Joel M

I think it did break out, it's just that some people got too excited and set the bar so high for this movie expecting it to pull a mini-Barbie or have Jumanji and Greatest Showman legs. Like that's something that happens all the time. I don't think the pre-release expectations for Wonka were to easily fly by the 2005 movie unadjasted WW total. It's a prequel, Timothee-Paul King are nowhere near Burton-Depp 2000s fame and it had a fair amount of bad buzz before it came out. There's an alternate universe where Wonka has a more tepid reception in line with pre-release expectations, does Mary Poppins Returns boxoffice and that would still be fine for it all things considered.

I was wondering about that ever since the project was anounced. I don't know how the musical incorporates songs into that kind of story, it might have been done tastefully. But from what I remember from the Spielberg version it has rape and domestic abuse in it, and I just find it weird that there's a musical version with songs between all this horrifying stuff. Even if the songs are serious.

I really don't think she would move the needle in any meaningful way. If it flops with the new cast, people will say it's because she's missing. If it floped with her people would say "what you expected, no one remembers Twister" or something of that sort. I agree that the original movie is not quite as forgotten as younger people that have never heard of it might think. Anyone who was old enough to watch movies in the late 90s would have probably seen it on cinemas/VHS/TV. It was THAT big. And many of them will probably have fond memories of it. But as many already said, it doesn't have anywhere near the cultural cachet of other big 90s blockbusters. I think it's better to bet on the concept feeling fresh and new again 30 years later with no baggage than bet on nostalgia for Helen Hunt's character who I don't even remember her name despite having watched Twister more than a dozen times way back when.

I mean A24 can have an off season, especially after their total domination of the oscars last year. They 're still celebrating.

It was fun and an ideal movie to watch for Christmas. It's pleasant and looks considerably better than what the CGI sheen of the trailers suggested. I was also a bit surprised by how much of a musical it actually is, maybe I would have preferred it to have a few less songs since most of them weren't that memorable. I may sound a bit negative but this is fine, a fun family film. Certainly way better than Mary Poppins Returns which has been the constant comparison point pre-release. I also think Timmy was pretty good in it. His singing voice is whatever but he has presence which is the most important thing for a big production like this.

I disagree with this as a factual statement about "everyone". Ava2 opened under expectations and went on to have fantastic legs way beyond the holiday corridor. People that don't care or don't like Avatar can pretend that the millions of people in theatres just liked the pretty colors on screen. Still doesn't make it true.

That was a wild one. It was pretty much a sang through musical and they cherry picked all the scenes they don't sing in for the trailer. Even more ridiculous that the recent trend of musicals that just have a bunch of songs in them.

I mean Far Cry 3 was good, 4 was even better, Primal was different enough but at some point there's not enough new spin in the tired old formula to get excited. I love Avatar and video games but I don't really have an itch for that type of game anymore. Maybe I'll try it in a few years when it's dirt cheap.

I've been seeing a lot of positive vibes on my timeline about Holdovers. Still looks pretty unexciting to me but people seem to like it. If anything is gonna upset from the smaller films it gotta be this one winning screenplay, supporting and BP, in the usual underdog way. Otherwise I think it's Oppenheimer's to lose. If it's even winning critic groups, I don't see how the industry would be less excited for it.

Joins the ranks of most annoying movie titles this decade alongside a knives out mystery and Scream (not 5). I'll echo the general whiney sentiment that it looks a bit too clean, a bit too CGI and a bit too much like Fury Road, but I still have faith in Miller delivering a great action movie.

After seeing Napoleon I get the weak online scores and cinemascore but I don't think it will necessarry mean bad legs. I got the sense most of the audience at my screening was getting perplexed with awkward laughs and whispering, but I don't think they hated it. It is certainly getting some backlash though. Both the marketing and audience preconceptions about the genre made people expect an epic tone and some reverence for his historical importance and the movie is nothing like that. Napoleon is a horny buffoon and there's more focus on him and Josephine than the historical stuff. I think it was just ok but Joaquin and Kirby were actually brilliant. Maybe the 4 hour cut is actually great, but even the theatrical is still interesting. With almost everything else flopping and Napoleon opening that well, I hope it can develop decent legs despite mid audience scores. Plus if they 're planning KOTFM for Christmas streaming release, that will mean Napoleon would also get a 2 month window at least before it hits streaming.

I wouldn't hold my breath about any of Rockstars games getting a movie anytime soon.Since GTAO became a neverending money printing machine, they simply make way too much money to care about trying anything else. I'm not even sure they 'll even make a third Red Dead despite the last one have already sold over 50M copies.

Really good show. The structure of it reminds me of buffy a lot and it's very rewatchable in general. The atom eve special was fine, nothing specacular, but the 1s ep got me really hooked again. I'm not reading the comic anytime soon, but I hope they get to adapt it all the way through. The amount of gore is borderline silly but I don't mind at all. My only beef with that and the show overall is where is all the sex though? Mark can get beaten to a pulp every other episode but still no sex scene. It's a little bizzare going all in on bloody violence but treat the relationship stuff like a family film.

I had some misguided hope this might be a little like a real action movie, but nope just another Deadpool.

It felt monumental. I've been hyped for this movie for almost a decade without having even read the book and it just blew me away. For everyone involved is one of the best movies they 'll ever get to make imo. The way it unfolds is masterful and heartbreaking. I 've only knew the broad details of the story and avoided reading about it until the movie comes out. Obviously a more mystery thriller approach would be way more commercially appealing, probably shorter and probably still a great movie. But I'm glad they went the other way, the result is incredible. The runtime didn't bother me either, but it's funny that despite this being my most anticipated movie in years, I still had to reschedule twice and finally saw it a week later. I guess the 3hr mark is a very strong barrier in my mind. It's fine when an epic scope movie is 2.45-3 hours long, but if it is 3h15m my mind goes "wow this movie is almost 4 hours long".

Same, although I liked Barbie too. Air felt like a gentle shrug when it came out but has aged like milk in my mind since then. I hope it misses all together.

Marty got the DC stans rattled too? What a Legend.

It's not about protecting Scorsese. Scorsese has had many flops in his career, he 'll be fine. He only cared about making the movie he wanted, which I assumed he did. It's about a streaming movie making any kind of real money in theatres. Apple could have released this in limited release without boxoffice reported and then claim success that a bajillion people saw it on streaming. Releasing this and Napoleon for real is a great opportunity. Maybe if they do some real money other streamers will try it to and even start treating theatrical exhibition as a worthy revenue stream instead of competition or a nuisance to get oscar noms. The difference between this and the Flash or Indiana Jones, is that those were made with huge budgets because studios wanted and expected them to make way more than they did. This was made with huge budget because Apple wanted the Scorsese/Dicaprio prestige on their streaming service. A traditional studio would just never make this. In the end no one forcing anyone to treat this or Napoleon or Air as a special case. You can treat it as every other release and call it flop if it doesn't double its bugget, and you don't even have to wait for box office numbers for that, you can probably start now.

I think it's mostly apple and paramount just distributes

If all goes well and doesn't get a super early streaming release I think usual Leo/Scorsese range 100ish dom/ 300ish ww. Anyone that's itching to call it a flop based on the budget ignoring it's Apple might as well start now because it needs like half a billion to do 2.5x the budget.

Hairspray and The Producers that were the first of this kind had the same adaptation road from movie cult hit to broadway juggernaut and then back to big budget movie. Even if only one of them ended up working, they had the same thinking behind them. Take the cult thing that actually blew up in another medium and remake it as a big movie musical. This and Color Purple are the exact opposite of that. They both got turned into musicals because they were iconic movies, said musicals didn't exactly set Broadway on fire and now they are getting back to cinema still trying to capitalize on the popularity of 20 and 40 year old movies. They might end up succeeding if they 're good/crowdpleasing but the IP recognition by itself won't do much for either of them.

I know you say it ironically but it kinda is.

They wanna show the production values. It makes sense as a marketing tool for big movies that are not 90% in front of a green screen. Even Avatar 2 that is 99% vfx wanted to showcase the groundbreaking tech and the tanks of water they used to capture the pre-render footage.

It will, but I don't think it 'll make that much, it opened too early in the year to have any sigificant oscar bump. If it had opened in October and was still chugging along by the new year, maybe it could ride the oscar wave with re-expansions and make another 10-15mil from January to March like Gravity or A Star is Born did. But everyone would have already seen it by then on digital or even streaming. Only the die hards will come back to see it in theatres in February.

I haven't see the movie yet but I agree that Poor Things doesn't sound the same kind of weird. Shape of Water was a Beauty and the Beast type fairytale in a historical setting. It just briefly touched on the fish sex stuff that this kind of tale usually avoids like the plague. EEAAO had some dildos and sausage hands foreplay but they were played for laughs. If this is as raunchy as reported, it might have enough "cool factor" to be championed to many nominations but it's difficult to become the consensus choice if it is full of scenes of zombie Emma Stone discovering herself through sex. idk maybe the raunchiness is exaggerated, I'm just going by what we know of Lanthimos style.