comment #1

Undercover Brother says ...

I'm thrilled that rave reviews actually got people out to see Children of Men. That's not a bad total for a film a lot of people were already writing off as too hard and too dour to draw in any sizeable audience. Keep talking it up people. If it makes money the Academy will feel less inclined to ignore it!

And what's up with "Museum?" Who likes this thing so much to give it legs like this? I thought it would go into the crapper this week for sure now that the holidays are past. No such luck I see. Now we'll all have to suffer through an unbearable marketing campaign 3 years from now for the sequel. Christ, it's annoying just to think about.

comment #2

JD says ...

If Chldren of Men gets nominated for best picture -- unlikley, but there are precedents: ie. The Thin Red Line, Munich -- it could probably do a lot better than $40 million. In any case, 1289 screens seems a little timid for a movie that cost roughly $80 million to make.

If anyone here was considering seeing Freedom Writers, I have to pass along my recommendation. It's a thoughtful, sincere, compassionate movie -- aka not Jeff's cup of tea -- and, while it relies on some tiresome cliches of the genre (Swank's adversaries are laughably one-note), it also has surprising depth and texture. It's a perceptive, old school social issue movie, not an exploitative cash grab.

comment #3

corey3rd says ...

Shawn Levy has a five picture deal with Satan.

comment #4

JckNapier2 says ...

Unfortunetely, Children Of Men might have done even better had it not been treated second class. At the theatre I was at (the AMC 16 Promanade in Woodland Hills, not my favorite theatre but walking distance from my new apartment), it was shuffled to second-run theatre-ville (screen 14) even though it was opening night. So despite being 25 min early and buying tickets ahead of time, my party of two literally had to choose between sitting in the very front row and the very back row. Another reason, I don't care for the theatre... a small group of guys were (quietly) giggling during many of the openly emotional moments. Sounds like, new digs aside, I'll still try to see stuff at the Arclight or the AMC Burbank 16.

Terrific movie regardless, though I more or less agree with Poland's complaint that the infertility was more of a Mcguffin than a point of serious observation. Still, even if it's just a meaty, serious, artful thriller, that's still a darn good thing to be.

Scott Mendelson

comment #5

dre says ...

I'm having a hard time deciding which is my favorite film this year: children of men or the fountain...but I do know that if babel (which i thought was good, not great) or little miss sunshine (ditto) get the 5th best picture slot (assuming dreamgirls, letters, the queen, and the departed are the other 4) over Cuaron's movie, it will be as bad a move as the academy has ever made. Can the Academy screw both Greengrass and Cuaron this year?

comment #6

Mark G. says ...

The worst box office story of the weekend is the complete failure of PERFUME: THE STORY OF A MURDERER which is on it's way for a $200,000 weekend in 280 theaters.
But there's only Dreamamount to blame. They dumped it into theaters with no support, there wasn't even an Oscar campaign, even though the movie deserves at least nominations for art design, editing, score, costumes, make-up, cinematography and best supporting actor (Dustin Hoffman)...
Oh well, $100m gross in Europe, less than $1m in the USA...

comment #7

Hallick says ...

Does the success of "Night at the Museum", "Pirates of the Carribean 2", "X-Men 3", etc, mean that we won't be seeing any more of those articles that say, "people aren't going to the movies because Hollywood makes crap"? Yeah, it'd be a better world if that statement were true, but obviously (and sadly), if you look at the charts, it isn't exactly how making money in the film business works.

comment #8

JckNapier2 says ...

If anything, the 2005 vs 2006 comparison means that more people go to the movies when Hollywood DOES make crap. While the slump stuff was and is still nonsense, 2006 is up a bit and that's a shame. 2005 had big blockbusters that were actually good or trying to be good (Batman Begins, Kingdom Of Heaven, Star Wars III, 40 Year Old Virgin, King Kong, Harry Potter IV, Chronicles Of Narnia, etc). I liked or loved most of those, and even the ones I didn't, you could tell that the aim was in fact for a quality product. Yet, last year there was a 'slump'. This year we had crap like Da Vinci Code, Superman Returns (ok, so that one did TRY to be good), X-Men 3, The Break Up, Night At The Museum, Cars (a mediocre Pixar film, of all things), and Pirates 2. Yet, NOW people allegedly go back to the movies and revenues are up, etc etc. How sad is that?

Scott Mendelson

comment #9

jjgittes says ...

The only thing worse than "Perfume" is Hoffman's performance in "Perfume" - Best Supporting Actor? You're kidding, right?

comment #10

christian says ...

at least dick van dyke and mickey rooney are still pullin' 'em in...

comment #11

Walter Sobchak says ...

Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men Children of Men

- Jeffrey Wells

comment #12

jeffmcm says ...

Perfume is an excellent movie and certainly deserves to be seen by more people...but Dustin Hoffman's performance is nothing special, for him.

comment #13

bachelorcool says ...

Why is everyone surprised Night at the Museum is a hit? Given the phenomenal success of Pirates of the Caribbean 2 this past summer, it shows audiences want escapism in increasingly dour times, and if they're both crap (but well-made), they're at least preferable to serious issue movies that hardly send you out the theatre with a smile on your face.

comment #14

Mr. Peel says ...

At least Children of Men opened OK.

My take on Night at the Museum was that I merely disliked it, when I fully expected to despise it (whatever difference that makes). At least Dick Van Dyke was fun. I still say that Shawn Levy should be referred to as the Michael Bay of comedy.

comment #15

Matthew Lucas says ...

Scott, the problem is, from a cinephile's point of view, that audiences like familiarity. That's why Hollywood keeps churning out crap and people keep eating it up. Most people just aren't willing to go out on a limb when ticket/concession prices are as high as they are. So they go for what they already know they will like - i.e. Pirates of the Caribbean and Ben Stiller slapping monkeys with Robin Williams.

comment #16

The Movie Man says ...

No one has said anything, but it has to be a victory for Stallone that Rocky is passing 50 million in less than a month of release this weekend.

comment #17

Dixon Steele says ...

Just saw CHILDREN OF MEN and thought it very good. Not a classic but impressive and I'd recommend it, for sure.

But I did have one nagging question through the film: why would anyone even want to bring a child into that horribly bleak, dystopian world?

With PAN'S, CHILDREN & BABEL, it's a great year to be a Mexican director!

Also, last week I walked into MUSEUM after having missed the first 15 or so minutes (the set-up). Came in after Stiller gets the job. And what I saw wasn't bad at all, albeit it was Jumanji Redux (incl R. Williams). I was reasonably entertained (especially when you consider it was a freebie).

Obviously made for the family audience and is pulling them in. And they're enjoying it, as word-of-mouth is certainly positive. Good to see Van Dyke, Rooney, etc. in a feature.

It shows the disconnect between the Hoi Polloi and the Jeff Wells of the world.

comment #18

MovieBob says ...

"CoM" is solid, even gorgeous at parts. I dig it.. but it's not the best movie of the year. And the best scifi movie of the young century is STILL "Equilibrium."

comment #19

Spacesheik says ...

"at least dick van dyke and mickey rooney are still pullin' 'em in..."

Hahaha, brilliant, brilliant!

Wow, think about it: Mickey Rooney was a star during Metro Goldwyn Mayer's golden era and now - over 70 years later - is co-starring in the #1 movie of America!

Surely some record must have been broken right?! This one is for Guiness!

comment #20

Undercover Brother says ...

"Equilibrium?" What are you smoking? Because whatever it is, you got a bad stash.

comment #21

Undercover Brother says ...

Actually, not only "Rocky", but "Good Shepherd", "Charlotte's Web" and even "We Are Marshall" have managed to survive longer than most would've expected. Any other time of year and these pictures would've probably already have burned out. But they just keep chugging along.

The downside to the nice, if ultimately tepid "Balboa", is that Stallone now has momentum going to make that fourth Rambo flick. Unlike Rocky, I doubt there is much inherent affinity for the Rambo character. I think Stallone is trying to resurrect one ghost too many.

comment #22

JckNapier2 says ...

Of course those pictures hung around, that's why you open a filnm near the Christmas season. You get nearly two-weeks of school-free weekdays, plus Chrismas Day and New Years Day.

The very very best time to open a movie is the weekend before Christmas (Titanic, Lord of the Rings, King Kong, Pursuit Of Happyness, etc). Not only do big openings get more padding to add to their numbers, but small openers actually have nearly guaranteed legs at least until the beginning of January.

This is a time when movies can open to $5m and end up with $55 (Sabrina, still a 'flop' for those who weren't actually paying attention). Movies who's openings would have been flops any other time (Emperor's New Groove, We Are Marshall, Mousehunt) used the wide-open space to become leggy hits.

Summer may get the credit as a boffo time to open, but the holiday season is still paramount for giving movies time to grow and become hits the old-fashioned way.

Scott Mendelson

comment #23

Circumvrent says ...

Anybody else read that attendance at the Muesuem of Natural History is up 20-something percent since the movie came out? It may be a bad film - I haven't seen it - but at least there's a nice by-product.

comment #24

sandekat says ...

"Why is everyone surprised Night at the Museum is a hit? Given the phenomenal success of Pirates of the Caribbean 2 this past summer, it shows audiences want escapism in increasingly dour times, and if they're both crap (but well-made), they're at least preferable to serious issue movies that hardly send you out the theatre with a smile on your face."

I'm sure that none of you want to sound like pretentious twits...but sadly, you have failed....audiences..blah di blah...escapism.....dum di dum...crap...*sigh*.....serious issues.....zzzz...'let me make a few more inane sweeping generalizations'......KEE-rist!!!.

While I didn't love 'Night at the Museum', I enjoyed it on Christmas Eve afternoon with my extended family (oldest 87 and youngest 11.) We had a fun, light time, and afterwards had a lively discussion about Teddy R and Mickey Rooney while washing roast duck down with champagne (more escapism).

I've seen Babel, An Inconvenient Truth, Children of Men, and a dozen other 'serious' films this year....they were appreciated, but none of them would I have chosen for that day and that group of family (though the same crew will venture to 'Pan's Labyrinth' this coming weekend.) For that time and place, 'A Night at the Museum' fit the bill for what my family was craving......so buzz off.....

IT. IS. NOT. SO. SIMPLE.