Jump to content

Beginning on August 1, 2017 all free accounts will have the same avatar size as all paid accounts. This means you will be able to upload larger avatars on that day if you have a free account and this will no longer be a paid perk.

BoxOfficeChica

Free Account+
  • Content count

    1,179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

950 Likes

About BoxOfficeChica

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    VA all the way!

Recent Profile Visitors

1,898 profile views
  1. Surprised there isn't a "No refunds after the movie starts" policy, or if people complain enough, they get free passes anyway? Sometimes the theaters here put up signs at the ticket window if a movie is "challenging", for The Artist there was a sign about it being silent and in black & white. Basically a warning ahead of time, so, hey, don't come looking for a refund later because we're not giving it to you.
  2. Thought the initial reports with the Manson movie were that Margot and J-Law were always up for different roles, Robbie for Tate and Lawrence as one of the Manson Girls. Not nearly as exciting for some people as pitting two actresses against each other, but that's the internet for you.
  3. But a movie can catch on with mainstream audiences without necessarily being designed for them. The degree of Black Swan's success was a pleasant surprise, that doesn't mean anyone planned for that when it was greenlit. Awards success, maybe, but if Black Swan had made just $40m it would still be considered a hit that tripled its budget, but not in break out territory. All directors and studios hope their movies are successful, but hope is one thing and expectation is another. A studio expecting mother! to replicate Black Swan's success or thinking a $60m spend (between the budget and P&A) would be worth it financially, well, I'll be nice and call it extremely optimstic. Critically is another story. Anyway, we've all followed movies and box office long enough to know studios can make some...interesting decisions, and certain failures are easy to spot from a mile away. So, maybe the studio expected, say, $60m, but maybe people also aren't wrong for questioning if that was ever realistic, considering its content. Now that it's opened, though, saying "It was never meant to be commercial!" can come off like a bit of an excuse but to be fair, there was a, "Yeah, I don't know about this," argument going all along before it opened.
  4. Pretty sure the concern was WOM, they knew it would be fairly toxic (even in big cities) and wanted to get all the money they could while they could.
  5. With mother!, the movie is pretty extreme, not everyone liked what it was selling. Add in the lead star, some people have a lot of...feelings about Jennifer Lawrence and are very invested in her failure/success.
  6. Noah came in under Black Swan domestically, about $40m more worldwide. Obviously Swan overperformed for a $13m movie, but I think the studio hoped for more for their $125m Biblical epic, maybe more like $500m worldwide instead of what they got. The $13m figure thrown around for Mother made sense; it's the same as Black Swan. I figured the limited advertising before was because they knew this was pretty WTF and figured a big ad spend wasn't worth it. $30m P&A to get an $8m opening, that's gonna hurt. Maybe father! with Leo has a $30m OW but even he had J. Edgar (and father! costs much more than $30m besides). No star can sell absolutely everything, that's been true ever since there have been movies.
  7. Really? So the movie is completely useless, then...
  8. Watching a new House Hunters (she's looking for the farmhouse style in Phoenix, where do they find these idiots) and during the commercials they're running these advertorials for Home Again. The director was showing off the house in the movie and discussing the atmosphere she wanted to create with it, interspersed with movie clips and a voiceover saying the movie opens on Friday. The movie is sure to flop, now I really just want to see if the daughter of Nancy Meyers has inherited her eye for gorgeous movie houses.
  9. Or cast a lot of shorter actors, but Freddie's swagger/charisma that was the thing that made him appealing so to some degree I think audiences will be able to roll with it. I mean, it's not like they cast Kevin Hart in This Is How He Did It: The Montell Jordan Story. Pretty please can this movie include Live Aid and what happened backstage (allegedly) when Freddie Mercury met Bono for the first time:
  10. It was an embarrassing enough performance as it was, without adding nudity to it! Also Judi Dench keeps her wimple firmly in place. You know, if the main couple had any heat at all, the "year's sexiest thriller" talk wouldn't have been completely false advertising, just marginally false which is par for the course with Hollywood. You wonder if directors can tell during filming that they've miscast a major role but it's too late to do anything about it? With the troubled history and not-huge budget, it's not like Weinstein or Chadwick had the luxury to give Dane DeHaan an Eric Stoltz, Stuart Townsend-style heave ho after 2-3 weeks.
  11. Oh, and as for the sex/nudity, because I guess that might be a factor in whether some of you guys ever bother with this :
  12. Didn't they change the name back to The Post? Seeing lots of ads for Battle of the Sexes during the US Open naturally. Happy about the reception so far, tennis movies need a better representative than Wimbledon!
  13. Overall, it's not bad enough to be a good bad movie, it's mostly dull with a lot of characters taking stupid pills for the story to work. If you have a cheap matinee price where you are, that's the most I'd recommend a person to spend if seeing it in theaters. Forgot to mention the poor editing, it is very obviously sliced and diced, especially where the "love story" for Dane and Alicia is concerned.
  14. If you really want to know... I covered my face, half from embarrassment and the other to hide my laughter. But Vikander has on a nice nightgown during all these scenes, I have to say.
  15. Pros: Good turns from Tom Hollander and Holliday Grainger, Jack O'Connell wasn't bad , either Unexpected racial diversity (just with a supporting character and background actors but still more than 99% of movies of this ilk) Cons: Chemistry-free leads (especially bad when the movie's other young lovers actually do generate heat) Idiot Plots galore Military Metaphors + Sex Scenes = Major Cringe Everything about Zach Galifianakis 4/10 (really 3/10 but I gave it an extra point for the diverse casting)
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.