comment #1

Nick Rogers says ...

I have a hard time believing anything other than "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" will be No. 1. It's massively over-hyped as the next great Apatow comedy, but I don't see a stale Li-Chan teamup (about a decade too late) beating it out.

comment #2

corey3rd says ...

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one cruise ship short of being a very special Love Boat.

comment #3

Arran says ...

You really think these tracking surveys adequately represent the type of person who goes to see Harold and Kumar (and I'm among them, by the way) or Sarah Marshall?

comment #4

thatmovieguy says ...

Apparently DECEPTION is not being screened for critics at all. Given the stars (Hugh Jackman, Ewan McGregor, Michelle Williams), that's pretty shocking. Even 88 MINUTES, with its miserable word of mouth from Europe, is going to be shown tomorrow. Except for the last 10 minutes, I thought FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL was fairly awful, but many of the theaters around here have booked it on two screens, so they must be expecting a wild weekend.

comment #5

actionman says ...

Everytime I see the trailer for Made of Honor I just scratch my head. A rom-com for guys? What the hell? Looks so generic.

Wells, it sounds like you're going to be in the minority with Sara Marshall; Rottentomatoes is currently sitting at 87% overall with 80% from the cream of the crop. Granted, it's still early, and not all of the reviews are in, but this seems to be another extremely well reviewed comedy from Apatow. I'm looking forward to seeing it; I just want to laugh so hopefully it does the trick. Wasn't last summer's tracking on Superbad really off as well? $10-12 million seems awfully low for a movie that's been running tv spots around the clock for the last month.

I am shocked over the numbers for The Forbidden Kingdom; looked like another case of a movie flopping in the US and doing well overseas...it looks pretty generic to me based on the trailers...

Deception is opening in limited release? What is this....another Stay for Fox? Geez....

And yeah, 88 Minutes. Sadly, most regular-joes don't read (or care) about reviews so they aren't likely to not see the new Pacino thriller simply because it gets shitty reviews. For as bad as the film apparently is, it has a fast-moving trailer with a screaming Pacino, an exploding car, and other sellable genre elements. I wouldn't be surprised if it opened to $10-12 milion this weekend, which wouldn't be a total wipe-out, would it?

Baby Mama could be the sleeper hit of the spring.

And obviously, Iron Man will be big, but just how big? $165 million big or $230 million big?

comment #6

Arran says ...

Actionman - I haven't seen the trailer but I see the stand-up every time I go to the movies and I want to tear Dempsey's head from it. He just looks so unbearably fucking SMUG.

I don't think anyone's really capable of making a "romantic comedy for guys" except Cameron Crowe.

comment #7

jjgittes says ...

88 Minutes isn't very good - but it isn't THAT bad.

I see everything Pacino does - on film and stage - he's a freakin' God to me, and while I can't recommend the film by any means - I do prefer it to Two For the Money and Author! Author! and a couple other ones he has made.

Basically it's a glorified B movie - ludicrous, poorly acted (apart from Pacino, who's adequate/fine), diverting entertainment.

It's not ambitious enough to inspire a lot of scorn - the less you think about it the better off you'll be if you go.

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

Nick: "I have a hard time believing anything other than "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" will be No. 1. It's massively over-hyped as the next great Apatow comedy,"

But do people want another Apatow comedy?

"but I don't see a stale Li-Chan teamup (about a decade too late) beating it out."

If Rush Hour 3 can open well enough the first weekend, after being four years too late, then you probably shouldn't underestimate Forbidden Kingdom.

actionman: Geeks have replaced real critics, which is why you get inflated scores for films which would have been panned a while ago..

comment #9

MattM says ...

Also, not sure how these work, but don't the final box "first choice" numbers not reflect second choice? E.g., if I could pick any movie coming out in the next three weeks to see, it'd probably be "Iron Man," but "Sarah Marshall" would be my second choice.

The question on "Expelled" is whether it gets its targetted audience. For instance, it's booked on a total of ONE screen in NYC, while I'm sure it's more aggressively booked in the deep south.

comment #10

palmreader says ...

So do Newsweek, Variety & the Hollywood Reporter count as dipsticks for liking Sarah Marshall?

comment #11

calraigh says ...

88 Minutes is hands down, one of the worst films I've ever seen.And Pacino is awful in it.The character he plays is awful anyway so he didn't have much of a hope but he's just terrible and his hair job...egads..Really, I've just put it out of my mind, it was a wholly depressing experience.I'm really surprised it got a theatrical outing after all this time.Remember S1mone?Well imagine that only a million times worse.*Shudder*

comment #12

Nick Rogers says ...

DZ: But do people want another Apatow comedy?

I think they'll want one that, no matter how feebly, channels the spirit of "Knocked Up" more than one that channels the, uh, "spirit" of "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" or "Drillbit Taylor."

D.Z.: If Rush Hour 3 can open well enough the first weekend, after being four years too late, then you probably shouldn't underestimate Forbidden Kingdom.

Fair enough, but I think Tucker accounts for a huge portion of the "Rush" success.

comment #13

EveHarrington says ...

I think people are getting "peter pan" fatigue - all these comedies about geeky guys who have their rock t-shirts, massive collections of whatever; they're quirky, they're good people at heart, they just need the right hot girl to help them grow up.

You're surprised Forbidden Kingdom's tracking? Jackie Chan and Jet Li together for the first time in a movie that looks like pure fun with a 10 minute fight scene!? A movie grownup fans can take their kids to? Yeah, what a shocker.

comment #14

lesterg says ...

Not surprised at Sarah Marshall's tracking in the least.
Unlike Knocked Up, Superbad, etc. - I'm just not hearing folks talk about this movie anywhere other than online.

comment #15

actionman says ...

EveHarrington: yes, I'm surprised Forbidden Kingdom is tracking so well because the trailers make the film look like doodie.

comment #16

Josh Massey says ...

Al Pacino was in Gigli, folks.

comment #17

Circumvrent says ...

I've never seen an actor so openly contentious about one of their own movies as Pacino on Letterman last night.

Letterman: "Let's talk about 88 Minutes...?"
Pacino: "Do we have to?"

When Letterman tried to save it by saying that the title tells you all you need to know, Pacino said, "Yes it does." And came short of actually saying "Blah blah blah" when setting up the clip. Rough.

comment #18

actionman says ...

would have loved to have seen that

comment #19

Bob Violence says ...

Forbidden Kingdom will have one good week and then sink like a stone once people realize it's a) a kids' movie and b) the fantasy version of Chuck Norris' Sidekicks. Neither of these would be strikes against the film's box office (kids like movies too) if not for the fact that the core of Chan/Li's U.S. fanbase is a probably older than eight and the PG-13 rating doesn't scream "bring the kiddies." They're already planning another joint project (this one an actual Hong Kong film) so interpret that how you will.

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

Nick: "Fair enough, but I think Tucker accounts for a huge portion of the "Rush" success."

If that were the case, then Money Talks would've been huge.

Bob: If it doesn't come off too kiddie, it could still have legs. That was the problem with the marketing for Around the World in 80 Days, which was actually pretty good.

comment #21

Bob Violence says ...

I'm not really sure what "too kiddie" means, but it's unabashedly a kids' movie. From a parent/grown-up POV it's not as bad as a Land Before Time marathon or anything like that, but the humor is pitched almost exclusively at a grade-school level and the main character is in the proud tradition of insufferable tween actors who get the job because the other candidates were too tall, or something. The action scenes are good as long as the CG is kept under control, but it's Rob Minkoff, so you know that won't last. Again, kids should like it, but I'm not sure it's going to reach that ideal audience and Li/Chan's built-in domestic following isn't going to help much past opening weekend. At least we can safely say it'll fare better in the U.S. than CJ7.

comment #22

The Winchester says ...

Forbidden Kingdom was pretty terrible. And if I had kids, I wouldn't take them to it, because the bookends of the film are pretty bleak. Think Last Action Hero.

Re: Pacino in Gigli.. If anyone else saw this movie, did you notice that Pacino was doing a Walken impression in his scenes, and Walken was doing a Pacino impression? It's uncanny. That's the only thing I took away from that movie.

comment #23

Josh Massey says ...

"If that were the case, then Money Talks would've been huge."

So I Am Legend wasn't a hit due to Will Smith, because Six Degrees of Separation wasn't huge?

comment #24

EDouglas says ...

Jeffrey, did you actually see the movie? Chan and Li are in the movie almost as much as Angarano... I'm certainly not disappointed with the amount either were in the movie and unlike "War", the two of them face-off fairly early in a great fight sequence choreographed by Yuen Woo-ping... I wouldn't expect THAT big a drop off in week 2 as I know a lot of people who liked this movie and it had a great crowd reaction.

comment #25

lesterg says ...

"If that were the case, then Money Talks would've been huge."

By that same "logic", it wasn't due to Jackie Chan either - because The Tuxedo bombed.

comment #26

Terry McCarty says ...

Arran wrote:
Actionman - I haven't seen the trailer but I see the stand-up every time I go to the movies and I want to tear Dempsey's head from it. He just looks so unbearably fucking SMUG.

The trailer features grown men acting like middle-schoolers, Dempsey acting like Tom Cruise and Michelle Monaghan once more in subpar material.

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

Josh: We've discussed the former movie before. "Six Degrees of Separation" did fairly well for an R-rated comedy released in only 200 theaters and which was dependent on a guy who was only known for a hit sitcom. "Money Talks" had a co-star who was previously known as the wise-cracking sidekick.

lester: The Tuxedo disappointed more than bombed, since it did make its money back. I guess you could argue the same for Money Talks, too, but the only times Tucker has been in films which made money were usually when he was cast as a supporting character. Even when Jackie's films bomb or disappoint, he's still able to get top billing, because he can consistently draw
fans who will probably-at least-watch his stuff on home video. Tucker, on the other hand, got replaced in the Friday sequels, and no one noticed.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

I just wanted to add that even Tucker knows he's not a big draw, or he wouldn't have asked for such a huge payday for Rush Hour 3.

comment #29

Bob Violence says ...

The discussion isn't so much whether Tucker is a big draw in general -- which is purely in the realm of conjecture this point, since RH1 was his big breakout and he's done nothing but the two sequels since. It's whether Tucker was a big draw to Rush Hour 3, which is obviously how New Line felt (given that they ponied up). In the interest of fairness, I doubt RH3 would've done that well without Chan, either, but I certainly don't see much evidence that Chan on his own still has significant drawing power in the U.S. -- The Tuxedo didn't make back its budget domestically, The Medallion and Around the World in 80 Days were certifiable duds, his most recent HK films have been shunted straight to DVD (in contrast to the days when First Strike could open on 1,500 screens), and his most successful films on these shores remain five franchise buddy flicks.

comment #30

lesterg says ...

"I just wanted to add that even Tucker knows he's not a big draw, or he wouldn't have asked for such a huge payday for Rush Hour 3."

He asked for a big paycheck because he knew the studio would pay it. Why? Films featuring Chris Tucker have an average gross of 94 million dollars. His opening average is a hair over 27 million. Despite limited output for the past decade: he's a draw.

Will Smith knows he's not a big draw because he's making 20 million upfront on Hancock.

comment #31

lesterg says ...

DZ: "The Tuxedo disappointed more than bombed, since it did make its money back. I guess you could argue the same for Money Talks, too"

The Tuxedo was budgeted at 60 million. It made 50 million domestic and another 53 international. Using the general rule of thumb: it ended its' theatrical run 17 million in the red...PRE-MARKETING. How much did Money Talks actually cost? 10-12 million? Tops?

The other big difference is that Chris Tucker was a relative unknown when Money Talks hit. Jackie Chan had been in front of audiences for over two decades (and had two recent smashes under his belt) when The Tuxedo opened.

"The only times Tucker has been in films which made money were usually when he was cast as a supporting character. "

He's a supporting character in the Rush Hour films? News to me. Yes, the 3rd will barely break even - but the others were both VERY profitable.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Bob: "The Tuxedo didn't make back its budget domestically,"

No, but it made enough of its budget back for it not to be a bomb.

"The Medallion and Around the World in 80 Days were certifiable duds,"

Again, they were cheap enough to make most of their money back.

"his most recent HK films have been shunted straight to DVD (in contrast to the days when First Strike could open on 1,500 screens), "

That has more to do with how the market has changed in general, not specifically Jackie. Low-budget films are being sent straight-to-video across the board, because
the only things moviegoers are willing to pay for en masse are the high profile tentpole films.

"He asked for a big paycheck because he knew the studio would pay it. Why? Films featuring Chris Tucker have an average gross of 94 million dollars."

Not if you count Jackie Brown, Friday, and Money Talks. The Fifth Element's success had nothing to do with him.

"His opening average is a hair over 27 million. Despite limited output for the past decade: he's a draw."

That's dumb. At best, his average is 5-10 million. And you can get someone

"Will Smith knows he's not a big draw because he's making 20 million upfront on Hancock."

When Chris Tucker makes Will Smith's kind of box office on his name alone, then we'll talk.

lester: "How much did Money Talks actually cost? 10-12 million? Tops?"

Probably more with the 2,000 theaters and advertising.

"He's a supporting character in the Rush Hour films? News to me."

I said usually.

comment #33

Bob Violence says ...

Again, they were cheap enough to make most of their money back.

By this token, making at least 51% of your money back is enough to qualify for "not a dud" status. $70 million worldwide against a pre-P&A budget of $110 million (80 Days) and $35 million vs. at least $40 million (probably a lowball figure for The Medallion, which likely cost more than that) are successes? It's easy to argue that someone is a big draw when the bar is set this low.

That has more to do with how the market has changed in general, not specifically Jackie. Low-budget films are being sent straight-to-video across the board, because the only things moviegoers are willing to pay for en masse are the high profile tentpole films.

So what are we saying here? That Jackie Chan might pack multiplexes if he was given a $100 million+ budget and a Bay/Emmerich/Spielberg-worthy marketing campaign? Again, this doesn't seem to speak well for his drawing power.

comment #34

D.Z. says ...

Bob: "It's easy to argue that someone is a big draw when the bar is set this low."

I didn't say big draw, just significant draw. It's within the range of the last Rambo movie, so I'd say that's pretty good, considering he has to compete against movies featuring CG variations of his own fight scenes.

"That Jackie Chan might pack multiplexes if he was given a $100 million+ budget and a
Bay/Emmerich/Spielberg-worthy marketing campaign? Again, this doesn't seem to speak well for his drawing power."

That doesn't speak well for Nick Cage's drawing power, either.

comment #35

Bob Violence says ...

That doesn't speak well for Nick Cage's drawing power, either.

You're right, it doesn't. So? Who even mentioned him? Are you confusing him with Chris Tucker?

Who was it that came up with the idea for the Random D.Z. Non-sequitur Generator, or whatever that was? Seems like that would be apt here.