, check out Romper Stomper... he plays the leader of an Australian neo-Nazi skinhead gang that clashes with southeast Asian immigrants ... he's pretty stoic in this one too, emaxxman, but it's a pretty powerful performance nonetheless.
Crowe was great in Mulholland Falls, too... but still stoic as hell, lol.
Has anyone seen the new Disney movie, Maleficent? Is it too scary for a 5 year old?
HarleymomaThere is a scene with a dragon attacking the heroes. That may be scary for her. If your child has seen other similar live-action movies, he/she would be fine. The rest of the movie was your typical Disney kids movie.
Saw Guardians of the Galaxy today in IMAX and it was hilarious ! From the opening scene when thief Peter Quill out on a heist puts on an 80s era Walkman and bops along to Redbone's Come and Get Your Love while grabbing attacking ratlike alien pests out of the air and using them for pretend microphones you just knew this was a different type of Marvel movie . A space opera full of humor , 1970s pop music , bickering would be anti-heroes , and possibly the most spaceships in a single scene ever , Marvel's Kevin Feige strikes gold once again . Can't wait for the sequel ! Might go to see a second time which I haven't done in quite a while - the Avengers I think . Worth every positive 92 percentage points on Rotten Tomatoes and should be the top blockbuster movie of summer 2014 - junkyard vomit robot battles notwithstanding .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8NSD85D10I
Clyde Potts "possibly the most spaceships in a single scene ever ,"
The end battle with all of those spaceships reminds of the scene in The Return of the Jedi (when the Rebel fleet turns away from the Death Star to only be met with a fleet of Tie Fighters.) Guardians simply worked on so many levels. The scene where they were trying to come up with the plan (or 12% of one LOL) was great. Drax the Destroyer was very surprising (in a great way) as a character.
This is simply one of the best movies of the summer if not the best one.
I'm disappointed in you Metsman . Don't you realize that scene at the very end of credits was a metaphor for far how Marvel has come since their (very first) 1986 failure of an effort at a major motion picture produced by none other than Star Wars guru George Lucas ? Drax the Destroyer would get it , well at the end of the movie anyway maybe .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqaGDXYDPSM
The dog is also a key member of the Guardians. While he wasn't in the movie, he does end up becoming a highly intelligent creature much like Rocket.
Did anyone spot the Nathan Fillion cameo in GOTG ? I thought it was the voice of the character at the very end , but that was Seth Green . I was hoping he would be in his Firefly getup somewhere in the movie since he starred in the director's 2006 movie Slither along with Michael Rooker , and Gregg Henry (also in Firefly episode The Train Job) each who had roles in the movie also - but no he voiced a CGI character with a modulated voice that no one could recognize .Director James Gunn says that the whole history of the Marvel Universe is in the Collector's museum , have to keep an eye out for some of those things the next time I see the movie .
http://www.mtv.com/news/1886695/rob-zombie-nathan-fillion-and-more-guardians-of-the-galaxy-cameos-revealed/
Copyright infringement for a 40 year old song ? Yeah right youtube ! Or is is it yourube ! Surprised that the Ninja Turtles movie took number one this weekend . Guess the last two weeks proves the 70s and 80s are alive and well in the movie theaters .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwKHrBQjzbE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJL5nkUY7RM
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6214076/guardians-galaxy-soundtrack-billboard-200-preview
Commenting is no longer available.