Films Thread

[SoxFan562004]

I didn't read the books, generally hate long movies (not that long movies can't be good, but because generally movies are longer than they need to be) and I avoided learning too much about Watchmen before seeing it and I thought it was awesome.

[BigSqwert]

Anyone see The Visitor? Wondering if there are any scenes with subtitles. Going on another trip for work and don't want to make the mistake of adding a heavily subtitled movie to my Zune again. Made following Miracle at St Anna very difficult.

[santo=dorf]

I don't recall that many. I think maybe just between the mother and a guy at the coffee shop trying to pick her up.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

I really liked Watchmen.

[SoxFan1]

Reviews like THIS make Rotten Tomatoes lose a lot of credibility.

 

And one more thing on movie reviews. Please, shut the f*** up about leaving the theater in the middle of the movie. It doesn't make you look cool, or like a badass. To the contrary, it makes you look like a douche, and a moron. Pay money for your tickets (and probably food/drinks), only to leave without seeing the entire body of work all while pissing off the people in the theater who are actually paying attention and give a s***? That's smart. I hope you walked out of the theater right in front of a speeding train.

 

/rant

[T R U]

Reviews like THIS make Rotten Tomatoes lose a lot of credibility.

 

And one more thing on movie reviews. Please, shut the f*** up about leaving the theater in the middle of the movie. It doesn't make you look cool, or like a badass. To the contrary, it makes you look like a douche, and a moron. Pay money for your tickets (and probably food/drinks), only to leave without seeing the entire body of work all while pissing off the people in the theater who are actually paying attention and give a s***? That's smart. I hope you walked out of the theater right in front of a speeding train.

 

/rant

 

yeah I agree with that as well.. why would you just leave a movie in the middle of it because you haven't liked what you've seen so far? Its pointless.

[Kyyle23]

Reviews like THIS make Rotten Tomatoes lose a lot of credibility.

 

And one more thing on movie reviews. Please, shut the f*** up about leaving the theater in the middle of the movie. It doesn't make you look cool, or like a badass. To the contrary, it makes you look like a douche, and a moron. Pay money for your tickets (and probably food/drinks), only to leave without seeing the entire body of work all while pissing off the people in the theater who are actually paying attention and give a s***? That's smart. I hope you walked out of the theater right in front of a speeding train.

 

/rant

 

That guy has quite the focus on Dr Manhattan's pelvis.

[NorthSideSox72]

We watched Body of Lies last night. I usually like Ridley Scott films, and it had a couple good lead actors in it.

 

It was a disappointment. Never really grabbed your attention. It was basically a less skillful and less interesting Syriana (which I liked).

 

[bmags]

yeah I agree with that as well.. why would you just leave a movie in the middle of it because you haven't liked what you've seen so far? Its pointless.

 

generally, okay, but have you guys ever sat through the happening?

[caulfield12]

Saw Watchmen in an empty theatre here in Thailand (Sunday 925 show). The box office for the weekend will end up at $55-60 million (not sure if they counted Thursday midnights shows with Friday's net)...inevitably, that will be compared to 300's $70 million net. Part of it is running time...although I think Watchmen has more screens now in play and ticket prices are a tick higher.

 

My first thoughts, it was a futuristic cross between V for Vendetta (same director), The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Fountain.

 

In general, I liked it...as some of the reviews have noted, it's going to be more understandable for those who grew up in the 80's, versus teenagers today. Things have trended away from nuclear war and more towards terrorism and the environment/ecology as the most pressing threats. It definitely had that 80's feel with Iacocca's character (a subliminal message to Chrysler delivered?), the McLaughlin Group, 99 Luftballoons by Nena, Ted Koppel, etc.

 

I thought Adrian and Rorschach were the two best/most compelling characters. Adrian belongs in a Bond movie now I think.

 

Patrick Wilson and Malin Ackerman were hard to deal with in the beginning, but I gradually warmed to them. I think having seen both Phantom of the Opera and Hard Candy (that movie should be mandatory viewing for Internet predators), I initially resisted his presence, but then I came to think of him in a Chris O'Donellish way and moved past it. Malin Ackerman left me wishing that Carla Gugino had a bigger role, that they did the Brad Pitt trick with her and made her a 25 year old love interest.

 

It was better than 300, but not better than Sin City. I think it was simply too ambitious...but it was definitely inspiring to watch, even though it fell just a little bit flat in the end. I got tired of Richard Nixon and the whole Kissinger thing, as well as that love making scene set to Hallelujah...that made me feel like I was watching Solaris all over again.

Edited March 8, 2009 by caulfield12

[Kyyle23]

Saw Watchmen in an empty theatre here in Thailand (Sunday 925 show). The box office for the weekend will end up at $55-60 million (not sure if they counted Thursday midnights shows with Friday's net)...inevitably, that will be compared to 300's $70 million net. Part of it is running time...although I think Watchmen has more screens now in play and ticket prices are a tick higher.

 

My first thoughts, it was a futuristic cross between V for Vendetta (same director), The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Fountain.

 

In general, I liked it...as some of the reviews have noted, it's going to be more understandable for those who grew up in the 80's, versus teenagers today. Things have trended away from nuclear war and more towards terrorism and the environment/ecology as the most pressing threats. It definitely had that 80's feel with Iacocca's character (a subliminal message to Chrysler delivered?), the McLaughlin Group, 99 Luftballoons by Nena, Ted Koppel, etc.

 

I thought Adrian and Rorschach were the two best/most compelling characters. Adrian belongs in a Bond movie now I think.

 

Patrick Wilson and Malin Ackerman were hard to deal with in the beginning, but I gradually warmed to them. I think having seen both Phantom of the Opera and Hard Candy (that movie should be mandatory viewing for Internet predators), I initially resisted his presence, but then I came to think of him in a Chris O'Donellish way and moved past it. Malin Ackerman left me wishing that Carla Gugino had a bigger role, that they did the Brad Pitt trick with her and made her a 25 year old love interest.

 

It was better than 300, but not better than Sin City. I think it was simply too ambitious...but it was definitely inspiring to watch, even though it fell just a little bit flat in the end. I got tired of Richard Nixon and the whole Kissinger thing, as well as that love making scene set to Hallelujah...that made me feel like I was watching Solaris all over again.

 

 

Not the same director at all. Zach Snyder directed Watchmen and James McTeigue directed V for Vendetta(with a lot of help from the producing Wachowski brothers).

 

 

[Buehrle>Wood]

Watched WALL-E last night. Eh, not my favorite Pixar movie.

[caulfield12]

generally, okay, but have you guys ever sat through the happening?

 

 

Signs was okay until the aliens showed up in the last 15-20 minutes (back when Joaquin Phoenix had a little energy to move around and swing a bat!)...but The Village, The Lady in the Water, Unbreakable, etc. He's getting progressively worse, a one-trick pony that could never live up to the hype he projected about himself and the arrogance with which he dealt with Hollywood and the media while he was a "hot commodity," not to mention his "cutesy" cameo appearances in his movies.

 

 

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Watched WALL-E last night. Eh, not my favorite Pixar movie.

 

And you thought tropic thunder was remotely funny...

[caulfield12]

Not the same director at all. Zach Snyder directed Watchmen and James McTeigue directed V for Vendetta(with a lot of help from the producing Wachowski brothers).

 

 

Thought I read that somewhere. Looking at IMDB, his two most famous are 300 and Dawn of the Dead, which was surprisingly successful. He's already got six movies lined up for the future. I think that Watchmen will go down as a minor success, but it won't make 300's box office domestically or around the world. It's not a story that's "relatable" for many reasons, where there are obvious heros and villains.

 

Cobalt 60 (2011) (announced)

Heavy Metal (2010) (announced)

The Illustrated Man (2010) (announced)

Untitled 300 Sequel (2010) (announced)

Sucker Punch (2010) (pre-production)

Guardians of Ga'Hoole (2010) (filming)

[Kyyle23]

Thought I read that somewhere. Looking at IMDB, his two most famous are 300 and Dawn of the Dead, which was surprisingly successful. He's already got six movies lined up for the future. I think that Watchmen will go down as a minor success, but it won't make 300's box office domestically or around the world. It's not a story that's "relatable" for many reasons, where there are obvious heros and villains.

 

Cobalt 60 (2011) (announced)

Heavy Metal (2010) (announced)

The Illustrated Man (2010) (announced)

Untitled 300 Sequel (2010) (announced)

Sucker Punch (2010) (pre-production)

Guardians of Ga'Hoole (2010) (filming)

 

define minor success. 55.7 million in one weekend isnt anything to shake a stick at, even though it trails 300 by 13.2 mil

 

[caulfield12]

define minor success. 55.7 million in one weekend isnt anything to shake a stick at, even though it trails 300 by 13.2 mil

 

The reason is that I think the movie was "front-loaded" with the die-hard fans coming out the first weekend. I think the dropoff next weekend will be pretty strong, at least 55-65%. It's not the kind of movie that people are going to want to go to see over and over again while it's running in the theatres. It's certainly a thinking/intellectual movie, and one I will watch again SOMEDAY, but not anytime soon. Heck, I would venture Taken might end up having as many people watch that movie twice as Watchmen...and we're coming up on college basketball conference finals and the NCAA tourney, that will also cut a little bit into the next three weekends. Of course, 300 came out exactly two years ago this weekend and had a very good run of sustained success. It's just that many were predicting $70 million plus and better numbers, than 300, so that's why it's going to be termed a disappointment to some. I don't know what the final cost for the project was, the big bonus was that there weren't an big salaries for the stars. Just like 300, with Gerard Butler being the most famous. Ironic, Patrick Wilson and Butler were together in Phantom of the Opera, now they're both graphic novels stars about five years later in the same director's movies.

 

I also don't think it will have the appeal around the world that 300 did. Once again, Watchmen is a better movie, but that doesn't mean as much in Hollywood these days as box office, unless it's earning the studio Academy Awards nominations.

 

 

[Kyyle23]

The reason is that I think the movie was "front-loaded" with the die-hard fans coming out the first weekend. I think the dropoff next weekend will be pretty strong, at least 55-65%. It's not the kind of movie that people are going to want to go to see over and over again while it's running in the theatres. It's certainly a thinking/intellectual movie, and one I will watch again SOMEDAY, but not anytime soon. Heck, I would venture Taken might end up having as many people watch that movie twice as Watchmen...and we're coming up on college basketball conference finals and the NCAA tourney, that will also cut a little bit into the next three weekends. Of course, 300 came out exactly two years ago this weekend and had a very good run of sustained success. It's just that many were predicting $70 million plus and better numbers, than 300, so that's why it's going to be termed a disappointment to some. I don't know what the final cost for the project was, the big bonus was that there weren't an big salaries for the stars. Just like 300, with Gerard Butler being the most famous. Ironic, Patrick Wilson and Butler were together in Phantom of the Opera, now they're both graphic novels stars about five years later in the same director's movies.

 

I also don't think it will have the appeal around the world that 300 did. Once again, Watchmen is a better movie, but that doesn't mean as much in Hollywood these days as box office, unless it's earning the studio Academy Awards nominations.

 

How about you cut out the extra descriptive crap that has nothing to do with the question and define minor success. 100 million? 200 million? Im not talking about next weekends take. Im talking about when all is said and done.

 

 

I bet that this movie gets mighty close to 300 in the box office. It isnt going to pass it, but I think it will definitely get close

[BigSqwert]

Anyone see it at IMAX?

[caulfield12]

Nonetheless, the movie's $55.7 mil take (including $5.5 mil from 124 IMAX screens) is substantially smaller than the $70.9 mil that 300, the last R-rated graphic-novel movie from director Zack Snyder, earned on its opening weekend two years ago. And aside from that theater-count statistic (which almost any film could break at any time, really), there will be no major records to report on this weekend (for example, Watchmen's debut was just the fifth-best opening ever for an R-rated movie).

 

I'd argue, in fact, that this opening is a bit soft, considering the great expectations that came with Snyder's adaptation of Alan Moore's landmark comic book -- not to mention Watchmen's hefty grosses from screenings at midnight on Friday and throughout its first day. After attracting some major initial interest, banking $25.1 mil on Friday, the film's audience dropped off dramatically during the weekend: It grossed $19 mil on Saturday and is expected to bring in just $11.5 mil on Sunday. These are all big numbers, don't get me wrong, but, when combined with the fact that the film got a lukewarm CinemaScore grade of B from an audience that was largely comprised of older men, it all points to a rapid downward trend that may be difficult to reverse in the weeks to come.

 

from ew.com

 

Reality doesn't matter. It's perception. This movie isn't going to go down as a great success, you'll see. You your instincts, you can feel when a movie will be a big commercial success and when it won't, outside of what you think of it as a movie.

Edited March 8, 2009 by caulfield12

[Kyyle23]

Nonetheless, the movie's $55.7 mil take (including $5.5 mil from 124 IMAX screens) is substantially smaller than the $70.9 mil that 300, the last R-rated graphic-novel movie from director Zack Snyder, earned on its opening weekend two years ago. And aside from that theater-count statistic (which almost any film could break at any time, really), there will be no major records to report on this weekend (for example, Watchmen's debut was just the fifth-best opening ever for an R-rated movie).

 

I'd argue, in fact, that this opening is a bit soft, considering the great expectations that came with Snyder's adaptation of Alan Moore's landmark comic book -- not to mention Watchmen's hefty grosses from screenings at midnight on Friday and throughout its first day. After attracting some major initial interest, banking $25.1 mil on Friday, the film's audience dropped off dramatically during the weekend: It grossed $19 mil on Saturday and is expected to bring in just $11.5 mil on Sunday. These are all big numbers, don't get me wrong, but, when combined with the fact that the film got a lukewarm CinemaScore grade of B from an audience that was largely comprised of older men, it all points to a rapid downward trend that may be difficult to reverse in the weeks to come.

 

from ew.com

 

Reality doesn't matter. It's perception. This movie isn't going to go down as a great success, you'll see. You your instincts, you can feel when a movie will be a big commercial success and when it won't, outside of what you think of it as a movie.

 

 

I read that article too, and I still dont really think it has anything to do with what i asked you. What is a minor success? Tell me a movie that you think is a minor success. Dont quote me an article with this weekends take, dont tell me to use my instincts, explain to me what you feel is a minor success.

[caulfield12]

Usually the movies to me, in this category...are movies that make $100 million, like Hancock or Seven Pounds...except they are disasters.

 

No matter what, Watchmen was going to make $100 milllion domestically...just because of its production budget and advertising budget alone.

 

I won't even use profitability versus losing money, because some might use that standard to say The Reader or Frost/Nixon were utter failures.

 

Part of it is based on expectations...for instance, Valkryie and Marley & Me were successes because they did better than expected. I'm sure Valkryie even had a pretty similar budget (to Watchmen), but I was expecting it to tank and it did reasonably well and stood up decently for an extended run. Paul Blart and Taken did much better, OTOH.

 

I would put this Watchmen movie in the Jonas Brothers category...not a disaster, not a major success, but one that would them think twice about making a second movie, if there was a thought to do that. So I'll leave that as one measure...just like The Golden Compass, the second CS Lewis movie (Prince Caspian)...where there's a reasonable doubt as to a second movie generating a profit. Obviously, that threshold was met by 300 or Transformers. Second, did it do anything but positively affect the careers of the director and the cast? If it is a minor success, then no damage has been done to either...but their careers haven't been significantly advanced, either. I'll use the example of The Village here...it made a lot of money, it was a "success" in many measures, but didn't live up to the Sixth Sense and caused many to start doubting the director's ability to deliver. So even though that movie made a lot of money, it was probably LESS successful than Watchmen will turn out to be. I might even argue that I liked The Fountain more than Watchmen, but it was surely a bomb both critically and at the box office.

Edited March 9, 2009 by caulfield12

[knightni]

I would put this Watchmen movie in the Jonas Brothers category...not a disaster, not a major success, but one that would them think twice about making a second movie, if there was a thought to do that.

 

There better not be a sequel. Alan Moore will have them burned alive if they try.

 

 

BTW, lovin' that Silk Spectre II.

 

 

 

 

[SoxFan562004]

There better not be a sequel. Alan Moore will have them burned alive if they try.

 

 

BTW, lovin' that Silk Spectre II.

IMDB already has a rumored Elektra Luxx (sp?) movie up, that may be why the got a younger women to play her so they can make the prequel

[SoxFan562004]

Signs was okay until the aliens showed up in the last 15-20 minutes (back when Joaquin Phoenix had a little energy to move around and swing a bat!)...but The Village, The Lady in the Water, Unbreakable, etc. He's getting progressively worse, a one-trick pony that could never live up to the hype he projected about himself and the arrogance with which he dealt with Hollywood and the media while he was a "hot commodity," not to mention his "cutesy" cameo appearances in his movies.

I really liked Signs alot and wasn't a big fan of his movies up until that point. The Village was silly, but I enjoyed that as well. Outside of those two I'm not the biggest fan of his stuff.