Top Movies of the Summer

[JasonEvans]

With Wolverine just a week or so away, we need to get the "top box office hits of the summer" thread going post haste!!

So, I am posting a poll where we can vote on what we think the top 5 will be. Please limit your votes to only the films you think will be in the top 5 once the summer boxoffice comes to a close. We'll probably call it shortly after Labor Day.

Last year, there were several folks who got 4 out of 5 correct, but no one got em all.

If I did not include a movie you wish to vote for, just post something explaining your picks.

--Jason "as always, voters are encouraged to discuss their picks and disparage the picks of others ;) " Evans

[JasonEvans]

Ok, the list of movies is up. Did I leave anything out?

--Jason "I left out GI Joe, but it is an August release and Dennis Quaid is not a huge BO draw" Evans

[pacificrounder]

I took Star Trek, Angels and Deamons, Transformers, Ice Age, and Harry Potter.

I saw the leaked X-Men Origins, and it was absolutely terrible. Forget that it wasn't finished, bad reviews are going to kill the release - otherwise I would've taken it over Ice Age.

[brevity]

Nice work as always, Jason, but is there any chance you could edit the poll choices to show the (currently scheduled) release dates? It may influence people's decisions.

For example, I considered Night at the Museum 2, but it opens opposite not only Terminator, but also Dance Flick, which will eat into its audience.

Brutal summer slate, by the way. It will be hard for any film to top the box office 2 weekends in a row until about mid-July.

[Channing]

Isn't the Bruno movie coming out mid July? I think people are going to flock to that one...

[bjornolf]

Why haven't YOU voted yet, Jason?

I've got Star Trek, Up, Terminator, Harry Potter, and Transformers. People will be chomping at the bit for a good summer popcorn film, plus all the Trekkies will go so they can complain, so I"m not betting against ST. Pixar always does well. Terminator is a sure thing. Harry Potter. 'Nuff said. They could film me bouncing on a trampoline for two hours (they could put the scenes involving my massive coronary after the credits or as special content on the DVD) and make $100M with it if they said I was Harry Potter. And I've got a feeling that Transformers is gonna do pretty well. Meagan Fox is only the hottest thing going. She melts the plastic in my underwear.

We'll see. Last year, I only got three.

[A-Tex Devil]

Isn't the Bruno movie coming out mid July? I think people are going to flock to that one...

Bruno's first cut came out NC-17 which is a box office killer. I understand that the studio releasing it may have a policy against releasing NC-17 movies, but I don't think this one is going to get top 5. It's supposed to make Borat look like Howie Do It.

[A-Tex Devil]

I took Star Trek, Angels and Deamons, Transformers, Ice Age, and Harry Potter.

I saw the leaked X-Men Origins, and it was absolutely terrible. Forget that it wasn't finished, bad reviews are going to kill the release - otherwise I would've taken it over Ice Age.

I saw the leaked Wolverine as well. It was very choppy, rushed and badly edited -- like it was unfinished or something. :D If those things are fixed, and depending on what some of the CGI looks like as a final product, I think it could be pretty good. What I saw was barely 2 stars, but could be cleaned up to be a decent 3 star flick. I kinda liked the story.


I'll have to think about top 5. I think Star Trek, Harry Potter and Transformers are givens. I imagine Up will get the Pixar bump even if it is not as marketable of a story (was Wall-E?), then the 5th. Up for grabs among Wolverine, Land of the Lost (if it is able to be funny as a PG movie), maybe Public Enemies, but Michael Mann films aren't blockbuster like that usually. I bet there is a sleeper/surprise we aren't thinking of. Possibly Terminator since it will end up PG-13. Gotta think on this.

[Lord Ash]

Wolverine, Museum, Transformers, Potter, and Terminator. I think I got all five last year, but this time I would be happy with four... not sure about Wolverine, to be frank:(

[Deslok]

I think Harry Potter and the Transformers are practically givens to be top 5. After that its tougher to call, but I went with Up and Ice Age for the kids watching them 17 times over the summer, and Angels & Demons since it will get its share of free marketing via any controversy that anyone believes its anything resembling the truth. I just don't see Trek having the mass appeal to break the top 5. It may revive the franchise, but it won't be a blockbuster. Wolverine might get in there, but early word of mouth worries me. But what do I know?

[JasonEvans]

Isn't the Bruno movie coming out mid July? I think people are going to flock to that one...

I thought about including Bruno, but Borat only made $128 million and I can't see any way that this "sequel" (of sorts) does much better than that. It has a very niche appeal and the buzz on Bruno isn't even in the same ballpark as the buzz on Borat.

Someone asked about release dates-- I think all the films are listed in order of their release date so the ones at the beginning are the May films and then the June ones. There are not as many big releases after July 4th so the list gets kinda sparse toward the bottom.

-Jason "I need to think a lot more on these before I vote" Evans

[JasonEvans]

I think I got all five last year, but this time I would be happy with four... not sure about Wolverine, to be frank:(

Last summer you got 4 right. Folks who want to look back can see the final results and discussion in this thread. (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9032&highlight=movies+summer&page=9) No one got all 5. A lot of us got 4 out of 5.

There were 5 people who got 4 out of 5 and their only miss was on Wall*E, which was the #5 movie of the summer. Those folks were:

brevity: 4 (missed WALL-E)
cato: 4 (missed WALL-E)
DevilBen02: 4 (missed WALL-E)
Lord Ash: 4 (missed WALL-E)
soccerdevil: 4 (missed WALL-E)


Last summer it took $233 million to be #5 on the list (the #6 movie made $215 million). With a little bit of ticket inflation, it could be a touch higher this summer, though I am not so sure of that. I think this will be a worse summer than last from a ticket sales standpoint.

--Jason "Up is no WALL*E, will this be Pixar's first 'miss'" Evans

[Udaman]

I think this summer is much, much weaker than last, with several big names that don't really do that much for me.

That said, there are 2 absolute locks for Top 5 - Harry Potter and Transformers. No way will anything stand in their way.

I also think that Star Trek will get up there, mainly because it's been a while and the buzz is really strong.

So for me, that leaves two other spots.

I think Up will get there - not just because it is Pixar...but because there are no other animated kid type movies, and really only one challenger, which is Night at the Museum. I think that movie is going to struggle. The first did well, but it did so with bad reviews, it just came out over the holiday break and carried the kid Thanksgiving and X-mas crowd. It won't be so fortunate this time.

So my top 4 are UP, Star Trek, Potter and Transformers.

That leaves one more - I think it will be between Wolverine and Terminator. Not sure who I will pick, but leaning towards..."Hey - get out of my set."

[allenmurray]

I will go to see Night at the Museum because my 10 year old will love it. Other than that there is nothing on the list that I really care to see.

[bjornolf]

I think this summer is much, much weaker than last, with several big names that don't really do that much for me.

That said, there are 2 absolute locks for Top 5 - Harry Potter and Transformers. No way will anything stand in their way.

I also think that Star Trek will get up there, mainly because it's been a while and the buzz is really strong.

So for me, that leaves two other spots.

I think Up will get there - not just because it is Pixar...but because there are no other animated kid type movies, and really only one challenger, which is Night at the Museum. I think that movie is going to struggle. The first did well, but it did so with bad reviews, it just came out over the holiday break and carried the kid Thanksgiving and X-mas crowd. It won't be so fortunate this time.

So my top 4 are UP, Star Trek, Potter and Transformers.

That leaves one more - I think it will be between Wolverine and Terminator. Not sure who I will pick, but leaning towards..."Hey - get out of my set."

You basically just totally agreed with me. Awesome. Maybe we'll be right. My final pick was Terminator over Wolverine. There have been several X-Men movies lately, so I think the demand will be a little bigger for a Terminator movie. Wolverine DOES have the advantage of being one of the first of the summer, when people are DESPERATE for a good popcorn movie. It'll be interesting to see which way people go, though.

[JasonEvans]

I think Up will get there - not just because it is Pixar...but because there are no other animated kid type movies, and really only one challenger, which is Night at the Museum. I think that movie is going to struggle. The first did well, but it did so with bad reviews, it just came out over the holiday break and carried the kid Thanksgiving and X-mas crowd. It won't be so fortunate this time.

You are aware that Ice Age 3 comes out this summer too, right? Ice Age 2 did $198 million and the buzz is that this one is better than the last (which had a poor story with too much preaching in it for my taste).

Still, as opposed to last summer when Panda came out before WALL*E, the Pixar flick gets the head start this summer (Ice Age 3 coms out on July 1 while Up hits on May 29th). The summer is more front-loaded though and Night at the Museum 2 comes out May 22nd, one week before Up meaning Up will have more competition.

--Jason "I just cannot decide what to vote for this summer!" Evans

[hurleyfor3]

Which movies will have the most things blowing up? I vote for those.

[JasonEvans]

Isn't the Bruno movie coming out mid July? I think people are going to flock to that one...

Steven,

You voted for "other" in the poll. I guess this means that you think Bruno will be one of the top 5 of the summer, right?

-Jason "just trying to keep everything straight" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Which movies will have the most things blowing up? I vote for those.

My best guess (in order of number of explosions shown on screen):


Terminator 4
Transformers 2
X-men 4
Star Trek 11
GI Joe: Rise of Cobra


They may blow up a planet in Star Trek and will certainly blow up some huuuge starships, so if you want to rank them by volume of stuff blown up, I'd put Star Trek #1.

--Jason "this is actually a pretty decent formula... at least as a starting point" Evans

[UrinalCake]

I've noticed that about half of the movies in this poll are either sequels or continuations of a series. This makes it hard to predict - a lot of people will watch sequels no matter how bad they are just because they feel like they should.

No upsets in my picks except for Ice Age - the kids movies make a killing because the parents have to go with their kids, sometimes multiple times. BTW what's a good age to take your child to their first movie? My daughter is turning 3 in July.

[Udaman]

Jason - thanks, I did forget about Ice Age. It should be in the running....plus - the 3D action really, really helps. I saw Monsters v. Aliens, and the 3-D effects were simply amazing...so too, was the cost (over $11 a ticket, insane). Don't know how many of those I'll go to...but that higher cost adds 30% to the take compared to the normal $8 range.

My votes will be - Star Trek, Transformers, Potter, Up and Ice Age.

As for age to take your kids....I've taken my kids to a Thanksgiving movie every year since they turned 2. At two - it was really, really rough. They get bored too easily. Three is a good age - but only if it is a cartoon of some kind with lots of funny stuff (Up over Ice Age). Four and up, all is game.

[UrinalCake]

Last summer it took $233 million to be #5 on the list (the #6 movie made $215 million). With a little bit of ticket inflation, it could be a touch higher this summer, though I am not so sure of that. I think this will be a worse summer than last from a ticket sales standpoint.

Yeah, the bad economy will certainly hurt the movie industry; a lot more people are going the rental/download/netflix route. BTW this poll really needs to be set up in a tournament bracket format 8-).

[bjornolf]

Yeah, on the age thing, I started taking my kids late in age 2. Sean LOVED Pixar's Cars at that age and sat through the entire thing. He was pretty good in Curious George too, but it didn't hold his attention the whole time.

[JasonEvans]

BTW this poll really needs to be set up in a tournament bracket format 8-).

How would you suggest doing such a thing?

-Jason

[Deslok]

HSX seeding?

[JasonEvans]

I just wanted everyone to know that there are a few more days left to get your votes in for the top 5. In fact, I myself have not voted yet.

I see a few no brainers-- Harry Potter and Transformers are going to be in the top 5. I see that as certain.

I want to put Star Trek and Wolverine in the top 5 too, but I am given pause by the early negative word of mouth on the early cut of Wolverine and I am not sure if Star Trek is still a big movie franchise or if the public is sick of it (plus JJ has a history of big buzz and then slightly underperforming expectation on the big screen with MI:III and Cloverfield).

Pixar has the fabulous track record, but I am less certain about Up-- I just do not sense any buzz for it. WALL*E was one of the best movies of last year and yet it just barely made the top 5 of summer. Ice Age 3 is getting pretty good buzz too.

Do I dare vote for an adult film like Angels and Demons? I think that book will translate to the screen far better than DaVinci Code did.

Terminator 3 only did $150 million. But I think 4 (Salvation) looks much better and I foolishly bet against Christian Bale last summer (what an idiot I was!). Plus, I think McG does great popcorn, summer fun.

And then there is a piece of me that wants to vote for Land of the Lost. It could be the perfect marriage of comedy and nostalgia. Will Ferrell is really inspired casting there.

--Jason "I am really torn" Evans

[Dukerati]

My only no-brainer is Harry Potter. I am partial towards action flicks so I'm putting Wolverine (mainly due to early start), Transformers, and Star Trek in there. Of those three, I think Star Trek and Transformers are the safest bets. I'm in the key 18-36 demographic and there is a ton of buzz about Star Trek. Even my wife wants to see it, which is shocking. As for the last movie, a kid-friendly movie always sneaks in there and out of all the candidates, I like Ice Age the most. I got all five two years ago and didn't vote last year ( I think) so in my world, that means I'm perfect!

[cf-62]

I will go to see Night at the Museum because my 10 year old will love it. Other than that there is nothing on the list that I really care to see.

...

which brings up the question "which movie(s) do you REALLY REALLY want to see?

I'm torn on Star Trek (oh, I'll BE there, but I'm not sure I'm really going to like it, JJ Abrams or not).

Transformers didn't do it for me when it came out, but I've come to really enjoy it on HBO.

Harry Potter should be decent, given that they're actually "growing up" the movie with the students -- although I wish Ian McKellen was Dumbledore (sigh)

But all of that PALES in comparison to Terminator. My biggest hope for Terminator is that it generates enough buzz to keep Sarah Conner Chronicles on this fall (they should have just called it "Terminator").

[JasonEvans]

Well, I hit the submit button and immediately regretted it.

I went with Wolverine, Star Trek, Terminator, Transformers, and Harry Potter. I cannot believe I am betting against Pixar, but I am. I think Terminator or Wolverine will be a bad pick on my part. Ahhh well.

Only a few days left if you have not voted.

--Jason

[NashvilleDevil]

...

which brings up the question "which movie(s) do you REALLY REALLY want to see?



Public Enemies because of Michael Mann and Taking of Pelham 1,2,3 because we were in NYC when they were filming and it is one of my favorite lines from the Beastie Boys' Sure Shot:

"Well it's the Taking of the Pelham 1,2,3/If you want a doodoo rhyme then come see me"

[JasonEvans]

Is it too late to rescind my vote for Wolverine?


I have been powerfully impressed by film versions of Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, Iron Man and the Iron Giant. I wouldn't even walk across the street to meet Wolverine.
-Roger Ebert


The story plays just as dumb as it sounds... (it uses) action and visual effects to mask a lack of imagination.
-Kirk Honneycut, The Hollywood Reporter


Noisy and impersonal, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" bears all the marks of a work for hire, conceived and executed with a big budget but little imagination... A sharp-clawed, dull-witted actioner.
-Variety

--Jason "ummm... not good reviews" Evans

[darthur]

Is it too late to rescind my vote for Wolverine?

Yeah... I've been asking myself the same question.

[brevity]

Yeah, I think Wolverine is a sucker choice, but it will look pretty good for the next week. It's going to be the first big hit out of the gate, maybe $150-175 million. (I've seen Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, which is okay. But it's not a counterprogramming threat. Women who go to the movies this weekend, in general, would rather see Hugh Jackman.)

Over the summer we'll look at various candidates and wonder if they can beat Wolverine. I think at least 5 will. However, I don't think the #5 film will make $250 million like last year. There's too much franchise product, dilution of the market, and a bad economy. Oh, and a health scare.

[JasonEvans]

$87 million for Wolverine the opening weekend. Hmmm, maybe it was not such a disastrous pick. Unless it really, really tanks over the next few days and next weekend, it would seem to have a good chance to get above $200 million, which is right where the Top 5 cutoff will likely be.

No film has ever opened with more than $75 million and failed to get to $200 million in total boxoffice.

-Jason "up next- Star Trek" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Wolverine had a big drop off after week one. It did $26 million, a decline of 69% from its opening weekend. Big declines are normal for sci-fi franchise sequels, but this was a little larger than usual. Still, with $130 million in the boxoffice bank so far, Wolverine remains a viable option for the top 5, especially considering it is going to be around for the entire summer. I think $200-215 million remains a decent possibility, though it is not a sure thing.

The other main entry in our race so far is Star Trek, which opened with a nice $75 million. That is $10 million less than Wolverine, but the expectation is that Star Trek should have longer legs than Wolverine because it is a better movie and has gotten far better reviews. Trek should get good word of mouth and return business so its $75 million start is likely a prelude to a boxoffice total in at least the $225-265 million kind of range... which would land it in the top 5, for sure.

This week we add Angels and Demons to the race.

--Jason "not feeling good about my Wolverine pick, but Star Trek seems strong" Evans

[cf-62]

Wolverine had a big drop off after week one. It did $26 million, a decline of 69% from its opening weekend. Big declines are normal for sci-fi franchise sequels, but this was a little larger than usual. Still, with $130 million in the boxoffice bank so far, Wolverine remains a viable option for the top 5, especially considering it is going to be around for the entire summer. I think $200-215 million remains a decent possibility, though it is not a sure thing.

The other main entry in our race so far is Star Trek, which opened with a nice $75 million. That is $10 million less than Wolverine, but the expectation is that Star Trek should have longer legs than Wolverine because it is a better movie and has gotten far better reviews. Trek should get good word of mouth and return business so its $75 million start is likely a prelude to a boxoffice total in at least the $225-265 million kind of range... which would land it in the top 5, for sure.

This week we add Angels and Demons to the race.

--Jason "not feeling good about my Wolverine pick, but Star Trek seems strong" Evans

You know, considering that both were prequels, so to speak, I really can't believe the difference in story quality, plot, aha moments, etc. The wife really enjoyed Star Trek, too, and she was dreading it all week.

Marvel kind of painted themselves in a corner with X-Men 3 -- they're really going to have to speed up production of additional SHIELD stories, or they're going to be stuck with origin prequels that just don't have any bang to them.

[Dukerati]

Wolverine had a big drop off after week one. It did $26 million, a decline of 69% from its opening weekend. Big declines are normal for sci-fi franchise sequels, but this was a little larger than usual. Still, with $130 million in the boxoffice bank so far, Wolverine remains a viable option for the top 5, especially considering it is going to be around for the entire summer. I think $200-215 million remains a decent possibility, though it is not a sure thing.

The other main entry in our race so far is Star Trek, which opened with a nice $75 million. That is $10 million less than Wolverine, but the expectation is that Star Trek should have longer legs than Wolverine because it is a better movie and has gotten far better reviews. Trek should get good word of mouth and return business so its $75 million start is likely a prelude to a boxoffice total in at least the $225-265 million kind of range... which would land it in the top 5, for sure.

This week we add Angels and Demons to the race.

--Jason "not feeling good about my Wolverine pick, but Star Trek seems strong" Evans

Yep, not feeling overly confident about the Wolverine pick either. I've resolved to watch it this week to help my prediction out a little bit:)

[bjornolf]

I'm starting to worry about my Terminator and Up choices. I just know that one of them is going down. I'm just not sure which. :confused: I feel pretty confident about my Transformers, Harry Potter, and Star Trek picks. ;)

[JasonEvans]

I'm starting to worry about my Terminator and Up choices. I just know that one of them is going down. I'm just not sure which. :confused: I feel pretty confident about my Transformers, Harry Potter, and Star Trek picks. ;)

Now that a few people have seen Up, you should not be at all worried. The critics are raving about it the same way they did about WALL*E, Incredibles, and Finding Nemo. Variety says it is a 9.5 or maybe a 10 out of 10. Richard Corliss of Time Magazine says it is Pixar's most emotional and affecting work yet-- which is very high praise.

If I had to revise my picks, I would drop Wolverine and add Up.

--Jason "Star Trek, Up, Potter, Transformers, and Terminator will be the top 5, I think" Evans

[bjornolf]

Now that a few people have seen Up, you should not be at all worried. The critics are raving about it the same way they did about WALL*E, Incredibles, and Finding Nemo. Variety says it is a 9.5 or maybe a 10 out of 10. Richard Corliss of Time Magazine says it is Pixar's most emotional and affecting work yet-- which is very high praise.

If I had to revise my picks, I would drop Wolverine and add Up.

--Jason "Star Trek, Up, Potter, Transformers, and Terminator will be the top 5, I think" Evans

I really hope you're right. That would give me 5/5! ;)

[snowdenscold]

I picked Ice Age 3 as my dark horse since I wanted an animated/kids pick. Maybe I should have gone w/ Up instead.

Star Trek, Transformers, HP and Terminator are all legit contenders, but who knows - I may only end up w/ 3 out of 5.

[JasonEvans]

All I know is that Harry Potter is a lock. There are other likely contenders, but nothing nearly as much a lock as Potter. That is why 69 out of 71 of us voted for it.

The worst performing Potter film, Prisoner of Azkaban, made $249 million-- this one could do $25 million less than that and still comfortably make the top 5.

--Jason "the average Potter film makes $282 million" Evans

[Cell-R]

I saw Star Trek last night, and let me tell you it was amazing!

I never watched the show for more than 5 minutes at a time at my granddads house (I'm a little young to have actually watched it), and to be honest it seemed a little dull and dry.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought it was better than SW: Episode III, not that the two can be compared THAT easily :)

[weezie]

Star Trek all the way. Just got back from the show and it was stupendous.
WOW!!!

[Duke #33]

The movie that makes the most money will probably be Harry Potter. Each movie brings in nearly 300 million and with it being one of the last movies, I continue to see this movie raking in the cash.

[JasonEvans]

I think two very prominent films are about to fall by the wayside.

Angels and Demons opened with $48 million. That is a good opening, but most boxoffice watchers had expected something in the mid-upper 50s. More importantly, films that open with less than $50 million don't usually get to $200 million in total boxoffice (which is generally right where the bottom film in the top 5 of summer will be). It takes "long legs" to get to $200 million from a $48 million opening. Children's flicks (especially animated ones) tend to have long legs, but adult dramas usually do not (Titanic being the huge exception). Angels and Demons has gotten better reviews than DaVinci Code, but I don't think the reviews have been so good that it will generate the kind of long-term business it will take to get to $200 million. I think this one comes up short.

Wolverine did $14.8 million this weekend and is up to $151 million in total boxoffice. It was down 44% from last weekend, which is not bad and certainly better than the disastrous 69% drop it had last weeekend. I had been all ready to write Wolverine off after that 69% plunge, but if it can only lose 45% of its audience each weekend for the next couple weekends then it may make it to $200 million. I sorta doubt it though, especially with Terminator coming out this week to steal the Wolverine audience. I suspect that Wolverine is going to stall out around $180 million which will probably not quite get it into the top 5.

As an aside, I think we can now pencil Star Trek into the top 5 for sure. It did $43 million, this past weekend (almost enough to hold onto #1 over Angels). It only fell off 42% from last week, which is fabulous for a sci-fi, event flick and shows that word of mouth and strong reviews should keep this film generating good boxoffice numbers for a while. It is currently at $147 million in total boxoffice and I would expect it get to $220+ million fairly easily.

--Jason "big weekend coming up with Terminator Salvation and Night at the Museum -- our first weekend with two big name titles at once" Evans

[bjornolf]

The movie that makes the most money will probably be Harry Potter. Each movie brings in nearly 300 million and with it being one of the last movies, I continue to see this movie raking in the cash.

Definitely. The one thing that annoys me about those movies is that they've almost stopped wearing the robes. I get that the actors have said they don't like them, but that's part of what makes the school and the movies special and different. Come on, they're paying you millions, you can put on the darn robes. It's one of the things that I, at least, love as a fan. Maybe I'm the only one. Maybe I'm not though, since the third movie is the one I think somebody said did the worst, and it's the one where they wear them the least, I believe.

[aimo]

The movie that makes the most money will probably be Harry Potter. Each movie brings in nearly 300 million and with it being one of the last movies, I continue to see this movie raking in the cash.

Plus the fact that it was originally supposed to come out last November. We've been waiting a LONG time for Half-Blood Prince. Hope it doesn't disappoint. The trailers so far look awesome!

[JasonEvans]

The 4-day holiday weekend is not done yet, but a few things have become clear...

1) Terminator Salvation is going to struggle to get to $200 million. It did $56 million in its first 4 days (opened on Thursday), which is fine, but not quite what one typically sees from a $200 million flick. Especially when you consider that T4 got trounced by Night at the Museum 2 on Friday and Saturday (it was $5 million behind each day).

2) Star Trek is a lock for the top 5 of summer. It continues to have pretty good "legs" doing $21 million this weekend and raising its summer total to $183 million. It will likely cross the magic $200 million mark next weekend.

3) Angels and Demons will not be in the Top 5. It did $21 million this weekend, a drop of 53% from its opening weekend, which is really bad when you consider that this is a holiday weekend and the Sunday numbers should be better than usual as a result. Angels is currently at $81 million in total boxoffice through its first 2 weekends. No way it gets to $200 million at this pace-- no chance. In fact, I bet it does not even get to $150 million.

4) Night at the Museum may be a contender. It did $53.5 million on its opening weekend and held up very nicely from Friday to Sunday -- meaning it might have decent "legs." Kids flicks often hold up well so I am not ruling Museum out of the running for the top 5.

5) Ordinarily, I would be telling you that Wolverine is just not going to make the top 5. It did about 8 million this weekend and stands at $163 million total. It is going to get to about $180 million, but not all the way to $200 M. But, I am starting to wonder what else will get to $200 million. Sure, Harry Potter and Star Trek and a couple others will likely end up there. But, is it possible that $180 million could get Wolverine 5th place? It is a longshot, but it could happen.

More tomorrow-- when we have the final weekend figures.

--Jason "obsess much?" Evans

[Wander]

Obviously no where close to contenders for this poll, but now that I've seen Star Trek and Terminator, the two remaining movies that I'm most excited for are The Descent 2 and District-9.

[JasonEvans]

Yup, Terminator is not going to get there.

After getting a head start with a Thursday opening (in which it did $13 million), it got crushed by Night at the Museum again on Monday. This time, it fell $6 million short of the kid-friendly Museum after losing by $5 million on Saturday and Sunday (they basically tied on Friday). As a result, the Memorial Day weekend ends with Museum $3 million ahead of Terminator and showing a lot more momentum. I suppose that the weekday numbers could help Terminator, because kids don't tend to go to the movies mid-week when they are still in school, but I just have a hard time seeing Terminator as a bigger film than Museum at this point. so, the only way Terminator makes the top 5 is if Museum also makes the top 5 and I just have a hard time seeing both of them in there.

--Jason "up next... the standings!" Evans

[JasonEvans]

We now have enough days of summer and enough big summer films out to make it worthwhile to show the standings in our little race to the top 5. Here are the contenders and where they stand right now (as well as how much they earned on Memorial Day, which is a good indication of how strong they are still going).


Star Trek - $191 million (6.6 million on Memorial Day)
X-Men: Wolverine - $165 million (2.1 mil)
Angels and Demons - $87 million (5.9 mil)
Night at Museum 2 - $70 million (16.5 mil)
Terminator: Salvation - $67 million (10.8 mil)


Next weekend brings Up, which will provide huuuuge competition for Museum but should not affect the sci-fi flicks all that much. Then again, if Up sells out a lot, Museum could capture some of the spillover audience. It is not like a family with kids that cannot see Up are going to go see Terminator: Salvation instead ;)

Once we get a sense for how big Up will be and how well Terminator and Museum fare in their 2nd weekends, I think the top 5 will really start to crystalize.

--Jason "we are about to enter a little bit of a lull in June in terms of blockbusters, I think" Evans

[allenmurray]

I saw Night at the Museum this weekend with my kids. I thought they tried to do too much in too short a period of time (they seemed enamored with their own special effects) and that kept it from being as good as it might have been otherwise.

On the other hand, it is rare that we can find a movei that two fifty year olds, a 15 year old and a 10 year old can all watch togeterher. Either the themes are too adult for the 10 year old, or the plot is too insipid for the 16 year old and the adults).

The two Museum movies and the two National Treasure movies are really appreciated by me. Not because they are great movies, but because at least all four of us can go and enjoy them. That seems to be a rear quality in movies these days.

[darthur]

There are a bunch of reviews out for Up at this point. So far, they seem very good. Check out this negative review though:

http://www.nypress.com/article-19876-the-way-of-pixarism.html

By the end of it, I was just laughing. It's certainly possible I won't like Up, but it sure won't be for any of the reasons this guy brings up.

[bjornolf]

What a pretentious dink. Man is he full of himself. :rolleyes: He basically spends his entire review saying "I'm smarter than you cause I don't like Pixar movies, and you're a dummy if you like ANYTHING they've ever made, cause they're ALL the same." These kinds of critics annoy me no end. This makes me want to like Up even more.

[ohioguy2]

Now I really want to see the film. This reviewer really needs to get over himself.

[cato]

That dude probably eschewed finger paints as a kid, what with their mindnumbingly predictable color scheme and all.

[sue71, esq]

Jason, what are your thoughts on Public Enemies? I saw a trailer/preview over the weekend and it looks like it could be really good.

(Side note... I would SWEAR I posted this last night, but apparently I'm losing my mind... or I hit preview instead of submit... )

[JasonEvans]

Jason, what are your thoughts on Public Enemies? I saw a trailer/preview over the weekend and it looks like it could be really good.

(Side note... I would SWEAR I posted this last night, but apparently I'm losing my mind... or I hit preview instead of submit... )

Well, I clearly think it is a significant film because I included it in the list of movies you could vote for as being one of the top 5 of the summer. It has a tremendously strong cast-- led by big stars Johnny Depp and Christian Bale -- and director Michael Mann has both a strong reputation and a track record of making high quality movies that are often hits. As a big added plus, it has a story that is likely to engage the public because everyone has heard of John Dillinger and Pretty Boy Floyd but their stories are not so well known that people will feel like they already know how the movie turns out.

I think this will be one of the bigger adult dramas of the summer. I have not heard much word of mouth on it yet, so I do not know if it will be any good. Judging from Michael Mann's history (Miami Vice, Collateral), it will likely be dark. That does not bother me though. I have plans to see it, for sure.

--Jason "the trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/publicenemies/) is awesome... but most trailers are" Evans

[snowdenscold]

It might not be anywhere near the top 5, but if you're looking for a good, scary movie w/ great "boo!" moments - Drag Me To Hell is perfect. By far the best scary movie I've seen in awhile. Well, scary w/ a little bit of funny mixed in (go figure, it's Sam Raimi)

[JasonEvans]

Up won the weekend with 68 million dollars. That's the third biggest opening ever for a Pixar flick, just behind Nemo and Incredibles, which are the two highest grossing films in Pixar history. When you consider the "long-legs" that most Pixar films have, this looks to be a lock to make it to $200 million dollars. While I did not adore this film (see the Up review thread), it is good enough to do some repeat business and will have fairly good word of mouth as it is better than the other kids fare around right now.

So, if you picked Up in our poll-- you are feeling pretty good right now.

--Jason "more on the other contenders in a bit... gotta study the weekend data a bit more" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Weekend totals--

Up - $68 million
Night at Museum - $25.5 million
Drag me to Hell - $16.6 million
Terminator Salvation - $16 million
Star Trek - $12 million
Angels and Demons - $11 million
Wolverine - $3.9 million

I already spoke about Up. It is gonna get to $200 million, I think, and well beyond.

Night at the Museum 2 is still a contender. We need to see if it has staying power. It was off 52% this weekend, which is not bad considering it had major new competition in Up. If it can only show 40-50% declines over the next few weeks, it has a chance -- but I think it is going to come up short of $200 million. I bet it ends up in the $160s or $170s.

Terminator Salvation looks like a clunker. It fell 62% in its second weekend and only made $16 million dollars. It currently stands at $90 million in total boxoffice and I don't think it will even beat Angels and Demons when the summer is done. I am betting it gets to around $130 million. It is likely to barely make the top ten movies this summer. A very poor showing given all the excitement and expectation.

Star Trek has burst through the $200 million ceiling and is a mortal lock for the top 5 of summer.

Here are the standings among the major contenders so far--


Star Trek - $209.5 mil
Wolverine - $170.8 mil
Night at Museum 2 - $105.3 mil
Angels and Demons - $104.7 mil
Terminator Salvation- $90.6 mil
Up - $68.2 mil


--Jason "next week brings Land of the Lost-- which I am seeing on Tuesday. Will post my review soon after" Evans

[throatybeard]

Why on earth does anyone care about how much money the movie makes? Tell me whether it is a good film or not.

The one movie I'm looking forward to, or was, this summer, is the long-postponed The Road, on Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize winning novel. Novella perhaps. Actually it's been delayed again till October. Viggo Mortensen as the father. What could be better, right?

Well, my friend has seen the trailer, and he says at least from the trailer it looks as though they've horribly dumbed it down and turned it into a horror/action story, which the book isn't, despite its post-apocalyptic setting. Another problem is that the Weinsteins, who are involved again, butchered Bill Bob Thornton's 2000 film setting of McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses.

So I'm quite concerned. I was really looking forward to this.

[tbyers11]

Why on earth does anyone care about how much money the movie makes? Tell me whether it is a good film or not.

The one movie I'm looking forward to, or was, this summer, is the long-postponed The Road, on Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize winning novel. Novella perhaps. Actually it's been delayed again till October. Viggo Mortensen as the father. What could be better, right?

Well, my friend has seen the trailer, and he says at least from the trailer it looks as though they've horribly dumbed it down and turned it into a horror/action story, which the book isn't, despite its post-apocalyptic setting. Another problem is that the Weinsteins, who are involved again, butchered Bill Bob Thornton's 2000 film setting of McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses.

So I'm quite concerned. I was really looking forward to this.

This blurb (http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/05/most_important.php) (and the comments below) at Hollywood Elsewhere from a couple of weeks ago share some of your angst about "mainstreaming" McCarthy's novella onto the screen. Some of the comments, particularly #15 and #28, by people who have seen a rough cut and read the script, respectively, say that the trailer is not very representative of the movie as a whole. Most of the commenters discuss the need to make a more catchy trailer to pull in an audience.

I share your concern and hope that these people are correct about the movie. I really liked the book and hope that the film stays fairly true to the source material and captures its relentlessly bleak tone accurately.

[JasonEvans]

Why on earth does anyone care about how much money the movie makes? Tell me whether it is a good film or not.


It is an interesting diversion, nothing more. I agree that it tells you little about how good a movie is. After all, last summer we had Kung Fu Panda make almost as much money Wall*E even though they are miles and miles apart in terms of quality filmmaking.

--Jason "Throaty has been in a tizzy over The Road for at least the past 9 months" Evans

[-jk]

I saw a movie over the weekend destined to not make a lot of money, but quite good nonetheless: Goodbye Solo.

Good story, well told, mostly set in Winston-Salem. And Wallace Wade even turns up in a scene. (Bonus points for anyone who finds it.)

-jk

[Bluedog]

The Hangover beat expectations and pulled in a nice $43.3 million. Up beat it by a small margin and remained #1, bringing in $44.2 million (the difference can easily be attributed to more expensive ticket prices for the 3d version). Land of the Lost did much worse than expected, finishing #3 with only $19.5 million, well below expectations and a far way to go to get to recoup its $100 M budget. So, the voters on this board were wise with only four voting for Land of the Lost. Angels & Demons has surpassed the $116 million barrier domestically. But worldwide it's at $400 million, the largest for a 2009 film. Night at the Museum is now at $127.3 million, while Star Trek is at $222 million. Up is at $137 million. To me, the previews/TV commercials for The Hangover look incredibly stupid, but the reviews and world-of-mouth have actually made me want to see it. Sometimes the marketing department, I feel, presents a film in a way contrary to the way the movie actually "feels" when watching it in full. And I wasn't that big of a fan of Angels & Demons personally. It was just okay in my mind.

[gotham devil]

The Hangover beat expectations and pulled in a nice $43.3 million. Up beat it by a small margin and remained #1, bringing in $44.2 million (the difference can easily be attributed to more expensive ticket prices for the 3d version). Land of the Lost did much worse than expected, finishing #3 with only $19.5 million, well below expectations and a far way to go to get to recoup its $100 M budget. So, the voters on this board were wise with only four voting for Land of the Lost. Angels & Demons has surpassed the $116 million barrier domestically. But worldwide it's at $400 million, the largest for a 2009 film. Night at the Museum is now at $127.3 million, while Star Trek is at $222 million. Up is at $137 million. To me, the previews/TV commercials for The Hangover look incredibly stupid, but the reviews and world-of-mouth have actually made me want to see it. Sometimes the marketing department, I feel, presents a film in a way contrary to the way the movie actually "feels" when watching it in full. And I wasn't that big of a fan of Angels & Demons personally. It was just okay in my mind.
Speaking of Hangover, the "villain" in the movie, Mr. Chow, is actually a Duke graduate, Ken Jeong.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-jeong8-2009jun08,0,3842655.story

[JasonEvans]

Hangover could be the next "Wedding Crashers" -- a surprise comedy hit that no one expects that goes on to make over $200 million. Word of mouth and reviews are very strong and that likely means it will have long legs. $43 million is a huge head start on a big boxoffice number for an adult comey, that's for sure.

--Jason "Up held up fabulously from last week and is going to make $225+ million" Evans

[Udaman]

We now basically know who four of the five winners will be:

Star Trek (lock)
Up (lock)

Transformers (no way it won't be)
Harry Potter (ditto)

In my mind, that leaves one spot. So who will it be:

X-Men is currently at $174M...it will likely finish around $180M.

Night at the Museum is at $127M, but it has had two huge drop-offs in a row. But it is lucky in that there are no new kid movies coming out until Transformers (sort of) and Ice Age 2 (definite), at the end of June. So, to get to $180M, it needs to make $53M more...but last week, it only brought in $23M total. If you assume a 40% drop for the next three weeks, each week, that would put it at around $160M....bottom line - I don't think it is catching X-Men.

So, what other movie could top the $180M mark....really, by my count there is only one - Ice Age 2 (which was my last pick, got the other four). I was really high on this...until I saw the preview - which honestly looked AWFUL. Didn't laugh once. It will do well because so many people like it (and the 3-D costs a ton more than the regular version).....plus there aren't any real kid shows that follow (Harry Potter is too grown up, now). My money is still on Ice Age....but I put it 55% or worse.

[Ignatius07]

To me, the previews/TV commercials for The Hangover look incredibly stupid, but the reviews and world-of-mouth have actually made me want to see it. Sometimes the marketing department, I feel, presents a film in a way contrary to the way the movie actually "feels" when watching it in full.

I felt the exact same way you did - the previews were totally uninteresting to me, but I ended up seeing it last night based strictly on reviews and word of mouth. The movie ended up being good (and better than the previews would indicate), but not as good as it was hyped to be. To me it's not better than Knocked Up, Superbad, Wedding Crashers, or Little Miss Sunshine, to name a few off the top of my head, but still worth watching.


Speaking of Hangover, the "villain" in the movie, Mr. Chow, is actually a Duke graduate, Ken Jeong.

That's really interesting. That actor has appeared in a bunch of movies recently - he seems to be a consistent role player in the Judd Apatow movies - and it wouldn't surprise me if he gets a big role soon. He's in a movie called The Goods that was previewed before The Hangover. The movie stars Jeremy Piven and I'm not sure how big Jeong's role is.

[A-Tex Devil]

The Hangover is tremendous. It's got an edge to it that Phillips other movies -- Road Trip and Old School -- didn't have. I'm not sure it's better than Old School, I haven't digested it yet. But it is certainly different and not a retread.

Plus Zach Galifiniakis is amazing. Closer to performance art than acting.

And if you were worried (like I was) that it would be Very Bad Things, Part Deux, it's not. It is a much, much better movie, and much much funnier than Very Bad Things.

[bjornolf]

If it's even comparable to Very Bad Things, I don't want to see it. I went into that movie with high expectations and was disappointed on pretty much EVERY level. Hoping it's WAY better than that.

[Bluedog]

Top moves at the box office this year (summer movies in bold), courtesy of boxofficemojo.com...Only Paul Blart and Watchmen are "officially" closed. Domestic figures:

1 Star Trek $222,712,175
2 Monsters Vs. Aliens $194,854,481
3 X-Men Origins: Wolverine $174,347,386
4 Fast and Furious $154,356,665
5 Paul Blart: Mall Cop $146,336,178
6 Taken $144,924,285
7 Up $137,210,701
8 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian $127,326,188
9 Angels & Demons $116,174,931
10 Watchmen $107,509,799


However, if you look at worldwide figures, it's a different story. I didn't see in the initial post Jason explicitly stating we were only going by domestic figures. ;)

1 Angels & Demons $368,231,218
2 Monsters Vs. Aliens $356,413,656
3 Fast and Furious $346,518,460
4 X-Men Origins: Wolverine $344,635,467
5 Star Trek $324,062,568
6 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian $234,084,199
7 Taken $221,661,489
8 Watchmen $182,735,282
9 Paul Blart: Mall Cop $180,445,413
N/A Up Can't find

So, Angels & Demons moves up from 5th to 1st, while Star Trek moves down from 1st to 3rd. I guess certain movies have more appeal to non-US audiences than others....

[acciconoclast]

Pixar films typically get 60-65% of their revenues from foreign cinemas. But they roll out to foreign countries very slowly. UP opened in Russia week one (for piracy reasons) and set Disney/Pixar records. They opened this week in Mexico, Columbia and Venezuela and set more records. Only opened in those four countries thus far.

Still very early but when compared with earlier films like Finding Nemo and Wall-E many project Up eventually to be #2 or #3 in terms of commercial success for Pixar films

[JasonEvans]

Pixar films typically get 60-65% of their revenues from foreign cinemas. But they roll out to foreign countries very slowly. UP opened in Russia week one (for piracy reasons) and set Disney/Pixar records. They opened this week in Mexico, Columbia and Venezuela and set more records. Only opened in those four countries thus far.

Still very early but when compared with earlier films like Finding Nemo and Wall-E many project Up eventually to be #2 or #3 in terms of commercial success for Pixar films

First of all, our little summer movie game has always been only about US boxoffice figures. That is a given.

Secondly, I am betting that Up is especially big in South America as much of the movie takes place there and many international moviegoers love seeing American movies about their part of the world. It may sound strange, but this is a truism that holds up all the time. Angels and Demons, which is about European locales, is the latest example of this.

--Jason "Pixar movies also do quite well overseas because it is easier to dub an animated film into a foreign language than one with live human actors" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Did ya'll see the numbers The Hangover did mid-week? We are talking about crazy boxoffice numbers. We are talking record breaking numbers for an R-rated flick that did not do something freaky like open mid-week.

Monday - 7.6 million
Tuesday - 6.5 million
Wednesday - 6.6 million
Thursday - 6.0 million

There is only one thing the creates those kind of numbers-- insane buzz.

This film is going to pass $200 million in boxoffice. It is a real player in our "Top 5" contest.

--Jason

[acciconoclast]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118004934.html?categoryId=13&cs=1

"Defying convention, Warner Bros.' R-rated comedy "The Hangover" stayed at No. 1 in its second outing at the domestic box office, dipping a mere 26% an estimated $33.4 million from 3,355 theaters for a cume of $105.3 million in its first 10 days.
Disney-Pixar's 3-D toon "Up" likewise continued to dazzle in its third weekend, declining 31% to an estimated $30.5 million from 3,886 runs. Pic's cume is $187.2 million--the second-best domestic gross of any summer film save for Paramount's "Star Trek."

[bjornolf]

Funny that you didn't even include Hangover in the poll. What did the two "other" voters pick? Did either of them pick it? If so, they deserve major props. If not, then NOBODY'S getting all 5 this year, I'm thinking.

[brevity]

Funny that you didn't even include Hangover in the poll. What did the two "other" voters pick? Did either of them pick it? If so, they deserve major props. If not, then NOBODY'S getting all 5 this year, I'm thinking.

Looks like steven52682 went with Bruno, while Blue in the Face did not elaborate.

In retrospect, maybe The Hangover should have been included as a sleeper pick. Not because anyone expected it to do so well, but because the new offerings in its 2nd and 3rd weekends are so weak. Pelham 123, Imagine That, The Proposal, Year One... none of these ever looked like game changers. (Compare to May, when a new film or two topped the charts every weekend.)

This is why I felt confident with my Up prediction, but I didn't think a second film would benefit. I'm still not sold that The Hangover will end up in the top 5, with Wolverine not quite going away and the July slate ahead.

[Clipsfan]

I finally made it out to the theater last night for the first time this summer and saw The Hangover and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was looking for a good comedy as a nice distraction for me and the wife and we found it. It was pretty surprising to see that the theater was 85% full or so on a Monday after the movie had already been out two weeks. We'd been interested in seeing it the opening weekend but the showing we wanted was sold out.

This is Los Angeles, of course, and the tickets were $12 each. Fairly full showings at those prices will add up!

[JasonEvans]

Standings as of today (Tuesday, June 16)--


Star Trek - 232 million. Probably has another $10 million left until it is done. Lock for the Top 5... probably
Up - 191 million. Still going very strong and probably has another $50 million+ to go until it is done. Another lock for the Top 5... probably. More expensive 3D showings have really helped its boxoffice. Estimates are that it's BO has been boosted by 20-30% as a result of the 3D showings.
Wolverine - 176 million. Pretty much done. May make it to 180 million, but not beyond. Looks like it will finish 7th or 8th in the summer.
Night at the Museum 2 - 144 million. Only did 9 million this past weekend and likely has around 30 million of boxoffice left in it. Will come up short of the Top 5.
Angels and Demons - 123 million. Almost done. Won't get to $140 million.
Terminator Salvation - 114 million. One of the bigger disappointments of the season. A lot of us got this one badly wrong. Won't get to 130 million.
The Hangover - 110 million. Phenom/Surprise of the summer. I think it has at least $100 million of boxoffice left in it and maybe more like $150 million. Will pass the $200 million mark, but how high will it go?


So, here is the nightmare scenario for the folks who say Star Trek and Up are locks already--

1. Harry Potter does $300 million. Not hard to see that happening.
2. The Hangover continues to have phenomenal legs and ends up making $250 million+. Before you dismiss this as impossible recall that it was only off 32% this weekend, a crazy low number, and it remains super strong in its mid-week showings. It did another 5.5 million on Monday.
3. Transformers does $250 million+. Not hard to believe at all considering the original did like $320 mill.
4. Ice Age does $240-$250 million. This may be a stretch considering the first two Ice Age films each came up just a little bit shy of $200 million, but this film will command a ton of the 3D screens and 3D showings really boost boxoffice numbers (Up is getting a huge boost from them).

Well, if all that happens we may only have room for one of Star Trek and Up.

I don't think that will happen. I think Transformers may be significantly weaker than some are expecting (I could see it only making $200-$220). I also think Ice Age will barely cross the $200 million mark and will fall well short of Up and Star Trek. I think Hangover won't get to $250 million, but will probably be in the $225 million range. Still, I can see scenarios where one of Up or Star Trek do not make the Top 5. Just wanted to point it out as a possibility.

--Jason "I think spot #5 will be a race between Hangover and Ice Age" Evans

[bjornolf]

I was totally bummed last week. I wanted to go see Star Trek in IMAX at my local theater. They'd gone from all 5 of the IMAX showings being Star Trek to 1 Star Trek and 4 Night at the Museum 2 showings. On Friday when the movies switch, they went to all 5 showings being NATM2, so when I went Saturday, I couldn't see it. WTF? Do people REALLY want to see NATM2 on IMAX at 9:35pm over Star Trek????? I just don't get it.

[JasonEvans]

Weekend Report--

The two new entries to theaters this weekend were both adult-themed comedies. That would have to be bad news for The Hangover, right? I mean, one of them was a romantic comedy, which would sap away date audiences, and the other was slapstick and low-brow, which would sap away the younger male audience that has been the core of The Hangover's success. So, what happened?


The Proposal - $34.1 mil
The Hangover - $26.8 mil
Up - $21.3 mil
Year One - $20.2 mil
Pelham 123 - $11.3 mil
Night at Museum 2 - $7.3 mil
Star Trek - $4.7 mil
Land of Lost - $3.9 mil
Imagine That - $3.1 mil
Terminator Salvation - $3.0 mil


Are you kidding me?!?! The Hangover was only off 18% from last weekend. That is ridiculous for a film still at the top of the boxoffice charts. The Hangover is up to $152 million in total boxoffice and I cannot see any way it does not get to at least $225 million.

Up is now at $224 million and will likely pass Star Trek (currently at $239 mil) in the next week or two to take the summer lead.

Transformers comes this week... and should really shake things up.

--Jason "Hangover, Trek, Up, Transformers, and Potter should be the top 5" Evans

[94duke]

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/06/box-office-transformers-.html

[JasonEvans]

First of all, I am disgusted with the nation's moviegoing public for flocking to theaters to see that piece of junk that is Transformers 2. That said, it was fairly predictable that Transformers would be huge, huge, huge. Ahh well. No accounting for taste.

Here are the "standings" for the summer so far--


Up - $250.2 mil
Star Trek - $246.2 mil
Transformers 2 - $201.2 mil
Hangover - $183.2 mil
Wolverine - $177.8 mil
Night at Museum 2 - $163.2 mil
Angels and Demons - $130.2 mil
Terminator Salvation - $121.9 mil


The first 3 on the list are obviously locks for the top 5. No reason to even discuss them further.

Hangover should get to $200 million by the end of next weekend. It continues to show great "legs" as it was only off 35% this weekend from last weekend and was the #3 movie at the boxoffice this weekend. I still think it gets to $220 million or so.

We need to hold a spot in the top 5 for Harry Potter, which is almost certain to do north of $250 million in boxoffice.

So, the question becomes-- can Ice Age or something else (Public Enemies?) get to $225 million or so and pass The Hangover? Crazier things have happened.

--Jason "Ice Age's 3D bump may be the difference here" Evans

[cato]

Has anyone heard any buzz on Ice Age? After getting 4 of the 5 last year, I'm hoping to land all 5 this year (Potter, Trek, Transformers, Up and Ice Age). The unexpected Hangover is making my a little quesy, though.

[snowdenscold]

I am always wary of sequels so I waited to hear if Transformers 2 would be any good. Upon hearing fairly unanimous bad reviews, I have determined not to spend any of my $ on it.

[rthomas]

Th Hurt Locker - From the trailer it looks almost too intense to enjoy. But it has received a huge amount good press.

Time calls it near-perfect.
NYT says best action movie of the summer.
Defining film of the decade.
Best movie of the year. Best director.


I guess it's out already in NY and LA. Anybody seen it?

http://thehurtlocker-movie.com/

[brevity]

Has anyone heard any buzz on Ice Age? After getting 4 of the 5 last year, I'm hoping to land all 5 this year (Potter, Trek, Transformers, Up and Ice Age). The unexpected Hangover is making my a little quesy, though.

I think yours will be the winning set of 5. The previous Ice Age movies were significant spring hits ($176M, 195M); this one will get a summer boost and attract the family crowds who have already seen Up.

By the way, I agreed with 4 of your 5 picks, but couldn't pull the trigger on Ice Age; I went with a darkhorse non-franchise film (Public Enemies) instead. We'll know in next few weeks which of us is right.

[bjornolf]

I think the Hangover is gonna make it in the top 5 and blow up everybody's poll. That's what I'm hoping for, as I was pretty solid on everything except my Terminator pick. Plus, I love it when dark horses like that sneak in.

[JasonEvans]

I think we all agree that the only question left is Hangover vs. Ice Age for to top 5, right?

This assumes Harry Potter is a given for the top 5. The early reviews are excellent and I expect it to be easily top $250 million.

So, in its opening weekend Ice Age did good numbers, very good numbers. It made $67.5 million in the first 5 days including 42.5 for the weekend. That is a strong opening-- though not one big enough for us to say that $200 million is a lock. Heck, Wolverine opened to $80+ million and it is going to stall at $180 million in total boxoffice. Terminator Salvation opened to an identical $42.5 million and it is not even going to make it to $130 million.

http://watchiceage3.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ice_age_3.jpg

The key for Ice Age will be the legs. It needs to hold up very strong the next three weeks or so. Kid-friendly films often have long legs so this flick has a chance... but, I think it is going to fall short. My bet is that Ice Age 3 makes somewhere between $175 and $195 million.

As for The Hangover, it crashed through the $200 million mark over the weekend. It made $10 million and is up to $204 million in total boxoffice. It probably has about $20 million of ticket sales left.

Standings right now--


Transformers - $293.4 mil
Up - $264.8 mil
Star Trek - $249.8 mil
Hangover - $204.2 mil
Wolverine - $178.3 mil
Night at Museum 2 - $167.7 mil
Angels and Demons - $130.7 mil
Terminator Salvation - $122.7 mil


--Jason "Transformers was down 61% from last weekend... befitting a film of such suckitude" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Small update...

The Sunday estimates have now been replaced by actual reported figures and Fox had to revise Ice Age down by almost a million dollars. This means it was about 8% worse on Sunday than they initially thought. That is not a good sign. Additionally, Ice Age 3 is now running 8 million dollars behind Ice Age 2 in terms of boxoffice after 5 days of release. Ice Age 2 came out in the spring, not the summer, so there could be reason to think that Ice Age 3 will do slightly better during weekdays, but it is seemingly increasingly unlikely that Ice Age 3 will even reach the levels of Ice Age 2.

Ice Age 2 ended up making $195 million.

One more thing to add-- Public Enemies had a nice opening by adult-drama standards. It made $26 million over the weekend and is at $41 million for its first 5 days. Good numbers, especially for a gangster flick-- there is not a long history of huge boxoffice success in that genre-- but it would be a huge shock for this flick to come anywhere close to $200 million.

http://www.channel4.com/film/media/images/Channel4/film/P/public_enemies_xl_01--film-A.jpg

--Jason "I think the top 5 is all done" Evans

[Tommac]

Standings right now--


Transformers - $293.4 mil
Up - $264.8 mil
Star Trek - $249.8 mil
Hangover - $204.2 mil
Wolverine - $178.3 mil
Night at Museum 2 - $167.7 mil
Angels and Demons - $130.7 mil
Terminator Salvation - $122.7 mil




So far this summer, I've seen Transformers, Star Trek, Wolverine, and Terminator Salvation. Of those four, I personally enjoyed Wolverine and Terminator the most. Public Enimies is the next movie I want to see.

[sue71, esq]

I saw Public Enemies on the 4th. It was ok. As much as I love Johnny Depp, and Christian Bale aint to bad either, the movie was just ok to me. Decent. Not great, not crap.

[bjornolf]

I'm confused, Jason, what do you mean by the top 5 being all done?

For everybody saying that Transformers was the epitome of suckitude (and I won't argue since I haven't seen it yet), how come it blew away every other movie so far this summer? I can see HP beating it, but not sure anybody else will..

[Udaman]

Not to speak for Jason...but I think he meant the "Top 5" were set - not necessarily which order they would finish in. His argument was that Ice Age will not catch The Hangover....which I think is accurate. Ice Age has one more weekend, but then Harry Potter comes, then another kids flick. It will make it to right at $200M, if not a little lower, while The Hangover will finish at around $220M or so.

Uda (who would never speak for Jason Evans, or steal his signature) Man

[InSpades]

For everybody saying that Transformers was the epitome of suckitude (and I won't argue since I haven't seen it yet), how come it blew away every other movie so far this summer? I can see HP beating it, but not sure anybody else will..

There's a pretty big disconnect between a movie being good and a movie making lots of money at the box office. A good movie is a movie you would recommend to a friend or want to watch again. Transformers made a bajillion dollars opening weekend because it has robots and megan fox and a huge following based off the 1st movie (and the cartoons I guess). It could have been the worst movie ever put to screen and still would have made $200M. Compare it to The Hangover which didn't have a huge opening but is still in theaters making lots of money long after it was released.

[JasonEvans]

Not to speak for Jason...but I think he meant the "Top 5" were set - not necessarily which order they would finish in. His argument was that Ice Age will not catch The Hangover....which I think is accurate. Ice Age has one more weekend, but then Harry Potter comes, then another kids flick. It will make it to right at $200M, if not a little lower, while The Hangover will finish at around $220M or so.

Uda (who would never speak for Jason Evans, or steal his signature) Man

The other kids flick that will provide competition for Ice Age 3 is G-Force, a Disney release about a team of talking Hamsters who are secret agents for the government. That comes out on July 24th. July 31st brings Aliens in the Attic, which is also targetted at the young/family audience. Unless something truly unforseen happens, Ice Age ain't getting past $200 million.

So, DaMan is correct. I think the Top 5 of the summer are set. What's more, I am pretty sure the order of finish is pretty much set.

The 4 flicks that are already out will finish in this order--

Transformers
Up
Star Trek
Hangover


The only question is, where does Harry Potter fall? The past 2 Potter films (Order of the Phoenix and Goblet of Fire) both made $290 million. If Half-Blood Prince does $290, it will be #2 for the summer (Up is at $264 mil and probably has about $10-15 mil left). I think Transformers is going to end up in the $350 million dollar range (hard to say how much it will hold up after just 2 weeks). I think Harry Potter will likely fall short of Transformers in the end, though I hope not as it would mean that Potter was a great film and it would mean that the moviegoing public had rejected that putrid mess that was Transformers 2.

-Jason "I can't believe Transformers 2 is going to be one of the 15 or so biggest movies of all-time... blech!!" Evans

[snowdenscold]

-Jason "I can't believe Transformers 2 is going to be one of the 15 or so biggest movies of all-time... blech!!" Evans

I'm glad I haven't supported it. Speaking of which, am I the only guy who just isn't that attracted to Megan Fox? I mean, it's not like she's ugly, but of pretty girls in Hollywood to watch on the screen, I can easily name 25 others I'd rather have in front of me for two hours...

[bjornolf]

I'm glad I haven't supported it. Speaking of which, am I the only guy who just isn't that attracted to Megan Fox? I mean, it's not like she's ugly, but of pretty girls in Hollywood to watch on the screen, I can easily name 25 others I'd rather have in front of me for two hours...

Can't argue too much with you there. I think, personally, that Olivia Wilde is much more attractive than Megan. But that's just my personal opinion. Megan reminds me of Tea Leoni when she was younger, like back in her Bad Boys days. Sure, I don't mind looking at her on screen, but I'm not out of my mind for her, either.

[JBDuke]

I'm glad I haven't supported it. Speaking of which, am I the only guy who just isn't that attracted to Megan Fox? I mean, it's not like she's ugly, but of pretty girls in Hollywood to watch on the screen, I can easily name 25 others I'd rather have in front of me for two hours...

Yes, you're the only one. ;)

I was dragged to "Transformers 2" by my 10-year-old. His mom promised him that I would take him, so I felt sort of stuck. I offered to take him to "Star Trek" instead, but he wouldn't have it. I don't think it was quite as bad as Jason and most other critics have stated, but it certainly wasn't good, either. I gave it 5/10 on IMDB.

[Tommac]

Saw Public Enemies yesterday. As someone else said, it was ok, not great and not bad. It's not a movie I liked enough to buy the DVD.

[JasonEvans]

A little late for my report, but better late than never ;)

Last weekend told us a few things.

1) Bruno is a non-factor. $30 million is a nice opening but not nearly enough to make it a real contender for anything significant this summer. Plus, it had a very big dropoff after the opening night and I think it will not have long legs.

2) Ice Age 3 is gonna fall short of The Hangover. Even if Ice Age makes it to $200 million (and I think it will come up about 20 million short of that), the Hangover is still moving strong at about $220 million and is going to finish wel ahead of Ice Age. This past weekend, even though Ice Age did $27 million, The Hangover did almost $10 million and was only off 11% from the previous week. The Hangover has phenomenal legs, like nothing we have seen in a couple years. It is still going strong. Heck, I think it has an outside chance of catching Star Trek for the #4 spot in the summer.

3) Early reports at that Potter's pre-sales of tickets are well ahead of Transformers. It may be an interesting race to see which of those flicks finishes #1. Potter is gonna bu HUGE!

--Jason "seeing Potter tonight... I had to skip the screening over the weekend because my son had a baseball tournament" Evans

[bird]

A Potter is gonna bu HUGE!

--Jason "seeing Potter tonight... I had to skip the screening over the weekend because my son had a baseball tournament" Evans


IMAX tickets here in Richmond are generally sold out until July 23.

My daughter is going tonight at midnight.

Son (w/multiple friends) tomorrow afternoon.

By far the biggest buzz of the summer among the younger set.

And if it turns out to be decent movie - wow.

[acciconoclast]

http://www.hitfix.com/articles/2009-7-18-harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince-dominates-friday-s-box-office

"Knocking on the door of the top ten in only 27 theaters is Fox Searchlight's "500 Days of Summer." The unconventional romantic comedy found $265,000 and a stellar $9,815 average on it's opening day. The Sundance Film Festival favorite looks like it's going to live up to its billing as the sleeper hit of the summer."


"(500) Days of Summer"
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel charm the pants off us -- and each other! -- in this irresistible comedy"

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2009/07/17/500_days_summer/index.html?CP=IMD&DN=110

[acciconoclast]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118006166.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

"Warner Bros.’ “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” grossed an estimated $79.5 million from 4,325 theaters over the weekend for a five-day domestic opening of $159.7 million, the best start ever for the still-magical franchise.
...
On the specialty side, Fox Searchlight’s offbeat rom com “500 Days of Summer” posted a boffo per location average of $31,000 as it opened in 27 theaters, grossing an estimated $837,500."

[bjornolf]

Are we gonna get a Potter review from Jason? I saw it with the wife on Friday and wanted to compare notes, but wanted him to do the in-depth review first, cause he does such good ones.

[JasonEvans]

Are we gonna get a Potter review from Jason? I saw it with the wife on Friday and wanted to compare notes, but wanted him to do the in-depth review first, cause he does such good ones.

Sorry... I saw it a few days ago and spoke about it on the radio at the Atlanta station where I do reviews. Here is a link to my latest radio appearance (http://multimedia.790thezone.com/m/25340119/jason-evans.htm) with reviews of Potter, The Hurt Locker, and Bruno.

The radio segments are not nearly in depth as much as the written reviews I do here.

I am a bit swamped at the moment, but will start a separate thread for Potter film thoughts. I am betting a lot of us will want to comment there.

-Jason "as for the race for top 5 of the summer-- it is done. Potter will make it, Ice Age will not" Evans

[YmoBeThere]

The other kids flick that will provide competition for Ice Age 3 is G-Force, a Disney release about a team of talking Hamsters who are secret agents for the government.

Saw the preview today while viewing up, they looked a little larger to me. Perhaps guinea pigs?

Up was the best of the films I have seen this summer.

[bjornolf]

I think they are Guinea Pigs. Isn't that what the "G" stands for?

[brevity]

Box office figures for Friday 7/24:

1. G-Force $11,525,000
2. The Ugly Truth $10,800,000
3. Harry Potter 6 $9,300,000

I know that Warner Bros. will tout HP6 as the "Biggest Worldwide Opening of All-Time," but it's a serious black eye (pun intended) that the film they delayed since November 2008 is putting up November numbers. So there's no The Dark Knight for them this year, but it's a good thing they have The Hangover to fall back on.

Here are the current top 5:

1. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($373,530,000)
2. Up ($282,523,000)
3. Star Trek ($253,580,933)
4. The Hangover ($242,592,000)
5. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince ($201,134,000)

Not sure if Potter has enough magic to go higher than #3. And in a sign that I've grown old and out of touch, I don't think I've ever seen a TV ad for the Transformers sequel, except for the Super Bowl teaser. So I have no idea how it became the biggest movie of the year and a $400 million prospect.

[JasonEvans]

Here are the current top 5:

1. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($373,530,000)
2. Up ($282,523,000)
3. Star Trek ($253,580,933)
4. The Hangover ($242,592,000)
5. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince ($201,134,000)


We always talk about $200 million being the magical barrier, and that will hold as there are only going to be five $200 million flicks this summer...

But the funny thing is that they are all going to beat $200 million by a wide, wide margin. I actually expect the $253 of Star Trek to be the #5 film. Potter will pass it in a couple weeks and it is now clear that the phenomenal legs of The Hangover will propel that flick past Trek as well.

--Jason "Potter will end up closer to $300 million than you might imagine, I think" Evans

[acciconoclast]

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/07/26/g-force-box-office/

"Neither the magic of Harry Potter nor the combined star power of Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler was enough to keep a crew of wise-cracking guinea pigs from scurrying to the top of the box office this weekend. Disney’s family comedy G-Force, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and featuring the voices of Nicolas Cage, Will Arnett, and Penelope Cruz as a team of world-saving rodents, made an estimated $32.2 million in its debut. Despite opening hot on the heels of the one-week old Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the animation/live action hybrid pic was a hit with young audiences, pulling 55 percent of its viewers from the under-18 crowd.

But Potter’s box office magic hasn’t worn off just yet: The series’ sixth installment landed in the number two spot its second weekend with $30 million, bringing its total to $221.8 million. After just 12 days in theaters, Half-Blood is already the fifth biggest hit of the year domestically, not to mention overseas, where the powerhouse has raked in an additional $236 million.

....

Lower down on the chart, Fox Searchlight’s (500) Days of Summer (at number 11 with $3 million) is still building momentum. The quirky rom-com posted a hefty $19,176 per-site average and a 95 percent increase over its debut last weekend.



http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118006473.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&ref=bd_film

[darthur]

So I assume nobody went 5/5 this year? I don't even see the Hangover listed as a possible choice. I went 4/5 for the second straight year, probably one of many.

[RainingThrees]

I just saw Bruno and while funny I will be disturbed for a while. Changing gears did anyone see the previews for Districk 9? Its a new Peter Jackson movie and it looks amazing!!!

[tbyers11]

We always talk about $200 million being the magical barrier, and that will hold as there are only going to be five $200 million flicks this summer...

But the funny thing is that they are all going to beat $200 million by a wide, wide margin. I actually expect the $253 of Star Trek to be the #5 film. Potter will pass it in a couple weeks and it is now clear that the phenomenal legs of The Hangover will propel that flick past Trek as well.

--Jason "Potter will end up closer to $300 million than you might imagine, I think" Evans

I agree with Jason that Harry Potter may well end up at $300 million because most of the country hasn't seen the movie on the true IMAX screen yet because Transformers plays on them until tomorrow. With the first 12 minutes of the movie shot in 3D, I bet there will be many repeat viewers at $14 or $15 bucks a pop. Those ticket sales will add up fast.

[JasonEvans]

Funny People was sorta a flop at the boxoffice this weekend. I thought it was an intelligent flick and not just a simple comedy, but it is long and I think many folks expected something different from it. Anyway, it performed far worse than one would expect from a typical Sandler or Apatow film pulling in $22 million. It will likely fail to reach the $100 million mark.

As previously mentioned, Harry Potter 6 got a boost from new IMAX screens and pushed its take to $255 million with a $17 mill weekend. It will get to the $300 million mark and finish as the #2 movie of the summer.

The Hangover has now passed $250 million and moved past Star Trek into the #4 spot for the summer but I don't think it will quite reach the $286 million of Up.

With just a few weeks left in the summer, nothing has happened to change our top 5. It will be...

1. Transformers 2
2. Harry 6
3. Up (Pixar 10)
4. Hangover (Wedding crashers 2)
5. Star Trek 11

--Jason "dying to see District 9 in a couple weeks and Basterds after that" Evans

[weezie]

Still, nobody has seen "Hurt Locker"???

[bjornolf]

You don't think "Inglorious Basterds" will make a splash? ;)

[bjornolf]

I noticed you didn't include GI Joe in the list of summer movies to vote on. Is that cause it's too late in the season, or cause it you think it'll suck. I just saw a Yahoo article saying it was pretty good:

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/take5.html

Also, for those Toy Story lovers out there, if you scroll down, there's some news. ;)

[JasonEvans]

With the 3+ million it earned over the weekend, Harry Potter 6 has moved past Up into 2nd place for the summer. That means we now have our final order:


Transformers 2 - $398 million. It should just barely inch past $400 million before closing in the next couple weeks.
Harry Potter 6 - $290 million. Looks like it will end up finishing just shy of $300 million, but could maybe pass that mark. Will finish as the 2nd most successful film in the Harry Potter franchise history.
UP - $288 million. Seems to pretty much be done. Has no more than a million or so of boxoffice left in it. 2nd biggest film in Pixar history, though when adjusted for inflation is just in the middle - lower end of the Pixar pack.
The Hangover - $268 million. The stunner of the summer with incredible legs that made it a boxoffice power for months. Probably has about $8 million or so of ticket sales still to go. Will likely be a huge, huge hit on DVD this holiday season.
Star Trek - $256 million. Pretty much done with meaningful ticket sales. Great results considering the no-name cast. Highly successful reboot of the franchise and cements JJ Abrams as one of the major creative and bankable talents in Hollywood.


6th place went to Ice Age, which is at $192 million and will likely fall a couple million short of $200 million. Looks like X-Men: Wolverine ($179 mil) will barely hold off Night at Museum 2 ($176 mill) for 7th place. GI Joe did better than most had anticipated and is at $120 million after 3 weeks but I don't think it has $50 million more in ticket sales left in it (probably more like $25-35 million).

One final note-- Inglorious Basterds had a fabulous debut this weekend with $37 million. That's a huge number for a war-themed, adult-skewing, blood-soaked comedy. In fact, it is the best opening ever for a Tarantino film. There is no way Basterds will threaten the $170+ million of the top movies of summer -- not with a late-August release, but this is certainly going to be regarded as a hit and a strong success. Add in the fact that the film's budget was a relatively mild (by Hollywood standards) $70 million and this movie is going to make Quentin and the Weinstein Bros. a lot of money, I suspect.

Also, District 9 had really good legs for a sci-fi flick, only dropping 49% from last week. There appears to be great word of mouth on this film and, even though it will also pose no threat to the top movies of the summer, it also appears that it will go down as a significant August success.

--Jason "if Dist 9 or Basterds had gotten a May-June release, I think they could have been 'players' in the summer race" Evans

[InSpades]

Last night on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" there was a question about which movie had the top US gross as of August 1st. The options were Up, Star Trek, Hangover and Transformers. Having read this thread I immediately knew the answer... the contestant was obviously not as well-read :). He used a lifeline to get him 2 guesses and picked Star Trek and Up.

[weezie]

Fantastic film. Hasn't it already doubled expenses in the first week? Just terrific! Outstanding acting all around; each part was beautifully played. Really, Tarantino has hit it out of the park!!!

[A-Tex Devil]

Fantastic film. Hasn't it already doubled expenses in the first week? Just terrific! Outstanding acting all around; each part was beautifully played. Really, Tarantino has hit it out of the park!!!

Agreed. Saw it at Alamo Drafthouse in Austin to see it (best independent film theater in the USA!) and when the theater scene began with the propoganda film, they unfurled nazi flags in the sides of the theater we were sitting in too as if we were at the same theater. Kind of weird, but they go to great lengths at the Drafthouse.

Plus I got to drink an Arrogant Bastard Ale on draft which was on special in conjunction with the movie.

[Jim3k]

Inglourious Basterds. Fantastic film. Hasn't it already doubled expenses in the first week? Just terrific! Outstanding acting all around; each part was beautifully played. Really, Tarantino has hit it out of the park!!!


Agreed. Saw it at Alamo Drafthouse in Austin to see it (best independent film theater in the USA!) and when the theater scene began with the propoganda film, they unfurled nazi flags in the sides of the theater we were sitting in too as if we were at the same theater. Kind of weird, but they go to great lengths at the Drafthouse.

Plus I got to drink an Arrogant Bastard Ale on draft which was on special in conjunction with the movie.

Well, A-Tex, I’m glad you got a good beer to go along with it. It needs something to wash it down. I’m going to disagree with both of you about Inglourious Basterds. I thought it was pretty bad.

My principal concern is its utter disregard with anything approaching historical fact. Sure, there have been plenty of WWII movies which are largely fiction. But they often fall into the category of high adventure (Guns of Navaronne) or having an anti-war message (Enemy Below), where a discrete piece of the war can be fabricated for the author’s story or purpose. The audience never has a doubt that these stories use the war as a backdrop to another purpose.

Plus there are some WWII movies that are generally true, but fall fairly within the historical fiction category (Battle Cry, Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan). These are built about things known to be generally true, allowing the real history to serve as means of telling a fictional story which could well have been as true as the surrounding event.

Inglourious Basterds junks those kinds of approaches and tries another: An entirely fictional scenario, built upon the conjunction of two separate efforts to kill Hitler in Paris after the June 1944 invasion. The problem with this is that Hitler was never in Paris in 1944. Not only does Tarantino falsify that fact, but he also falsifies what Paris was like in August as the Allies began to move rapidly north. That truth is well understood from Is Paris Burning?, a movie which has a great deal of historical accuracy.

Against that, Tarantino’s creation of a Sgt. York-like soldier turned propaganda movie star seems far too contrived to warrant a viewer’s suspension of belief. The same can also be said for the cartoonish Basterds. Even The Dirty Dozen did a better job of character development than Tarantino does with the Basterds here. And then, for the Basterds and the survivor of the early Jewish massacre to suddenly happen upon the same opportunity, is beyond acceptable as a credible circumstance. Finally, of course, is the inglorious fire at the end – one which Tarantino wishes actually happened because he thinks the war should have ended with it -- but which is so absurd that it defies any sense of truth.

Tarantino gets no reprieve from me for his excellent camera work, his actors or even his funny dialogue. He lied to us in the beginning and never stopped, giving no heed to the intelligence of his audience.

This movie would have been better served if it had never been connected to WWII – perhaps as a fantasy, say some kind of a science fiction world.

[A-Tex Devil]

Tarantino gets no reprieve from me for his excellent camera work, his actors or even his funny dialogue. He lied to us in the beginning and never stopped, giving no heed to the intelligence of his audience.

This movie would have been better served if it had never been connected to WWII – perhaps as a fantasy, say some kind of a science fiction world.

Can't really respond with out potential spoliers so stop reading if you don't want to be spoiled.

_______________

I guess you went into this movie with completely different expectations then I did. Was the fact that it was historically inaccurate and even rewrote history really bother you? I thought the liberties taken with historical fact were more than expected, and a bit more ballsy then even anticipated. We all know there wasn't a group of Jewish soldiers in France pre-D-Day causing havoc. I also doubt Hitler was ever in France during 1944 or 1945. But did it even need to be historically accurate?

This was a grindhouse style movie set in WWII. The dialogue was great, the acting was great, the direction was great. I can handle (and I even enjoyed) the alternate history this movie wrote, and don't understand how the audience is "lied to" any more than any other peice of fiction. Tarantino never claimed to be making Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List or Midway here. This was an over the top, fun movie with a bad guy we can all agree on.

I will agree, however, that I was disappointed in the character development of the Basterds, but other than that, I loved it.

[Indoor66]

I saw Basterds yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. It is, maybe, Tarantino's best. I thought the character development was appropriate. The bizarre treatment of history fit the bizarre nature of the tale being told. Thoroughly enjoyable.

Quintessential Tarantino.

[UVaAmbassador]

Well, A-Tex, I’m glad you got a good beer to go along with it. It needs something to wash it down. I’m going to disagree with both of you about Inglourious Basterds. I thought it was pretty bad.

My principal concern is its utter disregard with anything approaching historical fact. Sure, there have been plenty of WWII movies which are largely fiction. But they often fall into the category of high adventure (Guns of Navaronne) or having an anti-war message (Enemy Below), where a discrete piece of the war can be fabricated for the author’s story or purpose. The audience never has a doubt that these stories use the war as a backdrop to another purpose.

Plus there are some WWII movies that are generally true, but fall fairly within the historical fiction category (Battle Cry, Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan). These are built about things known to be generally true, allowing the real history to serve as means of telling a fictional story which could well have been as true as the surrounding event.

Inglourious Basterds junks those kinds of approaches and tries another: An entirely fictional scenario, built upon the conjunction of two separate efforts to kill Hitler in Paris after the June 1944 invasion. The problem with this is that Hitler was never in Paris in 1944. Not only does Tarantino falsify that fact, but he also falsifies what Paris was like in August as the Allies began to move rapidly north. That truth is well understood from Is Paris Burning?, a movie which has a great deal of historical accuracy.

Against that, Tarantino’s creation of a Sgt. York-like soldier turned propaganda movie star seems far too contrived to warrant a viewer’s suspension of belief. The same can also be said for the cartoonish Basterds. Even The Dirty Dozen did a better job of character development than Tarantino does with the Basterds here. And then, for the Basterds and the survivor of the early Jewish massacre to suddenly happen upon the same opportunity, is beyond acceptable as a credible circumstance. Finally, of course, is the inglorious fire at the end – one which Tarantino wishes actually happened because he thinks the war should have ended with it -- but which is so absurd that it defies any sense of truth.

Tarantino gets no reprieve from me for his excellent camera work, his actors or even his funny dialogue. He lied to us in the beginning and never stopped, giving no heed to the intelligence of his audience.

This movie would have been better served if it had never been connected to WWII – perhaps as a fantasy, say some kind of a science fiction world.

You missed the entire point of the movie. This wasn't meant to be even remotely historical. It was meant to be a WWII allied soldier's revenge fantasy. My only problem with the movie is that QT is becoming increasingly self indulgent in his style with each passing film.

[Jim3k]

I understand the disagreements.

But keep this in mind: A movie, to be taken seriously, has to provide a sense of plausibility within its own framework. This movie makes no attempt to do so.

I understand that QT was trying to modernize the concept of the spaghetti western. But, IMO, he fails to do even that. Sergio Leone had stories that hung together, even if the Eastwood character had exaggerated strength and a peculiar sense of morality. Neither Eastwood nor his villains are realistic. And I'm not seeking that. Plus, we all understand the good-guy/bad-guy mythology of the western, spaghetti or otherwise.

I simply want to see a story that fits the premise. This does not fit the premise of WWII.

And, I am in full agreement with UVaA -- QT is simply being self-indulgent, what with his industry inside jokes and references. Those things are for him, not for the audience. I am the audience and that stuff doesn't reach me.

But the main thing is lack of plausibility on any level.

And yes. I am offended by his history re-write. He's taken a slant on WWII and its icons that is disrespectful of the Allies' war effort. He treats Churchill well, but from the beginning the movie goes off in a direction that Churchill would never have countenanced. Devaluing the war's purpose as Tarantino does, changing it into a revenge fantasy, is part of the falsity. Unlike the western, there is no advance common understanding of the premise the director wants to present. Most WWII premises would somehow accept the premise that the European theater had nothing to with revenge fantasies, but everything to do with freeing Europe from its Nazi-imposed chains. Tarantino does not allow the audience to do that.

Even so, revenge could have been a decent premise if the rest of the movie, particularly the ending, entirely self-indulgent, could be reconciled with history.

QT fans may think his re-write is okay for artistic purposes. I find myself unable to agree and am admittedly offended.

[darthur]

And yes. I am offended by his history re-write. He's taken a slant on WWII and its icons that is disrespectful of the Allies' war effort.

This is just my opinion, but I find a full rewrite like this to be much more innocuous than either of the following:

- Movies that take the name of a book but have literally nothing to do with the book (e.g. I, Robot)
- Historical movies that are accurate enough or obscure enough that the audience might believe them, but that seriously alter key events or characters (e.g. The Patriot)

With Basterds, at least everyone in the audience knows the story and events are completely unfaithful to what really happened, and can treat them as such.

[JasonEvans]

Question for the critics-- would Basterd have worked better if the "bad guy" had been named Alfie Hister? That way we all would have known who he was but there would have been no implication that this was in any way historically based?

--Jason "personally, I would have liked Vakyrie a lot more if it had ended differently too ;) " Evans

[Indoor66]

Question for the critics-- would Basterd have worked better if the "bad guy" had been named Alfie Hister? That way we all would have known who he was but there would have been no implication that this was in any way historically based?

--Jason "personally, I would have liked Vakyrie a lot more if it had ended differently too ;) " Evans

If one is so ignorant of history as to believe the story is a portrayal of history, no modification would help. The whole thing is a spoof on reality. If there were and attempt at historical accuracy there would have been no movie.

It is a fairy tail set in WWII!

[A-Tex Devil]

But keep this in mind: A movie, to be taken seriously, has to provide a sense of plausibility within its own framework. This movie makes no attempt to do so.


In all seriousness, I am intrigued by this statement, and I either don't agree with the premise, or think that Basterds was plausible within its own framework... or both. I can't decide which it is yet.

[Jim3k]

Question for the critics-- would Basterd have worked better if the "bad guy" had been named Alfie Hister? That way we all would have known who he was but there would have been no implication that this was in any way historically based?

--Jason "personally, I would have liked Vakyrie a lot more if it had ended differently too ;) " Evans

I'm not sure what you are asking here. (Particularly since I don't get your Alfie Hister reference.)

However, if you are suggesting that the farmhouse scene should not have set forth a realistic scenario, which ultimately misleads the audience wrt QT's actual purpose, I agree. If he wanted the audience to accept the movie as a revenge fantasy, the fantasy premise should have been more up front somehow, rather than presented as believable savagery. Maybe that could have been done by turning Walz (Col. Landa) into a clown instead of a sociopath, I don't know. But setting this film on its course with an atrocity is not the premise for a fantasy. Actual revenge, yes; fantasy or fairy tale, no.

(BTW, Jason, I'm with you on Valkyrie. But at least it was generally true to the July 20, 1944 plot. I do, however, refer you to Black Book (2006) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389557/) for an outstanding WWII Jewish revenge movie which blends fiction and history extremely well.) (I reviewed Black Book here. (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17883&postcount=1))

[boxofmess2244]

Was Inglorious Basterds even good? I've heard mixed feelings on the movie