I saw THE HANGOVER with a packed audience last night and thought it was hysterical. You're looking at probably the big comic sleeper smash of 2009, with a surprise #1 opening on top of it this weekend which nobody saw coming.
LAND OF THE LOST tanked -- thankfully. That one looked like a dud from the get-go and, as expected, it's appealing to nobody. They are going to lose a FORTUNE on that film with a budget that's likely around $150 million.
DRAG ME TO HELL is now officially a disappointment as it fades fast into the multiplex sunset. This has been a disastrous summer already for Universal between DRAG ME (which didn't cost much, but isn't going to make much of a profit now either) and LAND OF THE LOST, which is likely to be the biggest flop of the summer. They lost a good amount on STATE OF PLAY, the Russell Crowe thriller nobody saw in the spring time, as well.
Universal does have PUBLIC ENEMIES (Johnny Depp as Dillinger, Christian Bale in Michael Mann's period thriller) and BRUNO (Baron Cohen's "Borat" follow-up, which Uni paid $42.5 million to distribute and likely will make a quick buck) lined up, so it's not over yet for them -- but it is NOT a good start, that's for sure.
EARLY WEEKEND PROJECTIONS (will update through the weekend)
THE HANGOVER $17M Fri, $48M 3-day, $48M Monday cume
UP $13.5M Fri, $45M 3-day, $138M Monday cume
LAND OF THE LOST $8M Fri, $23M 3-day, $23M Monday cume
NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2 $4.5M Fri, $14.8M 3-day, $127.5M Monday cume
STAR TREK $2.5M Fri, $8.5M 3-day, $222.9M Monday cume
DRAG ME TO HELL $2.6M Fri, $7.6M 3-day, $28.8M Monday cume
MY LIFE IN RUINS $1.25M Fri, $4M 3-day, $4M Monday cume
Box Office Weekend 6/7: HANGOVER #1 After All
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34278
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Box Office Weekend 6/7: HANGOVER #1 After All
Last edited by AndyDursin on Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9743
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Hooray for Land Of The Lost tanking (this summer's Speed Racer...i.e. a candy-coated hunk of cheeseball nostalgia aimed at kids who have never even heard of the original TV series, so why would they pass up Up and the Night At The Museum sequel to see it?), but it's sad to see Drag Me To Hell failing. 
It would have been nice to see it clean up around Halloweentime, but October is always ruled by the latest interchangable Saw sequel. 
It would have been nice to see it clean up around Halloweentime, but October is always ruled by the latest interchangable Saw sequel. -
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34278
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
MJ your Halloween idea for DRAG ME TO HELL probably would've been a good one. I'll be so excited when the SAW series comes to a close too.
Revised weekend estimates...UP gets a boost from the kiddie matinees to take over #1.
LAND OF THE LOST completely bombed with a gross under $20 million...that's just pathetic. It'll be lucky to hit $50 mil. A massive flop.
1 Up $ 44,244,000 $ 68,108,790 -35.0 3,818 2 $ 11,588 $ 137,316,000 Buena Vista
2 The Hangover 43,270,000 3,269 1 13,236 43,270,000 Warner Bros.
3 Land of the Lost 19,524,000 3,521 1 5,545 19,524,000 Universal
4 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian 14,650,000 24,353,868 -39.8 3,807 3 3,848 127,341,000 Fox
5 Star Trek 8,400,000 12,613,777 -33.4 3,202 5 2,623 222,802,000 Paramount
6 Terminator Salvation 8,180,000 16,433,365 -50.2 3,304 3 2,476 105,500,000 Warner Bros.
7 Drag Me to Hell 7,342,000 15,825,480 -53.6 2,510 2 2,925 28,534,000 Universal
8 Angels & Demons 6,500,000 11,353,340 -42.7 2,925 4 2,222 116,125,000 Sony
9 My Life in Ruins 3,225,000 1,164 1 2,771 3,225,000 Fox Searchlight
10 Dance Flick 2,000,000 4,743,636 -57.8 1,707 3 1,172 22,667,000 Paramount
Revised weekend estimates...UP gets a boost from the kiddie matinees to take over #1.
LAND OF THE LOST completely bombed with a gross under $20 million...that's just pathetic. It'll be lucky to hit $50 mil. A massive flop.
1 Up $ 44,244,000 $ 68,108,790 -35.0 3,818 2 $ 11,588 $ 137,316,000 Buena Vista
2 The Hangover 43,270,000 3,269 1 13,236 43,270,000 Warner Bros.
3 Land of the Lost 19,524,000 3,521 1 5,545 19,524,000 Universal
4 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian 14,650,000 24,353,868 -39.8 3,807 3 3,848 127,341,000 Fox
5 Star Trek 8,400,000 12,613,777 -33.4 3,202 5 2,623 222,802,000 Paramount
6 Terminator Salvation 8,180,000 16,433,365 -50.2 3,304 3 2,476 105,500,000 Warner Bros.
7 Drag Me to Hell 7,342,000 15,825,480 -53.6 2,510 2 2,925 28,534,000 Universal
8 Angels & Demons 6,500,000 11,353,340 -42.7 2,925 4 2,222 116,125,000 Sony
9 My Life in Ruins 3,225,000 1,164 1 2,771 3,225,000 Fox Searchlight
10 Dance Flick 2,000,000 4,743,636 -57.8 1,707 3 1,172 22,667,000 Paramount
-
The Pessimist
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:15 pm
Why is Angels & Demons making money? I thought by now people would have figured out Hanks/Howard's game? Unless it's actually good to go along with Da Vinci Code?AndyDursin wrote:MJ your Halloween idea for DRAG ME TO HELL probably would've been a good one. I'll be so excited when the SAW series comes to a close too.
Revised weekend estimates...UP gets a boost from the kiddie matinees to take over #1.
LAND OF THE LOST completely bombed with a gross under $20 million...that's just pathetic. It'll be lucky to hit $50 mil. A massive flop.
1 Up $ 44,244,000 $ 68,108,790 -35.0 3,818 2 $ 11,588 $ 137,316,000 Buena Vista
2 The Hangover 43,270,000 3,269 1 13,236 43,270,000 Warner Bros.
3 Land of the Lost 19,524,000 3,521 1 5,545 19,524,000 Universal
4 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian 14,650,000 24,353,868 -39.8 3,807 3 3,848 127,341,000 Fox
5 Star Trek 8,400,000 12,613,777 -33.4 3,202 5 2,623 222,802,000 Paramount
6 Terminator Salvation 8,180,000 16,433,365 -50.2 3,304 3 2,476 105,500,000 Warner Bros.
7 Drag Me to Hell 7,342,000 15,825,480 -53.6 2,510 2 2,925 28,534,000 Universal
8 Angels & Demons 6,500,000 11,353,340 -42.7 2,925 4 2,222 116,125,000 Sony
9 My Life in Ruins 3,225,000 1,164 1 2,771 3,225,000 Fox Searchlight
10 Dance Flick 2,000,000 4,743,636 -57.8 1,707 3 1,172 22,667,000 Paramount
'Sorry about that one.' -Ed Wood
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9743
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34278
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
DA VINCI CODE, even though it was a pretty lousy movie, was a massive international hit Pessimist. ANGELS AND DEMONS is actually tracking way under it in the U.S., but internationally, it's big-time again -- in fact, even if the movie underperforms domestically (which it has been), they may crank out another one just because the foreign in-take is so big. Check this out...The Pessimist wrote:Why is Angels & Demons making money? I thought by now people would have figured out Hanks/Howard's game? Unless it's actually good to go along with Da Vinci Code?
Imagine/Sony's Angels & Demons this weekend became the No. 1 grossing global hit released to date this year. Of it's $409M, Angels & Demons has generated $292.9M in the international marketplace, including $22.2M this weekend from overseas. It also has a new North American cume of $116.1M after making $6.5M this weekend.
Best performing territories for the film include the United States, Germany, Japan, Italy, UK and Russia. "No one ever expected to replicate the success of Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code, which was a cultural phenomenon. But for his sequel to hit $400+M and continue climbing is really quite an achievement," a Sony exec said. Especially since this wasn't a cheap sequel to make what with all the top dollar and/or gross players involved like Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, Brian Grazer. Screenwriter Akiva Goldsman received $4 million, a new high for a book adaptation, then another marquee name, David Koepp, rewrote the screenplay. But the film took in more than its production budget in its first few days of release, and the studio expected a good multiple. Angels & Demons also was the 2nd highest live-action debut of Tom Hank's career with an opening greater than Castaway.
The Da Vinci Code sold twice as many books as Angels & Demons with a similar Vatican mystery storyline. The 2006 film phenom did $77M domestic its opening weekend for $758M worldwide -- $217M domestic vs $540M international.
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/
I think ANGELS & DEMONS is the only summer movie for the older crowd. Whatever *I* think of it, which ain't much, the whole Dan Brown thing appeals to middlebrow audiences who just don't care about fantasy stuff (though of course it's as much fantasy material as anything, but you know what I mean). Overseas it's probably a hit with the anti-religious audience, too.
John
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34278
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
...or even the religious audience as well. Nearly everyone in our family is Catholic and several on my wife's side LOVE the books. Go figure.JSWalsh wrote:I think ANGELS & DEMONS is the only summer movie for the older crowd. Whatever *I* think of it, which ain't much, the whole Dan Brown thing appeals to middlebrow audiences who just don't care about fantasy stuff (though of course it's as much fantasy material as anything, but you know what I mean). Overseas it's probably a hit with the anti-religious audience, too.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9743
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
As agonizingly boring as I found The Da Vinci Code to be, JSWalsh is right on the money regarding how these films cater to an older crowd generally underrepresented during the summer months. Once upon a time, there'd be at least a smattering of intelligent, F/X-free "adult" thrillers to choose from amidst the fantasy blockbusters and family flicks, but sadly, these types of films are becoming pretty rare these days, which is why even these dull-ass Dan Brown (even his NAME is boring) "thrillers" can get a big audience, just because the theaters are not going to be filled with rowdy, text-messaging teenagers and audiences about the age of forty can see them in relative peace and quiet. They're what I think of as "CBS Movies". They're boring, but they're geneal and inoffensive (even the "controversy" surrounding these books and movies seem pretty tame), slickly-presented, and feature one of the last box office superstars geared for the older crowd, Tom Hanks ("Oooooo, a new Tom Hanks movie! He's always good...!"). Personally, I love a good, meaty, 70's-style conspiracy thriller to chew on every now and again, but I just wish these Code movies were better. Munich was the last really great "adult" thriller I can think of, and no one went to see that despite Spielberg behind the camera. 
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34278
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
I don't blame audiences for staying away from MUNICH. It's a tough, complicated subject and while the movie had some terrific sequences, as a whole, I found it both uneven and unfocused, with some very odd "mature Spielberg" directorial touches that I still don't understand. (Bana having sex with his wife -- while “flashing back” to the executions of the Israeli athletes that he wasn’t even present for -- was just plain bizarre). It certainly wasn't what I'd consider to be an accessible film for a lot of viewers.
The priest who officiated our wedding, and who has since become a close family friend over the last three years, liked ANGELS AND DEMONS until the last 15 minutes. He didn't find it offensive either for the most part -- he did, however, think DA VINCI CODE was a lousy movie in addition to being patently offensive. Still, he's got fairly good taste in movies, so between him and the critical consensus in general, I'm guessing ANGELS is a better movie than DA VINCI....even if it's not doing nearly as well at the box-office domestically. The latter may speak to viewers having been turned off by its predecessor.
I agree with you guys on these films appealing to an older crowd -- but I think any comparisons to, say, THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR end right there. DA VINCI CODE was close to being garbage as a movie, and I didn't have any interest in paying a nickel to sit through ANGELS AND DEMONS. I'll give it a fair shake on video, it's just my choice as a consumer not to pay to see it.
Yet, you're right, there's not much else out there for "adults" -- yet. I would think PELHAM 1-2-3 would nab some of that crowd this weekend. Yes it's a remake and an action movie but with Denzel and Travolta, and the type of plot that would appeal broadly to older audiences, I would think it would offer an alternative to the genre movies out there. I also think THE PROPOSAL, the (surprisingly) decent looking Sandra Bullock-Ryan Reynolds romantic comedy, is probably going to do quite well as there aren't a lot of date movies out there this summer either.
The priest who officiated our wedding, and who has since become a close family friend over the last three years, liked ANGELS AND DEMONS until the last 15 minutes. He didn't find it offensive either for the most part -- he did, however, think DA VINCI CODE was a lousy movie in addition to being patently offensive. Still, he's got fairly good taste in movies, so between him and the critical consensus in general, I'm guessing ANGELS is a better movie than DA VINCI....even if it's not doing nearly as well at the box-office domestically. The latter may speak to viewers having been turned off by its predecessor.
I agree with you guys on these films appealing to an older crowd -- but I think any comparisons to, say, THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR end right there. DA VINCI CODE was close to being garbage as a movie, and I didn't have any interest in paying a nickel to sit through ANGELS AND DEMONS. I'll give it a fair shake on video, it's just my choice as a consumer not to pay to see it.
Yet, you're right, there's not much else out there for "adults" -- yet. I would think PELHAM 1-2-3 would nab some of that crowd this weekend. Yes it's a remake and an action movie but with Denzel and Travolta, and the type of plot that would appeal broadly to older audiences, I would think it would offer an alternative to the genre movies out there. I also think THE PROPOSAL, the (surprisingly) decent looking Sandra Bullock-Ryan Reynolds romantic comedy, is probably going to do quite well as there aren't a lot of date movies out there this summer either.
Last edited by AndyDursin on Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:05 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9743
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
There's also Public Enemies to look forward to. Michael Mann, Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, 30's gangsters, TOMMY-GUNS?! 
That looks like the best bet for an "adult" thriller that'll actually deliver the goods this summer. Yeah, there'll be a few younger Jack Sparrow and Batman fans who will show up, but I'm guessing the period setting will keep most of the cell-phone abusers away. 
That looks like the best bet for an "adult" thriller that'll actually deliver the goods this summer. Yeah, there'll be a few younger Jack Sparrow and Batman fans who will show up, but I'm guessing the period setting will keep most of the cell-phone abusers away. -
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34278
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Yes exactly, I sure hope that one looks as good as advertised. Leelee Sobieski and Claire from LOST are in it tooMonterey Jack wrote:There's also Public Enemies to look forward to. Michael Mann, Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, 30's gangsters, TOMMY-GUNS?!
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9743
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
As for Pelham, I was hoping it's release would inspire a remastered, anamorphic DVD reissue of the original as a tie-in, but no luck.
They screwed up the casting with this new version, anyways. We needed an actor convincing as an everyday schlub in the Walter Matthau role (Paul Giamatti would have been great in this part) and a calm, methodical criminal mastermind type in the Robert Shaw role, instead of a generically cackling, "manic" John Travolta cashing-the-check performance.
Plus, instead of David Shire's funky 70's licks, we'll get a lot of Media Ventures throbbing techno and droning nonsense.
Ba-WOMP-WOMP-WOMP...ba-WOMP-WOMP-WOMP...
They screwed up the casting with this new version, anyways. We needed an actor convincing as an everyday schlub in the Walter Matthau role (Paul Giamatti would have been great in this part) and a calm, methodical criminal mastermind type in the Robert Shaw role, instead of a generically cackling, "manic" John Travolta cashing-the-check performance.
Plus, instead of David Shire's funky 70's licks, we'll get a lot of Media Ventures throbbing techno and droning nonsense. Ba-WOMP-WOMP-WOMP...ba-WOMP-WOMP-WOMP...
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9743
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
I was not aware of that. Two more points in the film's favor.AndyDursin wrote: Yes exactly, I sure hope that one looks as good as advertised. Leelee Sobieski and Claire from LOST are in it too
Just too bad Mann has followed in the footsteps of Robert Rodriguez with the whole smeary DV camera look (in a period movie...!
). I miss the rich, lushly grainy FILM look of Heat and Last Of The Mohicans. Mann is always an interesting filmmaker, but I wish he'd go back to shooting on film.-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34278
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
How much you want to bet too the ending -- specifically that classic last scene with Matthau and Martin Balsam -- doesn't get reprieved either? I'm expecting not a whole lot from that movie, but I have a friend coming in town and we'll have to see something. (I'm actually not a big fan of Tony Scott, at all).
Agreed too on MGM not doing a 16:9 remaster. Basically the main reason I'm looking forward to the CLASH OF THE TITANS remake is because Warner will undoubtedly give us a Blu-Ray version of it around the same time.
Agreed too on MGM not doing a 16:9 remaster. Basically the main reason I'm looking forward to the CLASH OF THE TITANS remake is because Warner will undoubtedly give us a Blu-Ray version of it around the same time.