Ipickthiswhiterose

Is this guy seriously trying to run with "This film SHOULD have had a top 8 opening of all time and anything less than that is a disappointment"? The Par range WW for Black Panther 2 should be around 850m-1.050m with par set at 950m. That would be a very solid profit while acknowledging the absence of money from China and Rus. The first movie was a zeitgeist film and to expect the same again is ridiculous just as to expect the next Spider-Man film to do NWH numbers, to expect Fallen Kingdom to have done JW numbers, and to expect any future TG3 to do TGM numbers is ridiculous. All context considered, I'd say anything below 850 would be a disappointment, anything above 1.05 a big success. That's where I'd put my lines.

Terrifier's run has been good and all but surely doubling its theatre count for a very small increase isn't great. If anything it comes across as this being the week when the wheels fell off a bit. Barbarian and Smile are still much bigger overperformers. I'd much rather see Terrifier's director be given a solid commitment in terms of a run of three or so films where he has 10/20m to work with than see him given the keys to a big franchise. As for the Black Adam numbers....again, it seems weird because in and of themselves for an original lesser known character they're good. At the same time they struggle to justify the immense budget.....maybe it's possible we aren't being told something and the budget for BA includes some rolled-in filming for the sequel already? On the other hand, it seems strange that some are eager to paint Black Adam as a horrendous bomb given the sheer desperation that we saw last year with the *actual* horrendous bomb of Suicide Squad and how many were then, and still are, in denial about that movie's failure due to, mostly, enjoying the film themselves.

Great question. I'd argue they were knocked out of the conversation firstly by the mainstreamification of geek culture. And then the second blow of younger female skewing YA. It also probably doesn't help that rather akin to horror anything that was marketed at older women tended (and tends) to be critically assaulted, or at least sneered at. There's also now such a constant slew of easy watch romcoms on tv and streaming that it feels unnecessary for that genre unless you add either massive opulence (SATX/Crazy Rich Asians) or preposterous star power like TTP. And finally, it probably doesn't help that new stars - especially female ones - are being predetermined at ever-younger ages. Nobody really comes on the scene in their late 20s early 30s out of nowhere organically like Clooney or even Bullock did anymore. Since realising with Angelina Jolie that they could choose a 'chosen one', bung them an Oscar early on and market the crap out of them; Hollywood has much preferred that to the organic route. See J Law, Emma Stone, Zellweger, Robbie etc.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but Terrifier 2s success seemed to be predicated on the fact that it was spoken about in hushed whispers and felt a bit naughty and counter culture. As such expanding into over 1,500 screens feels like it might have put a mainstream stamp onto it that was actually kind of harmful to it. Babylon seems like a heck of a risk for Robbie's career post-Amsterdam. It absolutely has to come off or she's starting to look like a busted flush as a megastar. Then again, that kind of makes it more likely that if Babylon is even half decent and her performance perfectly fine they'd bung her an Oscar a la JLaw, Julia Roberts and AJolie when they can given how desperate Hollywood is to push a "chosen one" actress's career.

Never mind Smile, looking at the type, promotion and nature of Barbarian as a horror film versus Halloween it is utterly insane that Barbarian is going to finish with, like, 70% of Halloween Ends' Box Office. Bad Guys return shows weird dynamics, because it feels like the movie has been almost talked into it. Clearly is just a placeholder, but why not - after such encouraging figures recently for foreign language films, low key films and Terrifier - just take a couple of punts on films. Ticket To Paradise....HA! Clever but cynical counter programming. To describe Clooney and Roberts as "sleepwalking" in that film is to underestimate how animated some sleepwalkers are. Literally might has well have paid for them to go on a lavish holiday and just filmed them. The three youngsters just get absolutely hosed in that film, nothing to work with especially Billie Lourd. But it shows star power still has a place. And to reiterate what I said before.....Banshees is a decade defining film. It will only grow. It will hit the occasional wall of "BuT MUh noThing HAppEns!!!" cynicism, but it is a bit of a crowdpleaser in addition to being an existential masterpiece.

Sure. Banshees is the best film I've seen since at least Parasite, probably the VVitch and maybe as far back as Inside Out/Pan's Labyrinth. It is a decade-defining level film. The chances of a better film, or even close to it, being released in the next few months is negligible. It is also already critical universally acclaimed and is a relative crowdpleaser for the type of movie that it is, since it has a lot of humour. But ok, awards season is fickle and there will be a flurry of big pushes for other performances to come, including many much praised impressions. I will accept that. And Hopkins aside the Acting awards for the last few years have been beyond all levels of laughable (Zellweger, Chastain and Smith surely being a nadir).

I'm just relieved there is genuine chance this year that we won't have any darned biopic copy-performances winning Oscars, which will be the first time for years. Yeoh would be a worth winner, but Cate Blanchett would be good- haven't seen Tar yet. Blanchett's Oscar winning is wonky since one of hers came from the ridiculous Oscar biopics obsession: her impression of Katharine Hepburne (which came out the same year as Rachel McAdams' iconic, zeitgeist driving, era defining performance in Mean Girls which wasn't even nominated because heaven forfend multifaceted comic performances are recognised as greater than impressions) isn't in her top dozen best roles, just as Meryl Streep's Thatcher impression isn't in her best 20. Think there's a genuine chance Banshees of Inisherin should literally sweep all performance categories that aren't Best Actress: Farrell, Gleeson/Keoghan, Condon. Farrell is a lock and the only reason the others wouldn't win is if the two supporting actor men get in each others' way vote wise and MAYBE they under appreciate how amazing Kerry Condon is and want to give it to a more famous person.

This is the same old same old rubbish that has plagued the reception of horror movies forever. Especially horror films that are straight-faced and make bold attempts to be legitimately scary rather than tension factories. Film has great word of mouth, gets among popular audience. GREAT! Except broad audiences contains a greater level of heterogenous spectatorship than general horror viewership including people who include: - Johnny Bigballs who refuses to acknowledge being scared by anything ever and will only ever go to a horror film to slag it off. - Different affective receivers who more so than enthusiastic horror audience don't realise that just because a film doesn't scare you PERSONALLY doesn't mean it's bad. - Armchair critics who are knee-jerk inured to slate horror films because they're bottom of the perceptual pile. - Think all horror films should be like "*****" (place the one or two horror films they either like or know are mainstream approved here) Scream, Blair Witch, Hereditary, Witch.....there was a backlash to them all. The only ones that get away with it are tangentially non horror films like Silence (thriller) and Get Out (Sociopolitical commentary) or features either very well established story or performers like It or Quiet Place. I didn't love Smile - it spread its bets between being a thematic horror and a populist narrative one and that really came into play at the end - but it isn't 'tricking' people to see it. 1999 people were lining up on the internet and IRL to tell others how rubbish Blair Witch was. It was the cool thing to do......Somehow, It was so rubbish it had one of the greatest returns on investment ever and ludicrously good legs.

Thanks for this. My local is weird. It's Preston, so even though we aren't a metropolis its hardly the middle of nowhere. It's great for Indian films and we get all the big Polish releases, both of which is great and I see my fair share but that tends to cut off the number of other foreign lang films and arthouse fare sometimes. We had literally one showing ever of, say, The Lighthouse that you had to catch on the solitary day. Worried Decision to Leave may get such a one-off

Quite superb for Banshees. Looking forward to seeing it this week. Seems like a solid opening for Black Adam. As I've said elsewhere on it when you look at it as an opening for a barely known superhero in an original film it's a great figure, but it's whether it justifies the budget. Thought Lost King would have done better but really has spluttered. Emily less surprising but given that it really is an excellent film it's a very disappointing return nonetheless. Decision to Leave not on at my local. Annoying.

Grace Randolph in the same video bemoaned the absence of any Halloween hits. ......Smile is about to reach x10 its budget worldwide, and is locked for 100m Dom and 200m WW

Mate, I can give you the Paltrow scene as it helped establish character all round, but the Jackson Pollock line in what remains ultimately a family/broad product and Drax's "Whore" line about Gamora in GOTG2 are the two most tacky and classless moments in the MCU. Gunn is great, but the very nature of him and his background means that he is good for at least one moment of legitimately misjudged crassness per product. One might consider it part of the appeal, but it doesn't prevent it from still being the case.

While Kills and Ends both being divisive and arguably plain poor have undoubtedly caused a lot of the issues with the collapse of the returns for Halloween's trilogy, theres a case that it is as much down to the fact that the Halloween franchise rebooting with Jamie Lee Curtis in the middle of Memberberrygeddon was a one time deal and some audience members were always going to be one and done with it. As someone has already indicated with the Jurassic Gif but possibly counter to their point - even other franchises in Memberberrygeddon with divisive and arguable even worse executed paths have managed to stay financially successful if they had a hook that people are always going to care about - ie. Big dino action, but ultimately slashers are a somewhat niche genre and back to a somewhat niche genre it has returned.

To expand on the other (correct) answer. Terrifier 2 is a slasher movie that caters to a particularly high level of brutal violence. Meaning it plays to both a voyeuristic/sadistic spectatorship and one of a kind of "can you handle it" survivalism. Following from its own original and from other hyper violent slasher franchises into which the Terrifier popularity has coalesced... It is picking up on the demands for hyper violence that exists because such violence departed the mainstream after the Rob Zombie/Eli Roth torture porn era was shunted out/turned out not to be quite the movements they were heralded as. We have seen the increased popularity in the last decade and a half of more mainstream supernatural classic horror fare (non-needing of major violence) in the Conjuring era, the sociopolitical commentary likes of Peele and the Purge (high body counts but not as much actual focus on sadistic violence) and of course the MEMBERBERRYGEDDON of the last decade (causing more conventional violent-but-not-TOO-violent slasher returns of Scream/Halloween/StephenKing and others on the horizon). All of these have happened within horror meaning that despite increased visibility of the genre as a whole, hyper violence and sadism has been squeezed out. This means that hyper violence is now back to where it kind-of belongs....in a counter culture place but with a lot of potential audience members and the eternal "must see" value of feeling more under-the-counter naughtiness than when you had Saw films topping the box office and Eli Roth's mainstream frat bro schtick. Plus it kind of does the hyper-violence in a knowing way - never TOOOO much to one side of being overtly sadistic (ie the horror is played as horrific, not funny), being meta but not overly so, using the ever-popular clown motif, and yet using 'do you believe THAT?' kills as a starting point.

Batman Begins, the opening of one of the most beloved of superhero trilogies.... $150m Budget plus big marketing budget $48m opening $373 Worldwide total. BA will beat that opening and likely that worldwide total despite not being a Batman movie.

Interesting case study in expectation. From my perspective this is an original superhero that not many people have heard of.....so 60m seems pretty good from that point of view. For a movie adaptation of a non-Marvel character that not many people have heard of and that packs together a lot of lore people don't know in an universe with patchy public perspective....seems pretty decent. But the question is whether the budget makes that irrelevant. I'd still say that a x2.5 ww (so, what.....350?) on this one will look decent enough if it gets there. Would make a positive comparison with Batman Begins which, arguably, was performing a similar function at the time. But in and of itself still not a big financial hit. Looking forward to seeing it myself though. Trailers were rather "superhero the superhero movie" to me, but I've heard enough positive things. If things come out on the downside though I would consider my experience with my PT today - he's a big Rock fan and I asked if he planned to go. He said no as he's "not into that superhero stuff". So there may be a slight misalignment that means macho manly type Rock fans want popcorn fun and spectacle but draw the line at comic books. In other news, saw Ticket to Paradise ages ago here in the UK. Thought it was awful, but still surprised it isn't doing slightly better in OW. That said it should have silly older audience legs. Smile over Halloween Ends would be crazy if it happens. Finally getting to Halloween her in the UK and can actually ruddy well watch Barbarian after this ridiculous wait.

Ronan + Pugh + Nyong'o > Edgar Jones + Taylor Joy + FJones > Stone, Jessica Rothe, Lahsanna Lynch, Zendaya, Weaving, Larson, ScarJo & Chan > JLaw + Emmanuel + Liz Olsen + Robbie. JLaw didn't pull off JLaw's role in mother! Silver Linings is a bit of baseline naturalism, an audition standard, pretty much every actress named above could have done it well. La La Land, Cruella and The Favourite are all operating at a higher level of difficulty than anything the other two have done - apart from mother! (failed attempt) and maybe that horror film JLaw did.

I've seen enough Youtube channels that list Friday the 13th Part 13 as their most anticipated horror film out in the next 24 months despite there not being a single even vaguely decent movie among the 12 prior Friday the 13th movies to EVER think that a cozy slippers 80s Slasher franchise isn't going to do perfectly well among the comfort-watch wing of horror fandom. Halloween is like a version of Bayformers, Jurassic and Pirates, a certain amount of money is locked regardless of critics, prior movies or quality. Buzz might be somewhat relevant for non-horror goers who checked the first two out because of murmurs. But it'll only shave off a portion at best. Smile's performance is ridiculous. Ridiculous. Note those international numbers for Ticket to Paradise also. Adults have been starved for rom coms and star power it seems and for easy watches. It is a lazy, mediocre movie that barely rises above "send Julia Roberts and George Clooney on holiday and just follow them around with a camera". In fact having just typed that it would indeed almost certainly have been more fun.

My PT knows I am into films. For reference his favourite film stars are The Rock, Vin Diesel and 90s Nicolas Cage. The only films he has, unprompted, told me he wants to see in 4 years of training with him "because they look good" are Hobbs and Shaw, Fast 9, and Smile. That's some serious mainstream cut-through.

My screening of Ponniyin Selvan last night was absolutely buzzing. 70% full. BUT only one screening per day and per main Indian language dubs once every three days.

Horror is so diverse that when it has loose connective tissue or aesthetics from one to another it is easy to snark from one to the other. It wouldn't occur to someone who says Smile and the Ring are the same film to equally say that Spinal Tap and What We Do in the Shadows are the same film, or say that Any Two Romcoms are the same film, or Die Hard is the same film as The Towering Inferno when there are about the same level of similarities. I remember at the start of the IMDB era when armchair critics were trying to justify the mass hatred of Event Horizon (for the crime of being a horror film that took itself seriously in the immediate post-Scream landscape.) by saying it was a ripoff of.......ALIEN.

"Smile is a generic X rehash" is the new "Hereditary is a generic Y rehash." in that X and Y change. Weird actually that everyone who criticises Smile chooses a completely different movie to declare it's rehashing. Babadook. Conjuring. It Follows. For clarification: But....y'know.....a generic rehash.

Creep aside, DOR I find to be a Tom Hooper type example of overinflation of director reputation. He was a benefactor of a dearth of 'auteur' type directors and so when he made a couple of competent movies that, more importantly, came out at the right time of the year he was perceived way above his station. American Hustle is decent, no more no less and sails by on its acting performances. Silver Linings Playbook is very mediocre, but then I don't really understand why the book is popular either so perhaps I'm not the best person to evaluate it.

Your definition of flop is nonsense. 1-2 multiplier is 'flop' territory and a 1.5 multiplier with a decent domestic haul will make its money back eventually. By your reckoning here Batman Begins, Ghostbusters Afterlife, Dune and the First Avenger were all flops. This will indeed end around 70-85 most likely, maybe pushing a bit more but yes, between 2 and 3x budget. Sorry, that ain't a flop, it's just not an unambiguous hit. Things can be middling, so-so. And Don't Worry Darling goes with Bullet Train, Nope & DC Superpets in that category. Okay for a director whose previous effort was a very low budget indie and with an only semi-established lead. Not great, and with the nonsense will not be a rousing piece of evidence for studios to go with Wilde. But decent. Oh, and Elvis your frame of reference here had two and a half times the budget of this film, not an appropriate comparison at all. Indeed Elvis is only a modest amount over a x3 multiplier itself at $286m on $85m budget.

To be a little more blunt this time because of this comment from Eichner I work in areas around musical theatre, my extended social and work group is made up of large swathes of Queer, especially gay, professional men and women; and I am in weekly training contact with dozens of LGBT students. This film has no buzz about it. What this film thinks is its demographic cares fifty times more about Hocus Pocus 2, the new Hellraiser and the drama around Don't Worry Darling than a New York specific story that leans into a closed, Broadway-ified, definition of the "LGBT Community" that has alienated and continue to alienate a plurality of the gay and lesbian people who don't live in the 2 or 3 main urban pods of the biggest Western nations. It's a demographically different version of when everyone was surprised Crazy Rich Asians didn't play well in China. Why would China care about the Americanised foibles of rich American Asians? Why would an 18 year old lesbian in Leeds who's never heard of Debra Messing see any kinship in the nuances and dynamics of balancing dudebro cache and Queer subcultural capital in middle class New York?