SUNDAY 8:30 AM, 3RD UPDATE: As Summer 2013 whimpers to a close, this is traditionally one of those ‘who cares?’ domestic box office weekends not really worth my time or effort on analysis. It’s only a $90M weekend, on par with last year’s. The Weinstein Company’s Lee Daniels’ The Butler is a holdover for #1 while Warner Bros/New Line’s raunchy comedy We’re The Millers stays #2 and creeps up on $100M. Woody Allen’s critical tour-de-farce Blue Jasmine starring Cate Blanchett widens its release to wiggle into #10 . Among newcomers, Sony Pictures/Screen Gems’ pickup from Constantin is the demonic fantasy The Mortal Instruments: City Of Bones which opened Wednesday. It ends the weekend #3 and Focus Features/Working Title’ sci-fi comedy The World’s End reteaming Simon Pegg and Nick Frost finished #4. Both pics earned ’B+’ CinemaScores. Lionsgate’s horror flick You’re Next is #6 and only managed a ‘B-’. Here’s the Top Ten based on weekend estimates:
1. Lee Daniels’ The Butler (Weinstein) Week 2 [Runs 3,110] PG13
Friday $4.7M, Saturday $6.9M, Weekend $17.0M, Cume $52.3M
2. We’re The Millers (New Line/Warner Bros) Week 3 [Runs 3,445] R
Friday $4.0M, Saturday $5.5M, Weekend $13.5M, Cume $91.7M
3. The Mortal Instruments (Screen Gems/Sony) Week 1 [Runs 3,118] PG13
Friday $3.1M, Saturday $3.7M, Weekend $9.2M, Five-Day Cume $14.0M
4. The World’s End (Focus Features) NEW [Runs 1,549] R
Friday $3.4M, Saturday $3.1M, Weekend $8.9M
5. Planes 3D (Disney) Week 3 [Runs 3,378] PG
Friday $2.2M, Saturday $3.6M, Weekend $8.6M, Cume $59.6M
6. You’re Next (Lionsgate) NEW [Runs 2,437] R
Friday $2.9M, Saturday $2.4M, Weekend $7.0M
7. Elysium (Sony) Week 3 [Runs 2,913] R
Friday $2.0M, Saturday $2.9M, Weekend $6.8M, Cume $68.80
8. Percy Jackson: Sea Of Monsters 3D (Fox) Week 3 [Runs 2,730]PG
Friday $1.4M, Saturday $2.2M, Weekend $5.2M, Cume $48.3M
9. Kick-Ass 2 (Universal) Week 2 [Runs 2,945] R
Friday $1.3M, Saturday $1.7M, Weekend $4.3M, Cume $22.5M
10. Blue Jasmine (Sony Classics) Week 5 [Runs 1,283] PG13
Friday $1.1M, Saturday $1.6M, Weekend $4.0M, Cume $14.4M
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Why The Mortal Instruments flopped so hard? Gees. It has good casting. Actors are interesting. And people like books.
They should have done better trailers. From the first were too focusing on “You are THE ONE Clary”. It was ridiculous to non-book readers. They should have explained plot better and focus on other characters too. There was too much focus on Clary/Lily Collins. People who did trailers for that movie are responsible for it’s bomb big time, I believe. I read the books and I understood everything that was happening. I guess people who did not read did not understood and like what was going on.
I wonder about international numbers.
Not only were the trailers not very compelling–just confusing to me–but I didn’t see very much advertising at all. I wasn’t really aware that the movie was opening.
I saw it Thurs. Afternoon show. Me and 5 other people. Only two youngish girls, who were the theoretical demographic. It was meh. Lily Collins is likeable enough, but she just wasn’t convincing as the protagonist. And the blond lead playing Jace just was not likeable. He gives of this creepy, rapey vibe. Sorry. Plus, all the rune-tattoos are a turn off for lots of parents. They won’t be paying for kids to go see this one.
because apparently its bad. its only 13% on rotten tomatoes with 101 reviews but of course teens liked it so it got a bit of money. but i do agree the trailer sucked
Mortal Instruments failed because of the casting. Fans wanted Jace to be a hunky heartthrob, not a bony alien looking guy. The only good lead was the guy who played Simon. Jamie Bower is frightening looking to people and was severely miscast for Jace. If they want to save this franchise, they need to recast ASAP
I also like Simon. That kid is a good actor and very likeable. He really popped.
Jace’s character is based on a combination of Draco Malfoy from HP and Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. How is Jamie Bower not a good match? They cast a skinny blonde guy. It makes sense. Twilight basically was Buffy/Angel, so Mortal Instruments is Buffy/Spike.
Stay classy Pete
I don’t see why anyone is surprised. Aside from Twilight, none of the other teen-oriented genre movies (The Host, Beautiful Creatures) have been successful.
Hunger Games didn’t do too badly.
But you’re mostly right–this kind of material (Vampire Diaries, Pretty Little Liars) has a better batting average on TV.
Hunger Games.
Except for you know that little movie called the Hunger Games
But Hunger Games isn’t a teen romance novel. It’s action and doesn’t turn off boys. Mortal Instruments is from a Harry Potter fan fiction writer who adapted her Draco fan fiction into a YA romance novel. That’s not Hunger Games.
very bad marketing. The movie had so much potential to reach beyond the target teens, it’s actually darker than the average teen movie but they failed in focus on showcasing the good fighting scenes and special effects. It’s entertaining enough for adults to like it too if only they hadn’t used pop music in the soundtrack!
Why isn’t Nikki calling out yet another YA book-to-film flop? That’s a major story right there, even if the weekend is unremarkable otherwise.
What does The Mortal Instruments fate mean for Divergent? Will it be marketed with less gusto due to it being another contender for a flop?
We’re the millers is box office hit !!!
It is a good, escapist, hilarious film.
/\/\/\/\ THIS IS THE REAL STORY. Note even mentioned at #2.
Also, white people, you can go and see these noble suffering negro pictures and dream all you want, but after the credits roll, black people are still who they are now.
And who is that, Fred? You sound like someone who doesn’t know any Black people, except the ones you see on Fox News. Does it upset you so much to see a movie sympathetic to the experience of Black people in America? White people have been telling their stories in films for literally 100 years. Can’t someone else’s history get a little attention?
Dumb@ss comment of the day goes to Fred. Stereotyping a whole race of people.
You should try visiting Yahoo. The comments there are truly frightening.
Yep, people not worthy of having their own film. Being all black and ignoble and all. A**hole.
There go those negroes getting all uppity again. Why can’t we just keep our place the way racists, I mean patriots, like Fred say we should?
Like who they are now? You mean like the speech pathologist who’s my wife or her niece at MIT?
Way to stereotype. Imagine me referring to all white people as Oxycodone addicts just because I know Rush went deaf on the stuff and I watch Justified.
I’ve noticed there haven’t been any follow-up comments from the Jennifer Aniston haters that posted that “We’re The Millers” would be a bomb that would go directly to the $5.00 bin at Walmarts.
Wow, this is a really disappointing debut for You’re Next.With the 80 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I really thought this would have done better.
Agreed. I hate the stupid majority who would give this movie a B- and then turn around and go see trash like the Millers. People cry for something different like Pacific Rim, Elysium or You’re Next and then prove they don’t really want it.
YOU’RE NEXT really isn’t all that original – it’s like critics based their entire opinion of the movie based on the awesome last ten seconds. I’m actually shocked by all the positive reviews (although the average score is 6.7 – which is good, not great). I think it also might be one case where the movie was TOO violent for people, and it looked like it would be from the ads. I would take THE CONJURING any day of the week compared to this retread of THE STRANGERS.
Except Pacific Rim was an awful B movie that wasn’t really “different” in the least. “You’re Next” is, at least, a solid B movie.
You’re Next had no famous cast members though
Oh no! You’re Next is doing terrible!
The film was made for less than $1mil, how in the hell is it a terrible opening? It’s also a slasher film, which naturally opens lower than ghost/paranormal movies like Insidious or The Conjuring, so this is actually a pretty good weekend for the pic.
Poor Nikki, your archenemy Aniston seems to get a solid hit on her hands.
Its not a hit yet. The budget was $37M plus marketing the total cost was $60M for the We’re The Millers. A movie has to earn spent times 2 to be called a hit according to many people on Deadline. So this movie has to earn atleast $120M before being declared a hit..
And foreign sales. DVD. TV…
Why are people so determined not to give Jennifer Aniston any credit. The movie is a hit
Why bother giving Jennifer Aniston any credit when she’s so quick to just take it herself? Even when she’s the second banana in a bigger star’s movie, she acts like she’s the star. Delusional cow.
How does she act like she’s the star? She’s a superstar, infact a megastar so when she is in a movie people want to know all about her in the film. You sound like a brangeloonie who cannot take all of Jen’s success. Jolie and her stolen man both have flailing careers, let us know how many movies they’ve starred in that’s crossed the $100m mark since their affair on Mr and Mrs. Smith gave them both the biggest box office they ever had. Infact, before MAMS, Angelina Jolie was barely holding onto her career because all her films were bombing left and right so she must have done everything in her power to snare pitt and keep him (surprise pregnany).
All that is by the way, how about you focus on going to every movie that they put out so they can have some of Jen’s success.
I haven’t seen a lot of JA movies but she is a huge star. Half the 20 something women in America did go get the Rachel hair cut in the 90s. She sells magazines, she gets lots of page hits. No one ever sees her picture and says “Am I supposed to know who that is?” She is famous world wide. Her fame may not always translate into ticket sales, but that’s true of almost all actors these days.
It does. Worldwide. Which it probably already has.
The Millers still hasn’t opened in some major markets like the UK, France, Italy, Japan, etc. It will make a profit based on the formula and given that it is still placed at #2 spot domestic going on the 3d weekend says this one is still hot. And I agree with others that this must be killing Nickie Finke with her obvious animosity towards Jennifer Aniston. The movie is goofy and funny with a good cast that meshes well. Nice alternative to the violent, shock, horror, political value offered in competing movies.
I will give you $60M if a) you work in the industry and b) you’ve ever seen a marketing budget.
The general formula is 2X the budget to break even not 2x the total spend, but it’s not 100% accurate for every movie. So The Millers would need $37Million x2 to break even, which is $74Million. The idea of two times the total spend just to break even is wrong, the studios would have been driven out of business a long time ago if that were the case. I was told by someone who worked on the film that Millers became profitable for Warners after $65 Million.
I know right. I think Nikke has a hard on for Jen, that is the only way that kind of hate is explainable. I’m glad to see Jen being successful a usual
Except JA wasn’t the draw of the movie, as The Daily Beast’s article pointed out. Similarly, Vulture/NYMag pointed out in their Star Market Analysis of JA that she’s never been the draw in any of her hit movies. She lacks the box office draw of Melissa Mccarthy in The Heat, Sandra Bullock in the Proposal, Angelina Jolie in SALT, Julia Roberts in Eat Pray Love, or Natalie Portman in Black Swan.
On the other hand, if this thing had flopped you would all be blaming Aniston.
That’s what I don’t understand. You have people trashing the movie before it even came out just because she’s in it but now that it is a success they claim it has nothing to do with her. I saw it and liked it and she obviously has a key role and her comedic flare and appeal is a major contributor to it’s success. Now a goofy funny movie may not appeal to everyone’s taste and that’s fine. Don’t see it. There is enough variety out there for people to see what they want to see.
She is never the draw for the haters. Whenever jen is in a movie, she is never the draw but of course whenever other actors are in a movie they are the draw. Please have several seats! All the movies that Jen has made that are hits would not be hits without her in them! She is as much a draw as any other actor is a draw in their movies.
Haters never fail to amaze with their ridiculous excuses for why Jennifer Aniston has a successful movie career
It’s surprising how JA fans think they understand the industry better than DailyBeast (owned by previous editor of Newsweek), Vulture/StarMag, Deadline, and even Forbes somewhat (some Forbes writers think she’s successful, others think she’s never been the draw).
I listed examples above where some actresses had hits and they were the only names on the movie poster (ie: Roberts in Eat/Pray, Jolie in SALT, Bullock in Proposal) and yet Jennifer has NONE of that. When she’s had that in movies like Management and the Switch, they all bombed.
Again, why do JA fans think they are more knowledgeable in how the movie industry works than people at Deadline, Vulture/NYMag, Daily Beast…..?
Also I forgot to mention, but would you JA fans then agree that Anne Hathaway and Keira Knightley are two of the most successful actresses in Hollywood? More so than Jennifer, more so than Bullock, than Jolie, than Roberts?
Hathaway’s Alice in Wonderland and Dark Knight Rises made over 1 billion and Knightley’s Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy made about 2 billion.
Both gals were co-stars in the listed movies, so obviously we must say the movie’s success was hugely dependent on them, as per your reasoning for JA’s “success”.
Excuse you hater, why would jennifer aniston star in a movie like salt? That is not her forte. That is angelina jolie’s forte, so when she is in an action movie with a $100m+ budget and 100m+ advertising, people will go see the movie. Same goes for Jen dumbass. If Jen is in a comedy (she is a comedienne if you haven’t noticed), and it looks good then people will go see it. A major selling point for horrible bosses was jennifer aniston being and guess what? Her name was on the poster. Are you saying you need Jennifer aniston to star in a movie with just her name on the poster to prove a point? Please, she doesn’t need to.
All of the hollywood media have been bought since brangelina was born. Day in day out, their propaganda to prop up pitt and jolie is glaringly obvious. Don’t even mention forbes in a conversation about objectivity when they just named jolie the highest earner in hollywood when she hasn’t worked in years, they also counted her salt salary two years in a row to prop her up. Everyone in Hollywood knows the real deal. You actually sound like the one who knows nothing of how these things work. If jolie is such a great drawer or whatever the sycophantic media likes to prop her up as, what happened to In the land of blood and honey, a mighty heart, changeling, the tourist? Her name was on the posters? Before mr and mrs smith, what happened to Alexander, taking lives, beyond borders, life or something like it, original sin? And on and on and on. She got her largest meal ticket in brad pitt and it has been nothing but smoke and mirrors ever since. All her movies flop! Jen is actually a bigger star than Jolie, you can take that to the bank.
Right, because all the other people in the film are household names. LOL. It’s clear the haters never want to give her credit for anything. If the film had tanked the haters would have blamed her for it.
As for the Daily Beast article, it was written BEFORE the film came out. Try checking out the Aniston article at HuffPo that shot down the DB piece. This is Aniston’s 6th $100 million hit and her 7th that opened with $20 million or more. That’s a lot more than you can say for many of the people who get the royal treatment on this site.
That Star Market article in Vulture was from 2010, not very relevant.
Short of polling ticket buyers you can’t know what the draw for a movie is and it will vary. It’s probably a good bet that the most famous person in the movie is the biggest draw in terms of actors. The subject matter of the movie, reviews, word of mouth are probably bigger influences. I don’t think many people would be aware of this movie if it weren’t for Aniston and awareness is the all important first step to selling anything.
Lee Daniels’ film, “The Butler,” may not have cost much to produce, but considering its star power and lack of any real competition, this film is a relative dud. In comparison, “The Help,” had earned over $70 million by the end of its second week of release and its star power was negligible. The “Oprah” has lost her clout with much of America. Though her network, “OWN” is showing some signs of life, her “O” magazine has seen a precipitous dive of 30-40% in readership. Yes, print is dying, but her readership is way, way down. In addition, the producer’s contemptuous moves of casting Jane Fonda to play Nancy Reagan and the inaccurate portrayal of Ronald Reagan failed to create the “buzz” the producers had hoped to generate. Instead it only fueled outrage. Plus Lee Daniels moronic comments regarding racism on CNN’s “Piers Morgan” became fodder for talk radio.
There has been a dearth of adult drama over the last few months as Hollywood has focused its attention on the “youth market”. This is a film many more should have put on their “must see” list. This film could have and should have made much more at the box office. However, Hollywood’s disdain for half of the country, has many of us turned off and staying home.
Hi Drudge Reader. Look, it’s sort of cute and pathetic when you right-wing trolls come onto this industry website and try to stir it up. But could you please try not to be so incredibly, unbelievably idiotic? At a $30 million budget, THE BUTLER, which will trend out at $70-$80million domestic, is a nice hit for the Weinstein Company. Oh, and I know you didn’t see the movie but just zombie-like believe what your echo-chamber websites are telling you…but…in the film it is REAGAN who facilitates getting something The Butler has been battling for for over a decade. Get’s the biggest cheer/applause in the theater. Yes, that’s actually accurate, even though your brain is now exploding. How do I know? I’m commenting on a movie I actually saw.
(Here’s a hint, Bud. We don’t have disdain for you. We fear you. You believe everything you are told, have no intellectual curiosity to actually fact-check the assertions of Fox News, and are easily made into a mob.)
Smart, articulate and spot on response. The racist, divisive nonsense spewed on this site last week from the Drudge readers was disturbing.
I’m blowing this comment up and FRAMING it
Love this post.
You’re trying way too hard and nobody believes you. You don’t even believe yourself. I’m guessing you’re a lowly conservatoon who thinks they can spin facts. The movie’s a hit, everyone can see it. It’s Oscar-bound and Oprah is as popular as ever. Nobody has disdain for “half the country” and you conservatoons need to accept that you have lost control and will never get it back. Jane Fonda is a national treasure and can play anyone she wants.
Wow, that is an elaborate and strenuous argument for why THE BUTLER is a failure, undermined only by the fact that THE BUTLER is a success.
Bitter much?
Imagine how much money they would have made if they had gone with my title suggestion: “Tyler Perry’s: Lee Daniel’s: The Butler featuring Oprah Winfrey.”
A silly assessment based more on your personal politics and dislike for some of the players involved than on reality. “The Butler” is going to be very profitable. That “The Help” did better at this point in its release is completely irrelevant, as is the “star power” thing. (Hey, “The Dark Knight Rises” didn’t do as well as “The Dark Knight” by week 2 or in overall box office, so I guess that makes “The Dark Knight Rises” a dud and Warner Bros. regrets they made it. That’s your logic.)
Any producer — after making a movie for that amount with that marketing budget and then watching it make this much at this point in its release while being #1 for two weeks in a row — would be thrilled with these results.
I saw The Butler and I did not particularly like it. It seemed to me to be crudely made. Forrest Whitaker playing a young man was unconvincing. Oprah was okay but I cannot see this vibrant woman being married to a deeply introverted man like Whitaker so I thought she was miscast. I also can remember all of the presidents portrayed except for Eisenhower. Their portrayal was uniformly poor except for Cusack as Nixon. Kennedy who had already been a war hero, a congressman and a senator looked like a college kid. I spoke to a highly educated black guy I know who said he thought the picture was wonderful and he was deeply moved by it. So I guess it depends on your point of view. Certainly black people are deeply under served in the telling of their story.
I can’t stand the Weinsteins and don’t have much care for Oprah, but saying this film is a “relative dud” is crazy. It would be like saying Monster U is a relative dud b/c it didn’t make as much as Toy Story 3.
Unlike The Help, The Butler wasn’t based on a wildly popular book. And leave that aside: the film is going to gross around $100 million at the US box office alone on total cost (including marketing) of what, $50 million? Plus, I’m sure (in no small part due to the Weinsteins) it will get nominated for plenty of awards. I’m sure the producers are happy with what they got.
“The Help” was based on a popular book, and had more white people in it, making it much easier to market to white women. “The Butler” is proving a big success, however much racist conservatives wish otherwise.
I guess this message board will soon be flooded by all the desperate, shrill, irrational Drudge Sludge who last week gleefully predicted that the Butler would plunge from its #1 spot in week two to proclaim that it’s still not a success blah blah blah white liberal guilt blah blah blah black racism blah blah blah Obamacare Benghazi!
Can people get their money back from The Butler once they find out it’s mostly fiction?
Yeah that’s right, Barry, because there was no civil rights movement and no firehoses and no lunch counter humiliations and no police attack dogs and no segregation and no racism. It’s all a liberal lie. Now go take your meds and sit in front of your TV. Hannity will be on soon to cater to your pathetic racist delusions. Go on. Bye bye.
I take it you haven’t read the book, have you? Before you dismiss the charge of sensationalism and fictionalization, you would be wise to read it.
Jill, you and all the other emotionally arrested right wingers would be wise to grow up. The fact that they changed the main character’s name should tell any rational, mature person that the movie is not an exact adaptation of the book. It’s a dramatization of an era using the Butler as a vehicle to tell the story. In terms of what America was like during the period the book covers, the movie is accurate. And all those scenes of Black people being firehosed and humiliated at lunch counters are not sensationalized. That’s what happened. If you had an ounce of honesty in you, you’d admit it and stop WHINING about how it doesn’t flatter white people, which is really what you right wingers are throwing a tantrum about not some phony objection to it’s accuracy. White filmmakers have made historically inaccurate movies for literally generations without any complaints, but any time a Black filmmaker tells his history suddenly you all become such sticklers for absolute accuracy. I take it, Jill, you haven’t read a dictionary, you’d be wise to look up the word “hypocrisy.”
Can all those people who donated money to Sarah Plain for her imaginary Presidential run get their money back?
Well said “Just Me.” You are dead on.
“Butler” is a box office dud. What the liberal posters here are missing is that even “Zero Dark Thirty” was doing better at this point. Next week could see “Butler” drop into the low numbers.
And yes, the bad press with the Reagan fiasco, and Lee Daniel’s comments did kill any buzz the film had.
Plus, even more embarrassing for liberals, is that both “Elysium” and “Butler” will both be out-grossed by sleeper hit “We’re The Millers” despite (not even half) the marketing costs. Ouch.
Oh “next week” it will drop to low numbers, huh, Dead on? Last week it was going to drop this week and here it is still #1. You right wing loonies are seriously pathetic. Go into the light, please.
The venom is amazing, isn’t it? It shows an inability to be intellectually honest. Just call names and try to marginalize someone simply because you disagree. Brilliant!
Oddly, I never implied that it wouldn’t make any money. I stated “…may not have cost too much to produce…” I simply stated that it was a relative dud considering the star power. And you are absolutely right, it received an overwhelming amount of promotion and generated a lot of free press. Unfortunately for the producers of this dreck, Jane Fonda’s casting and the phony racism charges made by Lee Daniels and Oprah Winfrey had the opposite effect.
The intolerance and knee-jerk reaction on display here is hysterical. I used “The Help” in comparison quite fairly since both films are targeted towards a similar demographic and that film received almost zero publicity beyond discussion of its fine film making.
I didn’t need to see “The Butler” to know its agenda and historical inaccuracies. They have been widely discussed. The most egregious license taken is omission of the fact that 80% of the “no” votes for the civil rights act came from senate Democrats while Republicans joined with President Johnson to get the legislation passsed. The real Eugene Allen on whom the film is based had genuine fondness for the Ronald and Nancy Reagan but the film has him quitting because of his supposed dislike for them. You don’t need to actually see “The Butler” when screenwriter Danny Strong previously took similar historical license with the film, “Game Change.”
What’s unfortunate is that the audience for this film are largely the product of public education and are likely to buy it as historical fact. Don’t tell me there isn’t a political agenda at work. This is why we don’t trust Hollywood to tell the truth.
To Just Me:
I ask you, please, read this carefully: you are being lied to.
I’m going to do this passionately as it means a lot to me: Breitbart, or wherever else you are going for your assessment, lies to you. None of what you think is in the movie is actually in the movie. Really. Let’s take it case by case:
1. “The most egregious license is taken is the omission of fact…”. The film DOESN’T MENTION DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS AT ALL DURING THE 60′s. It’s all about the Butler, his (fictitious) son, and the Presidents. There is no mention of who in congress was for or against. It’s not in the movie, it doesn’t say one side was better than the other. You are parroting almost word for word that which you got from Breitbart. And it’s Orwellian and evil: the argument that something is not accurate because what you wanted to be there wasn’t part of the story-telling. Shudder.
2.”The film has him quitting because of his dislike for the Reagans.” No it doesn’t!!! The Butler quits because, IN A MOMENT THAT HE AND REAGAN TOUCHINGLY SHARE, they both admit they are confused about the sides of history with civil rights and where they should be standing. This is AFTER NANCY REAGAN IS THE FIRST FIRST LADY TO EVER INVITE THE BUTLER TO A STATE DINNER AS A GUEST.
See….Just Me…you are being lied to. Those websites from which you get the information want to keep you “hating Hollywood and the libs” so they will LIE in order to keep you in line. Question what you read, please, or you will be manipulated to dangerous places. WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD IS IN THE MOVIE IS NOT IN THE MOVIE.
…and I didn’t even like it all that much.
Truth to Power
Thank you Truth to Power. Even David Frum, a conservative, has publicly said that right wing Media LIES to the Republican base. These people listen to Fakes News, Breitbart, Rush and the rest and accept the lies they tell them unquestioningly. The very fact that they changed the name of the main character should tell them that the movie is based on a true story but not a documentary. And all dramatic films of real events take creative license whether it’s Schindler’s List or All the President’s Men or Lawrence of Arabia.
Intolerance, eh? Oh the irony of you using that word.
Next you’re going to tell me that white men are an endangered species and the feminazis are out to get them.
Damn, “The Butler” was hokey. It lost me when Caroline Kennedy who would have been about four tells the Butler ” Uncle Bobby told Daddy about what was going on with the Woolworth’s lunch counter sit-in.” Right…
I enjoyed the movie…but why was the butler reading her a story and out of his normal uniform?? That scene was not good.
Comforting to see that the bad word of mouth is sinking KA2 very quickly. Lesson learned here is to actually get an actual writer & director and not half ass it to where its in good company with Die Hard 5 as one if the top 2 worst films I saw this year. (Die hard 5 is still number one but by a very small margin.
Wow. I actually agree with this. KA2 and Die Hard 5 also happen to be the two worst films I have seen.
Though KA2 actually has a better cinemascore than the first (B+ to B). I think it is less the WOM for this one but rather that the marketing only reached the big fans of the first, which explains the drops it is having this weekend and even on Saturday and Sunday last weekend after it was predicted to open a bit stronger after Friday (since all the fans rush out to see it right away).
I was very disappointed in The End of the World. “Spoiler Alert” Real bummer ending killed the vibe, and will be responsible for the bad word of mouth. Plus, it was meh.
I loved Hot Fuzz. It may be my favorite buddy cop/action comedy film of all time. I think it was brilliant. I don’t really like zombie films, but I still loved Shawn of the Dead. TEOTW was closer to Paul the Alien than either of the classics in the first two Cornetto films.
Your assessment is about as accurate as your attempt at the name of the movie
I saw Worlds End last month at a special screening. It’s stars Simon Pegg & Nick Frost were in attendance with Director Edgar Wright. The audience genuinely loved this movie as did I & feel this movie has real potential to be a genuine hit. Hopefully it’ll have legs & grow with strong WOM in the days ahead.
I have tickets today to see You’re Next & encouraged by its strong rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
It’s doing great considering the fact that it’s only on 1500 screens. I think there’s a chance it could have been number 1 had they opened it on 3,000. Yeah it’s very British, but it also stars Star Trek’s Scotty and Bilbo Baggins and has gotten great reviews.
Honestly, if you saw a screening with the stars in attendance filled with fans of the other movies, obviously the audience is going to eat it up.
I love the other movies and saw this yesterday, and I thought it was only ok. Shaun & Hot Fuzz are both much better.
The movie is a success
Just deal with it
Simple, Mortal Instruments sucks, and the industry has greatly overestimated how long they can drain blood out of this YA fantasy turnip.
Woody Allen is so close to topping the sale of his bought-for $600K NYC townhouse and sold for $17 M. That’s the standard he goes by regarding the success of his films. Blue Jasmine is a tour de force, well put, crafted on the bones of Street Car Named Desire in the misfit comes in, only she is upscale, marvelous interesting homage to that play.
The Butler cost 20-25 million and is looking at a 90-100 million total in the Boxoffice. The movie got good reviews from critics. Great word of mouth with an A Cinamascore and is getting a lot of Oscar buzz. Oprah is pretty much locked for a Oscar nod. To the poster who said it was a dude keep telling yourself that. Yes the movie has a lot of star power but non of the stars in this movie are a Boxoffice draw. Stop comparing this two the help. The Help is based on a huge best seller and had a 3 day head start in the Boxoffice. Just face the fact that the Butler is a hit and move on. Happy to see Kick ass 2 fall of the earth.
To the poster named Just Me: your words are laughable. So many other movies on this weekend’s Box Office list would kill to have “The Butler’s” commercial success. You compare it to “The Help” and I believe “The Help” had a huge thing going for it – the protagonist and POV of the story was a white woman and THAT was why it had broader appeal out of the gate. A better comparison of “The Help’s” robustness would be “The Blind Side,” which invoked a similar white female protagonist lens on a black storyu. And we know “The Help” was no “Blind Side” … I think a comparable paradigm of “The Butler” is, to be fair, “The Color Purple” or “Hurricane” — two largely black focused stories with black casts. By that measure Oprah and Company are doing darn fine with “The Butler”, and I am so happy for them. They literally kick the butt of overrated fare like “Kick Ass II” and should top out at $80 to $90 million when all is said and done. Pretty damn good for a black story with black actors and actresses. Why so much anti-Oprah hate?
Of course You’re Next bombs while the cliched, overhyped crapfest of jump scares that was The Conjuring makes bank. You’re Next is so much better it’s not even close.
Did you even WATCH The Conjuring? James Wan does not rely on jump scares, and that was what was refreshing about The Conjuring aside from the fact it was beautifully shot, had a strong ensemble cast AND did not rely on gore. You’re Next is terrific too, but a different type of horror movie that’s satirical, comedic and gory.
Having anticipated You’re Next for 2+ years I was disappointed with the picture whenI saw it.
It relied on cheap loud noise scars, the actors were bad except the lead girl, and too often laughs came when it was not intentional. Action started so soon in the movie you didn’t know or care about any actor. No reason for the animal masks and you see everything in the trailer. Adam Wingward is the most overhyped director in the genre.
Ps in what universe does a Jennifer Aniston starrer get to $100 M USD, sign of the times.
Jennifer Aniston’s $100+ mil pics:
2003 Bruce ALmighty – $242,829,261
2006 The Break Up – $118,703,275
2008 Marley and Me – $143,153,751
2011 Just Go With It – $103,028,109
2011 Horrible Bosses – $117,538,559
Jennifer Aniston has been starring in hits since forever, people have just refused to pay attention and give her credit.
For the last time – Jennifer has never opened a movie all by herself like Sandra Bullock, Angelina Jolie, Cameron Diaz, Kate Winslet, Meryl Streep etc where they single-handedly are the reason for a hit.
Bruce Almighty – Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman were the star power
The breakup – only reason that was a success is because of the pity party Jennifer help after her divorce – never mind the fact she was sleeping with Vince before her divorce
Marley and Me – the book was a bestseller and the dog was the reason it was a hit
Just Go with it – Adam Sandler has his own fanbase
Horrible Bosses – Jennifer’s character was there for perhaps 15 mins and also people forgot about her and instead say the movie was a hit because of Colin Farrell
All of the movies Jennifer were the main star all flopped big time from Management to Switch to Wanderlust (without a doubt the most boring movie I have ever seen) etc.
Until she can make a hit by herself then she will be given the credit.
Hi Sara,
In that case I guess we can agree that the only reason Mr and Mrs Smith was a hit was because of the on-set affair. Correct? If people went to see the break up because of the “pity party” I think it’s only fair to agree that people went to see mr and mrs smith because of the on set affair between a then married brad pitt and single m other Angelina jolie.
Now let’s put those movies aside.
Fun fact, before mr and mrs smith, Angelina jolie was nominated for SEVEN (7) consecutive Razzies. Back to back, more than any other actor in the history of razzies. Before mr and mrs smith, se was in alexander, original sin, taking lives, life or something like it and guess what?? ALL BOMBED!! MAJOR BOMBS! Even the second tomb raider movie bombed.
Since mr and mrs smith, she has been in wanted (she wasn’t the selling point going by your analogy because morgan freeman was in the movie so it wasn’t sold on her name). Salt had to make money because they spent $100m+ on budget and $100m+ on advertising. You couldn’t turn anywhere without seeing a salt advert that’s how omnipresent the ads were. What other movies has she sold successfully? So in her entire career she has only sold salt?
Please jen has been in 5 movies (minus the breakup) that have made $100m+, such it because she is still going to keep working because she makes money for the studios. When was jolie’s last movie?
Wanderlust was a very funny movie. You obviously don’t have a sense of humor.
Keep in mind, the haters are going to credit all of those films to her co-stars.
Btw, whatever happened to Jim Carrey, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn’s careers?
Those men dont take their clothes off to get attention like Jennifer does in every single movie. Those men have talent to be in Hollywood while Jennifer has been in the industry for 2 decades and is now desperate for hits that she will either go fully naked or even do porn to get hits. Jennifer is one sad woman known for her body, hair and the fact she gets dumped by every single man she dates.
Excuse me, but when has Jennifer Aniston been in a movie where she took her clothes off and showed her naked boobs and/or butt? I don’t remember seeing her in anything R-rated except Horrible Bosses, and even then the most sexual thing she did in the movie was force her male dental assistant to feel up her boobs (while she was fully clothed) in an obvious attempt to blackmail him since he was listed as a sex offender (which was explained that an overzealous right wing prosecutor had him charged with exposing himself in a public kiddie park when he actually went to take a pee behind a bush at 2:30 in the morning after the local bar had closed and was walking home from the bar; a cop driving by just happened to see him). At any rate, I don’t know why you’re hating on Jennifer Aniston so much just because she’s had some success at the box office.
Hey Maya, sounds like you know Jennifer Aniston personally.
Let’s see, Jen divorced her cheating husband in 2005. Note that SHE divorced him, not the other way around. If he wanted to get a divorcem he could have easily filed but NO, she took it in her own hands to end her marriage for good reason because he was cheating on her.
Since that, she dated two men officially after her marriage ended, Vince Vaughn and John Mayer. Not sure what happened in the Vaughn case but john mayer was clearly heartbroken by jen. He even wrote a song about her. As a comedienne, she does movies to make people laugh. That is what she cares about and what does it matter that she is SMOKING HOT (screen writers write the hot girl parts for Jen). When was the last time a hot girl part was written for skeletor Jolie?
Seriously just go drink some more of the breangeloonie koolaid in justjared and leave the legitimate discussions to grown ups okay.
@Maya Does anyone want to actually see Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson or Jim Carrey without their clothes on? Yikes.
Btw, remind me again how Channing Tatum and Matthrew McCaughnahey make their money.
Blart, be honest, Aniston is not responsible for the success of ANY of those movies. Name a movie in which Aniston was the star, like Julia and Sandra are the stars in their movies, that was a huge box office success.
They can’t so they won’t. Instead they’ll just scream “ANGELINA’S A WHORE!!!!” then go back to finishing off their gallon of fudge swirl ice-cream while their cat purrs on the crumb-scattered couch next to them.
Here is a partial list of people who have never successfully carried a big hit movie all by themselves:
Ben Stiller
Cameron Diaz
Drew Barrymore
Vince Vaughn
Owen Wilson
Bradley Cooper
Ryan Gosling
Mark Wahlberg
What has that got to do with anything? She stars in a movie and it is a hit, but she is not responsible? WTF. How about we actually deal in facts and not possibilities. You are trying to say that if the break up was made without her it would have been a hit? If marley and me was made without her, it wouldn’t have been a hit? Well guess what einstein, these movies were made STARRING JENNIFER ANISTON, and they were HITS.
Sasndra Bullock is a solid star. Tell me what Julia Roberts has been up to? I mean, there are so many movies that have been made starring her that have flopped and bombed. Heck, same goes for Angelina Jolie who an objective look at her career is box office poison. When they starred in movies that bombed and flopped, werer they responsible? Because if they were responsible for the flops and bombs, then perhaps they weren’t quite responsible for their hits. Your turn..
Blart, EVERY hit movie Jennifer Aniston has ever been in she was carried by a bigger star. EVERY ONE. She was riding off their previous hits. Name a Jennifer Aniston movie that was a hit where she’s the star and the central protagonist like Angelina in SALT, like Cameron Diaz in BAD TEACHER, like Sandra Bullock in BLIND SIDE. NAME IT. Your turn…
To Sara, Maya, Hollywoodland: Since when is this world not big enough for several actresses to enjoy their success, be it Bullock, McCarthy, Aniston, Diaz and whoever without making it a competition between them? They have all enjoyed successes and had some BO failures in their careers. For example Bullock has had some box office failures that Ive never heard of, some recent. The biggest BO success for Diaz were the Shrek movies. Were they a success only because of her or did Myers and Murphy help out? It really gets pretty lame reading comments holding Aniston to much higher standards than what is expected of anyone else in her peer group and genre. The Millers is a hit and if you dont think Aniston had anything to do with the success then you are in major denial.
Kick Ass 2 lacked the brutal, intense action set pieces of the original, it lacked a strong charismatic villain like Mark Strong’s Mob boss & it lacked the affective dynamics of Big Daddy (Nicholas Cage) & Hit Girl.
Kick Ass 2 had great potential in Colonel Stars and Stripes (Jim Carrey) – alas I think it was a cameo at best (or most of his role ended up on the cutting room floor).
The sequel has a nasty direct to video vibe, rough around the edges, excessive, unrealistic gore, visually dull flick – you could practically see the projection screen behind Hit Girl’s Van set piece.
They should have never let someone other than Mathew Vaughn direct this. It’s sad really, it could have been a midrange lucrative franchise.
Just watched both movies today (re-watched the original, then saw the sequel in theaters) and I have to say you’re spot-on with this comment, at least in your first paragraph. It’s a shame.
I don’t regret seeing it in theaters, it was fun enough as a movie, but it doesn’t live up to the original. Thankfully, it wasn’t an ENTIRE disservice to the original, but still.
I think Col. Stars and Stripes had more potential than most of the newer characters, but probably not as much as you think. It was played up just a little too shtick-y. And it certainly wasn’t as visually impressive as the first movie.
They butchered the love story. As a female fan of Kick-Ass, that sucked for me. The other characters suffered as well, especially Red Mist. But at least Hit Girl came out of the film relatively unscathed and still kick-ass.
I didn’t think the Americans would flock to Simon Pegg & Nick Frost’s schtick THIS much. especially since Oprah brainwashed the nation. I understand why the Brits would since Pegg and Frost are national treasures while Oprah is an unknown fart in the UK.
But the fact that Pegg and Frost outperformed a would be Hunger Gamesesque franchise starter is really suprising in a good way.
Too bad about You’re Next. Not a fan of horror but really dug it! Good thing it had a small budget. However the real loser is Kick Ass 2 losing to Blue Jasmine! Ouch!
Clarification: Kick Ass 2 will probably lose to Blue Jasmine by end of weekend since older adults show up BIG on Saturday during late matinees and early evenings.
You’re Next cost less than a million to make and was bought for $1m – $2m, an $8m opening isn’t so bad. Wish The World’s End was doing better but the Frost/Pegg/Wright movies have always had limited audiences.
The Butler is doing well, but I also though it’d be doing better. Didn’t know Oprah was promoting it, saw her in one ad for like 5 seconds. Movie looked awfully corny.
yeah cause those ads cost nothing… they spent a LOT on P&A. it’s a bomb
I don’t think The Butlers performance is indicative of any lost clout of Oprah’s. This film earned more in its opening weekend than The Beloved earned in its entire theatrical run, and that was back in 1998 when Oprah was at her peak.
Besides, the Butler is a $30 million film that is on track to earn close to $100 million. That’s a big fat hit by any standard. Saying it’s a dud because it’s not making as much as The Help is like saying Monsters University is a bomb because it didn’t earn as much as Despicable Me 2, or Dark Knight Rises was a financial duds because it didn’t earn as much as The Avengers.
Saw WE’ER THE MILLERS last night and really enjoyed it.
ANISTON POWER!!!!!
Now let’s see…who will Clint blame Mortal Intruments on? Russell? Loren? Jeff? Mark? Amy? Vendors? Directors? Editors? That Harry Potter-looking poster? Mr. Rothman, the production fund is yours!
Blame it all on Robert Kulzer, the know it all German producer!
The World’s End is excellent!