Jump to content

BoxOfficeChica

Free Account+
  • Content count

    1,282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,061 Likes

About BoxOfficeChica

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    VA all the way!

Recent Profile Visitors

2,561 profile views
  1. "Bohemian Rhapsody was a great time at the movies, people love it so much, what are these critics going on about?" *presents some things the critics are going on about [while clearly not even personally agreeing with all these points]* "It's a global smash, suck it, haters!" A real scintillating conversation this is turning out to be... A movie can be popular and a minority of people can still have issues with it. It doesn't mean they're wrong, it doesn't mean they're right. A lot of things that were huge in one time, make everyone cringe 10-20 years later. Or sometimes stuff gets slammed in the present and years later, we wonder what was so controversial about it. Remember how La La Land was fascist and racist in the heat of the Oscar race?
  2. Well, yeah, certainly knives are out because of Singer's involvement but many biopics rearrange/make up events for drama, some get slammed and some don't. Queen/Freddie are very well known, plus it's been reported for years, the prospect of a "harder" version, it set this movie up to disappoint with critics no matter what. But the way this portrayed his relationships didn't help. I wouldn't say it shows homosexuality as something to overcome, you do see him with a good guy BF in the end, but it seems to be portrayed a lot more reluctantly than his hetero relationship. It seems like like some see playing around with the timeline of his AIDS diagnosis as trivializing the disease. And onscreen Freddie's "wild" partying/trusting the wrong person aren't just because a biopic is gonna biopic (embellish reality and invent drama where there wasn't any)...but because the movie is clearly saying that all the band's problems were because gay Freddie just had to be so darn gay and lured in by a gay predator. (Fans don't look at the movie this way at all obviously). The singer who overdoes it casual sex and/or substances, the stars clashing over egos and jealousy, the sleazy music industry type in the lead's ear: these are all staples of musician dramas. Does a biopic have to avoid these themes with LGBT characters even if they are typical for the genre? Gay or straight, movies about singers can be very cliched so maybe they should try to do something different regardless.
  3. It's like how a movie that takes place anywhere from, IDK, 1920s to the 1970s, but if the movie was made in the 21st century, it won't show that much smoking, compared to movies/TV shows that were actually made back then and at least half the population smoked. I mean, they used to even smoke on game shows. Except for maybe Mad Men, but that was a cable show for adults, but anything PG-13 or lower that is made these days tends to avoid showing the "good guys" smoking. Even if they are playing characters in a time where a lot of people smoked and big 1950s-1960s sitcom star would endorse cigarettes in character and on the TV show set. It's kind of the same with how this movie handles Freddie's sexuality, I wouldn't entirely say it portrayed homosexuality as an obstacle, but the way the Jim Hutton relationship played out does remind me of the 1990s movies where Hollywood wanted to be progressive, but couldn't show too much for fear of audiences shunning. Like in Philadelphia, when it was made in the early 90s and didn't show Tom Hanks actually kissing a love interest, even though the movie was about this gay man in a relationship who got discriminated against because he had AIDS. If it was made now (but still set 25-ish years ago) and portrayed the sexuality in that retro way, it would be reviewed a lot more harshly that it was at the time. Even under a PG-13 rating, there's a bit more freedom with how far directors can go with a male-male romantic scenes. You can think the movie was really tame and not necessarily believe it should have had an R rating.
  4. I thought the pairing of the Overcomer teaser with Into the Spider-Verse was odd, it got some unintentional laughs along with the runaway dog one. I went back and watched the teaser for War Room and it was equally vague: it didn't specifically mention the troubled marriage plot and you saw images of everyone, but only heard the praying grandmother's dialogue. So it will probably be the same way with Overcomer, the trailer will say what this is actually about and will probably get attached to the one that's being released for Easter, where the kid falls through the ice and lives...Breakthrough.
  5. BoxOfficeChica

    Wednesday numbers

    Deadline has early figures for today's showings of They Shall Not Grow Old, $3.1+ million, making the grand total $5.4 million from the two dates so far (December 17 & 27). It opens in NY/LA/DC on January 11 and expands to the Top 25 markets on February 1 (Super Bowl weekend). https://deadline.com/2018/12/peter-jackson-they-shall-not-grow-old-box-office-record-1202526739/
  6. So, apparently the movie is a little different than what's been sold in the trailers (spoilers in the link): https://www.thedailybeast.com/jennifer-lopezs-second-act-has-the-craziest-movie-twist-of-the-year
  7. BoxOfficeChica

    Tuesday Numbers

    Wasn't it just a Fathom event? Don't think it's playing again until after Christmas.
  8. Awww, man! But sometimes, Swiper actually swiped! Gotta love the half-hearted finish to "Swiper, no swiping" when they're too late to stop him. And hiding what he's stolen in full view of witnesses or throwing it 10 feet away, foolproof plan right there!
  9. It's not uncommon for it to take a few weeks or months for the news to get out, when someone on that level of fame has died (already out of the limelight for years and never A-list famous to begin with), but the timing is very...interesting to say the least. Maybe she/her family planned it that way, maybe it's just happenstance, or karma. No previews, it seems.
  10. Down to 64% with 41 reviews. Definitely wasn’t an awards player already and the news of Sondra Locke's death (RIP) has the media freshly reporting on Clint/WB's abhorrent treatment of her. WB will just quietly collect whatever money this makes and want to move on as quickly as possible.
  11. Tulip Fever?! I guess the Weinstein implosion kept it from being released in Britain last year. Must be a contractual obligation, or Netflix UK didn't want it either.
  12. It's bombing all around the world: plenty of movies with poor reviews and weak domestic takings have flourished internationally, but that's clearly not happening here. Just way too late for the sequel (but not long enough for nostalgia to kick in), at least the budget wasn't that high.
  13. BoxOfficeChica

    Weekend Thread ~ The Grinch 67m+ per DHD

    LOL, you never know, not all rich parents support their kids in adulthood (I don't believe that was the case with her). But seriously, this forum does have a lot of international posters, and the NFL isn't as global as some other sports, but maybe everyone isn't aware of her lineage, extremely "comfortable" on both sides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_family http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/examining-mara-family-tree-ny-giants-seek-fourth-super-bowl-patriots-article-1.1016405
  14. BoxOfficeChica

    Weekend Thread ~ The Grinch 67m+ per DHD

    The Front Runner opened on Election Day?! LOL, the target audience was going to follow news coverage, not go to the movies. Not that there is much of an audience for it, as subsequent days have shown...
  15. It's the first song in the credits, so I believe it's still eligible. I'm surprised they are pushing three songs to begin with, though, a lot of movies these days only stick to one.
×

Important Information

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