Upcoming
August 27
August 29
Disaster Movie
My Mexican Shivah
September 3
The Pool
September 5
August Evening
Bangkok Dangerous
Save Me
Mudville Blues
It pains me to report this, but Hancock did a lot better yesterday than anyone was expecting -- $18.8 million -- and is now looking at $67 million for the weekend and $109 million cume for the five-and-a-half day July 4th holiday. It's still not a major wowser -- if Hancock was an earthquake-level hit it would be looking at a five-day haul of at least $120 or $130 million -- but the $109 million cume means, as my numbers guy said this morning, "they got out alive."
Dammit. I wanted to see Will Smith, Akiva Goldsman and Peter Berg punished (i.e., by seeing Hancock come up short in terms of expectations) for creating one of the all-time worst third acts in motion picture history.
Yesterday's reporting about Thursday's figures being flat encouraged me to think, "Okay, people are actually saying no to a bad film...the ticket-buying public is showing a little judgment here!" Not true, it turns out. Smith is such a big star that people will pay to see anything he's starring in, including a film that sends you out staggering and gagging. They're going for those first two acts, I suppose.
Who am I to talk, right? I paid to see it last Tuesday night.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 5, 2008 at 7:57 AM
comment #1
nemo
says ...
More photos of Akiva Goldsman's shit-eating laugh, please.
Posted by nemo
at July 5, 2008 8:33 AM
comment #2
Nick Plowman
says ...
Thank God I didn't pay....press screening in June.
Posted by Nick Plowman
at July 5, 2008 8:41 AM
comment #3
vansmith
says ...
The people have spoken. friends have said it was okay, they used the word different alot, that'll keep them coming for a few more weeks. dvd wil be big special features should be interesting, the who what and WHY of the making of the picture...
Posted by vansmith
at July 5, 2008 9:04 AM
comment #4
The Winchester
says ...
I'm happy for Peter Berg, as Hancock will have outgrossed his four previous films combined in almost one weekend.
But Goldsman needs to be stopped.
Posted by The Winchester
at July 5, 2008 9:21 AM
comment #5
vansmith
says ...
Goldsman as the new Goldman without the nuance of course..
Posted by vansmith
at July 5, 2008 9:26 AM
comment #6
actionman
says ...
The film was awesome, the third act is bold, and this is awesome news for Peter Berg
Posted by actionman
at July 5, 2008 9:44 AM
comment #7
lexG-pleasestopposting
says ...
why is it always those who can't drum who insist on beating them the loudest?
hancock's third act was as poorly executed as the rest of the film, but it was fresh and engaging and far more interesting than iron man's rote conclusion.
Posted by lexG-pleasestopposting
at July 5, 2008 9:45 AM
comment #8
rgmax99
says ...
Actionman and rgmax99: Defenders of the HANCOCK!
Posted by rgmax99
at July 5, 2008 9:55 AM
comment #9
CinemaPhreek
says ...
The Winchester - can I assume you meant to write that HANCOCK will gross more in it's opening weekend than Berg's previous 4 films grossed on their opening weekends combined?
Posted by CinemaPhreek
at July 5, 2008 10:04 AM
comment #10
Bart Smith
says ...
"It pains me to report this, but Hancock did a lot better yesterday than anyone was expecting -- $18.8 million"
____
I wouldn't say nobody expected that number for Friday. Just check Comment #1 from yesterday's Numbers thread:
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/07/da_numbahs.php
HANCOCK is performing almost identically to the last movies that opened on a Wednesday before a July 4th Friday. And it shouldn't be surprising when it does in the mid- to high-20millions today.
Posted by Bart Smith
at July 5, 2008 10:05 AM
comment #11
DarthCorleone
says ...
I'm really tempted to check this out. For better or worse, I'm becoming extremely curious about all this third-act hubbub.
Posted by DarthCorleone
at July 5, 2008 10:35 AM
comment #12
Chase Kahn
says ...
Anyone actually trying to say Hancock is better than Iron Man clearly didn't see the same two movies I saw.
Iron Man isn't amazing, but it sure as hell beats Hancock's excuse for an ending. I suppose you would have liked to have seen Terrence Howard and Robert Downey Jr. explain all of their past encounters over 80 years ago in different lifetimes...all while touching each others tattoos
Posted by Chase Kahn
at July 5, 2008 11:04 AM
comment #13
Chase Kahn
says ...
not tattoos, scars...i meant to say....
Posted by Chase Kahn
at July 5, 2008 11:08 AM
comment #14
Jake
says ...
I didn't expect them to have to do any spin control until the film's sophomore weekend. Kind've strange that opening weekend went from being a sure thing to "they got out alive".
Posted by Jake
at July 5, 2008 11:08 AM
comment #15
D.Z.
says ...
Well, opening weekend is one thing, but the next weekend will make the difference.
Posted by D.Z.
at July 5, 2008 11:30 AM
comment #16
lexG-pleasestopposting
says ...
CHASE KAHN - except i clearly wasn't saying that hancock was a better film than iron man. simply put, what i was saying was that iron man sputtered into the motions during its purely perfunctory denouement, whereas hancock at least toyed with the formula and audience expectations in a way that i found mildly satisfying and - more importantly - somewhat invigorating.
iron man is clearly the BETTER film, but boy would i be more excited about the possibilities of hancock 2 than i would be for the yawn-inducing war machine tale that's inevitably heading our way.
Posted by lexG-pleasestopposting
at July 5, 2008 11:45 AM
comment #17
Dzayson
says ...
I also want to see Hancock out of the same morbid curiosity that made me want to see The Happening (even though I never actually watched it).
Anyone else out there like Berg's Very Bad Things? I loved it but the rest of the world thought it was rancid.
Posted by Dzayson
at July 5, 2008 12:16 PM
comment #18
BurmaShave
says ...
The pans have actually convinced me to see it. Sounds bizarre, could be interesting.
Posted by BurmaShave
at July 5, 2008 12:18 PM
comment #19
Chase Kahn
says ...
Okay, lex, I certainly can understand. Although I disagree about Hancock's ending being "invigorating", I felt the exact opposite reaction.
That being said, I don't think Hancock 2 would register at all on my radar unless Peter Berg was canned (not likely). I think the Hancock action scenes are filmed poorly with the combo of both shaky-cam and the fact that Berg has to zoom in so close we can't see anything. Not to mention Tony Stark makes for a much interesting character than Hancock does.
How many times can we see Hancock beat someone up for calling him an a-hole before we care anymore.
Posted by Chase Kahn
at July 5, 2008 1:14 PM
comment #20
JJJWWW
says ...
As someone from a fly-over state, I have to say -- FUCK ALL THE HANCOCK HATERS! A great movie? No, but a good one, entertaining, fun, thoughtful, with solid perfs. I am a comic book junkie, and loved the deep backstory with W and C (the naturally drawn pairings, etc.)...reminded me of Bendis' Powers mythology. My wife, who HATE comics and usually comic movies, thought it was fun, enjoyable, was caught of guard by the twist (she usually sees these a mile a way), and UNDERSTOOD the mythology presented (and the movie wasn't about delving into the backstory, but using it as a touchstone to explain how W&C come to each other). I don't understand how this gets lower ratings on Rotten Toms than Get Smart and Harold and Kumar, and lower than Speed Racer. Fun, escapist summer movie!
Posted by JJJWWW
at July 5, 2008 2:17 PM
comment #21
Chase Kahn
says ...
okay, JJJWWW, I don't care if you liked the movie, but please don't call it "thoughtful"...
Posted by Chase Kahn
at July 5, 2008 2:36 PM
comment #22
Josh Massey
says ...
DZayson: I put Very Bad Things in my Top 10 of 1998. I got a lot of letters about that one, including a dressing down in my rival Athens, GA publication. I haven't seen it since, actually, but I do remember getting a sick thrill out of nearly every frame.
Just got back from Hancock, and actually really liked it (no, it's not better than Iron Man overall, but I did like Hancock's third act better because it was different). I actually didn't see the twist as a twist, because it had been telegraphed from the opening scenes.
Posted by Josh Massey
at July 5, 2008 2:42 PM
comment #23
Rob
says ...
Count me in as someone who liked Hancock better than Iron Man. It's more original, has real acting, and is shorter. Plus its more than just a trailer for its own sequel.
Posted by Rob
at July 5, 2008 11:01 PM
comment #24
D.Z.
says ...
Josh: The people who hated "Very Bad Things" probably later defended Hostel.
Posted by D.Z.
at July 6, 2008 12:14 AM
comment #25
folio
says ...
It is getting to the stage where Jeff hating a film is making it a must see. I have happily ignored his loathing of Peter Jackson in the past as merely a character quirk after all we cannot all love the same things but, of late, i have started to wonder if his critical ability is intact any more. Maybe that is the problem with blogs in that people have to put out so much content that they tend to go for the quick and snarky rather than the truly valuable.
Hancock is a case in point in that i thought it was a marvelous film that i enjoyed as much as Iron Man and much more than Wall-E (weird comparatives i know). The 3rd act twist was clearly set up from the moment the characters met and provided a far more interesting resolution than you normally get in superhero films. There seems no satisfying Jeff, however, in that he loathes the conventional "monster vs monster" ending of Hulk and this more complex "growing up/being human/losing power" approach.
Posted by folio
at July 6, 2008 12:39 AM
Post a comment