doctoru2

I would give the movie a "thumbs up" overall too. But that doesn't mean I loved it. In other words, my rating would be in the "fresh" catetogry on RT, but compared to TDK and BB, the rating is MUCH lower. So those sites can skew one way or the other.As for IMDb, the vast majority of those positive ratings came in before the movie was released. Fan boys were skewing the film positive. Check back in maybe 6 months to a year - then compare. The ratings will normalize by then and we'll have a more accurate feel for what the public really thinks.

I'm happy to hear this. My friends and I left the theater going "meh" and there was NO applause or tearing up or anything. Granted, my world is small and perhaps my expectations were TOO high for this film, but I'm still not sure of how great the WOM is.

I did like Bane - in fact, other than Gordon-Levitt's character, he was fun to watch. However, I agree with you otherwise. I think you said it perfectly - a sense of "fun" was missing from this film. TA, despite the possibility of the entire planet being invaded by aliens, was fun to watch. As you wrote, TDK was fun - there's a part where you wanted to see what would happen if the Joker got his way! But TDKR, despite some attempts at fun with Hathaway, was just too serious. Nothing wrong with being serious at the right moment, but for nearly 3 hours?

The fact that TDKR "only" made $160M this weekend - give or take a few million - has some thinking this movie flopped. The second highest opening ever is an accomplishment (and it received no 3D boost). So with that type of huge opening, I think enough people have seen it for WOM to spread. And I'm still not sure on how great the WOM is for this film. TA seemed to have phenomenal WOM - everyone was talking about it. Yet that film still dropped slightly 50% - despite being released in May where weekdays are softer. With the summer holidays, the weekdays will be stronger for TDKR, meaning less demand for the weekend. The drop may be slightly softer due to the horrific shootings (meaning a larger second weekend audience than normal), but not much. I feel it will still be over 50% or higher due to some mixed WOM, continued fear of the shootings, and weekday viewings.

I saw the movie on Saturday at a 5:45 show. The theater was decently full, but nowhere near sold out. My friend worried about the ability to buy tickets, yet there wasn't even a line. Whether this is due to the horrible shooting or a bit negative WOM or both, I'm not sure. But it's clear that no records will be set this weekend. As for the film, of my three friend and myself, only one really enjoyed it. I wasn't that person. If you read through my posts, you'll note that I enjoyed TASM. Does that seem logical? My explanation is that my expectations for TASM were low - so the film easily surpassed them. In contrast, I had high expectations for TDKR and I was rather disappointed. I really enjoyed "Batman Begins". What a great reboot to the series - almost perfect. I would have liked a stronger villain, but I was very happy with it. TDK was brilliant with the only exception of Batman's voice being a bit too gruff. But with those two very strong films, and the possibility of this being the end of the character based on all of the promos, I was expecting to be blown away. Instead, I left feeling very "meh". Maybe it will take a second viewing, but as I read through Harry Knowles rant, I found myself agreeing with a lot of his statements. I'll ignore the parts where he essentially feels that the characters don't behave how he feels they should. This is Nolan's world and he can create them as he wants. I like a new spin on characters that deviates a bit from what we all know. So that part of his review is meaningless to me. But I definitely concur with his thoughts on Catwoman, and even the Bane/Batman fights (I won't state anything more here for spoiler purposes). I may have to think about this, but there was definitely something missing. I may see it again on cable to give it another chance, but not in theaters. As of right now, if this is the best Nolan can do, it is time for him to leave the series. But Bale, Oldman, Hathaway, Cane and especially Joseph Gordon Levitt are welcome to stay. They all have more story there - just apparently not from Nolan. This is not to say I don't love Nolan, but it does seem it's time for his focus to be completely away from Batman. EDITED TO SAY: Clearly this is MY opinion. I'm sure many of you will have VERY different views. I'm not a hater, I wanted to love, but this film wasn't it. It was just good. If I grade it, perhaps a B or B-. And if my small circle of friends are any indication of the WOM for this film, then I do not see another $500M film.

Although I've seen a fraction of the movies others have here, I've always respected those who work in the theater. Some theaters are crowded and noisy - but there can be a "fun" aspect to them if designed well. Granted, it may not be fun for the person making popcorn, but it helps make the movie experience more enjoyable. Being an *ss to the person serving you is not a good way to start off a movie. Fortunately, I've not experienced anything negative from either side.

Actually, that would be a drop of 99.99999966667% (with some rounding). I just wonder how it got $1? Did someone accidentally drop some coins into the TASM donation box? (P.S. I liked the movie, but the post was funny.)

While I don't post much,rarely have I disagreed wth you. Alas, this becomes the first (even if you wrote the above in jest)."Hancock" was not a good movie. In contrast, I enjoyed TASM. I will also admit, I was surprised that I enjoyed TASM (I actually expected a tired rehash of what was done). Therefore, I'm thinking $270M +/- $5M as the final sum.But hey, if it drops 85% this weekend, I will never doubt you again.

I think this is a great prediction. Even if you are a bit high or a bit low, I have a feeling the total won't be far off from this sum. And if TASM makes anywhere close to $275M domestically, that should be considered a hit. First, the SM franchise was dropping under Raimi. I liked SM2 more than the first, but there was about a $30M drop between the two films. SM3 was not as beloved and saw a $40M drop. Given this is a reboot with a whole new cast - and the thought that many felt a reboot was too soon - any amount even approaching $300M is great.TASM is actually a good movie. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it (and I was in the "too soon for a reboot camp"). Therefore, I hope it hits close to that projection. I would love to see a sequel (or have SM join the Avengers - oh to dream). As you know, New Coke was a big hit for Coca Cola - which is a franchise - in terms of boosting sales overall. So if TASM revives the franchise of SM, then I guess your analogy works. However, I don't think that's your point. ;)I can respect your view if you actually saw the movie. For example, while "Hunger Games" made a fortune, I wasn't terribly impressed by the film. I'm stunned that it made over $400M domestically. But that's my view and I have to accept that many others disagree. However, your statement suggests that you have other reasons behind why you hate this film, and they aren't actually based on the film itself. It's tough to eliminate all bias, but sometimes it is better to focus on the actual item, not the nonsense surrounding it.

I had this attitude and saw it on Saturday. I wasn't expecting much and was even dreading going through the same "how he becomes Spider-Man" story we saw just 10 years ago (and countless times outside the theater since). Yet, I was surprised at the refreshing spin put on that story as well as the characters. And Garfield really does pull you in as Spider-Man. I think you will enjoy it.

Well, one could say this about surround color, surround sound, IMAX screens, special effects, CG, 3D and any other enhancement done over time. After all, if a movie is really that good, it doesn't need any of this.But reality says that a good movie can be enhanced by the above. It would be difficult to make "Avengers" without some of the above. Is 4D really needed? Well, some movie theaters (like at Disney) are already "rides" that have shaking seats and 3D. So adding smell is just one extra feature.Is it worthwhile for every movie? Clearly not. However, I will say this, when 3D is done correctly, it is brilliant. I watched "Spider-Man" yesterday which featured a trailer for "The Great Gatsby". This trailer was in 3D and if the movie is like this trailer, then that is perhaps the best 3D I've seen. It was brilliant depth perception, not a few token things popping out of the screen. So for the right movie, 4D can really add to the movie viewing pleasure.But there's always 2D, 3D and just waiting for the DVD/Blu-Ray or cable. The fact that you have so many choices is also an "enhancement".

But even if the total cost was $400M with marketing, there are all sorts of movie tie-ins that drop that cost. I'm not fully sure of the details Sony has with Disney with regards to merchandising, but often movies get some profit from placement ads (like from Coke or Doritos or whatever). That drops the cost. Then add in tie-ins with Burger King or McDonalds for toys and whatnot and that futher drops the cost. In other words, it's not so easy to say $220M + $100M marketing vs. $250M gross means "flop".

I'm confused by all of this.TASM, Ted and Brave all fell between 54 and 58% on Monday. For Ted, it's a great success. For the other two, it's disaster. Why, exactly?Now, if you mean overall, then Ted is performing well. Far better than I thought a silly movie about a talking teddy bear ever would. Early on, I thought this would be the bomb of the summer - but word spread about this silly nasty bear and it's a hit.Brave is still on pace with Wall-E and Cars. As those films crossed $200M, nothing wrong with that. Given that Brave is actually one of the films not reviewed that well perhaps that's expected (surprise lower review for Pixar - then again, they have dropped since merging with Disney - Disney can market the crap out of something, but they've long since lost their "magic" at movies)TASM is the unknown. Is this a big drop or will this film ultimately have some legs? I think most thought it would do around $250M total domestically (give or take). That is less than past SM films, but not unusual for a reboot to often perform well but on the lower end of expectations (see Batman, Superman, X-men, Star Trek reboots).

True, but there are a lot of reasons.I didn't join Baumer's "Under $200M" club, but I understood his point. Why reboot a series that was wildly successful just a few years ago? Did we really need to see another "how it all started" movie, when we still enjoy the first from 10 years ago? So there may be less interest just due to that (and those who liked Toby Maguire as SM).Then there's the fact despite the success of SM3, it was based off the good will of the first two films. Many did not like SM3. Just like "Batman Begins" had to overcome "Batman & Robin", TASM has to overcome SM3. "Batman Begins" proved to be a very good movie, which certainly helped the sequel. "Batman Begins" has a 70 out of 100 Metascore (on IMDB). TASM has a 66. So it seems to be reviewed in the same positive light, which should help the sequel.Lastly, TASM is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Audiences had a big helping of superhero movies with "Avengers". And they are looking forward to the next serving with TDKR. TASM is more of sorbet mouth cleanser between courses. Add in some great competition from some unexpectedly strong films ("Ted" and MM) and it's a bit tougher for TASM to break-out.Hence, I was leaning in the $250-$300 area. It looks like TASM will reach the lower level of my range. Not bad. Certainly not a flop.

This.I compared Kitsch to Brad Pitt once too - and Pitt has had a LOT of bombs in his career. Yet Pitt remains a huge star.Like Pitt, Kitsch seems to have a lot of international appeal (or at least his films do). Thanks to international business, both "John Carter" and "Battleship" have approached or surpassed $300M worldwide. And that suddenly makes the fact that these films bombed domestically a bit more tolerable. Add in DVD/Blu-Ray, NetFlix, Red Box rentals, cable and TV rights and these films might even turn a bit of a profit for their respective studios (despite Disney claiming it will write off $200M, which I don't believe at all - it was a shareholder trick)."Savages" may not be a big hit, but Kitsch will not suffer, given the director and the fact that an Oscar winner is in the movie. The other two Kitsch films were big action/adventure movies. Kitsch definitely won't suffer because of "Battleship" as that was more about the alien invasion side. Had the film been successful, I don't think Kitsch would have gained a lot either - after all, is anyone more impressed with Shia LeBouf because of "Transformers"?That said, I'm sure Kitsch will be looking at his next few movies very carefully. He should hope he's asked to play his Gambit character in another X-Men movie. Those are at least mild hits domestically ($140M+) and he needs that now.

I'm pretty sure he's only cheering for "Magic Mike". I saw lots of ads for Savages too - but thought it was an odd release time. Sometimes summer helps, but this screams to be an October movie. A bit more room to breakout, and where $15M might be enough to get to #1. As for Katy Perry, doesn't she only have like 2 hit songs? Why on earth is she making a video about herself already? Whatever.

But not in CA, where prices are around $4/gallon. The most populous state is still enduring high prices, including homes (the average, while much lower than 2007, is still very high compared to other parts of the country). Plus, even with signs of the economy recovering a bit, people are cautious. They will spend here and there, but gone are the days of just giving kids $$ to see a movie several times a week.

I fully respect your opinion, but as I tried watching it on cable, I couldn't watch after the first 30 minutes. It just seemed so obvious and predictable. The cute aspect of Mater in the first movie quickly became annoying in the second. Maybe someday I'll get through it all, but unlike other Pixar movies, this one did not immediately captivate me.

What's this "Cars 2"? And I sure wish they'd make sequels to "The Matrix".

Well, it's still Sandler, so... But he plays a bit more of the "straight man" and leaves some of the silliest scenes to his costars. And that now seems to work for him. Think "Longest Yard" more than "Billy Madison". The "charm" worked because he was so young. He could get away with being this silly, zany "man-child" because he basically was. He was in his late 20's or early 30's, and looked younger. So one could accept that behavior from him. But I don't want to see a 45 year old acting that way. This worked ONCE, IMO, with the original "Arthur". Dudley Moore found the perfect way to play the character. Note, though, that the remake of that flopped. So I stand by my assessment. Sandler can still do comedy, he just has to be more adult. There's a reason why "Chuck and Larry", "Grown Ups", "Click" and "50 First Dates" all worked. They had some morality, they had a cuteness, and they had other actors being silly. It wasn't just 90 minutes of zany Sandler. He got lucky with "Zohan", but even that had a certain charm and appeal.

Sandler used to have a big hit when he was the "man-child", like in "Billy Madison", "Happy Gilmore" and "The Waterboy". Then he found success with slightly more adult characters that had a fun, simple side, such as with "The Wedding Singer", "Big Daddy", "Mr. Deeds", "50 First Dates" and "Longest Yard". In fact, one might even argue that he was a bit more of the "straight man" in many of those films, allowing his supporting cast to be the zany ones.However, with "Jack and Jill" and "That's My Boy", he's tried to return to the "man-child" of his earlier films (albeit, one was in drag). It was cute when he was in his late 20's/early 30's doing those roles. In fact, many people could relate. But now that he's 45, the schtick is old. Audiences can't relate.My recommendation is to continue on with more "adult" comedy roles, like in "Grown Ups" or "Click". It's a slightly (emphasis on slightly) more sophisticated humor (not so slapstick) and his audience - who has aged with him - can relate. And if he wants to do drag, he has to do GOOD drag, ala "Tootsie" or "Mrs. Doubtfire". Throwing on a wig and basically looking like yourself ain't gonna cut it.

What I wonder, though, is how much kick-back the studio receives to help balance out a budget.If a movie cost $150M to make and another $75M for prints and marketing, the "real" budget is $225M. However, if Coke and Starbucks and McDonalds, etc., is clearly featured in the movie, how much kick-back is given there? And then add tie-ins, such cereals and fast food restaurants, and marketing costs can be reduced. Then add in licensing for toys, clothing, ads, music, or any other item and again, the costs change.So really, seeing only the production budget and box office gross is only telling part of the story. If one insists on adding marketing expenses to the budget, then that should be countered by all tie-ins, in-movie advertisements and additional licensing. My thought is that this ultimately balances out VERY well for the studio (otherwise, why bother?).

I'm having a hard time understanding the expectations of this movie.First, it opened to over $50M! That alone was - IMO - unexpected! Say what you want about the actual film, but it was marketed as a horror sci-fi flick. Those are notorious for not doing that well. In fact, few horror movies really break out. Second, everyone is all sad about "Prometheus" only making $5M on Friday and how it's the "worst run ever". What? It's SECOND Friday is larger than the opening days from a Tom Cruise movie and an Adam Sandler movie. I never thought I'd be writing that! I didn't expect either of those movies to have super huge openings, but I anticipated more than $20M for both. Yet, they may make less in their first weekends than "Prometheus" will in its second.So even if it has a big drop, this is hardly the "worst run ever".

Perhaps, but then one could argue the same thing for Potter - how he was "destined" to be the one based on the prediction. Still, my point stands - both characters are "everyday kids" that weren't very special until "destiny" changed their respective paths.

He was "chosen" by a prophecy. This is explained in the books and movies.You are right - he's not that special. He's very brave and quick-thinking and quickly learned great spells, but he is not exceptional. And the books kind of discuss the "why me" aspect of it all. However, that's also what made Potter so relatable - he was just an every day kid. Just as Spider-man was an every day kid until he was bitten. Just as Bruce Banner was an every day man (albeit, a very smart man) before he was exposed to massive radiation. Potter is not original - story lines were heavily borrowed from numerous sources. Rowling just found an unique way to present them.However, TA's success does not detract from the accomplishments of the Potter books or movies. I really don't get this arguing. I loved all the Potter books and most of the films (first film was a bit weak). I love TA movie. My IQ did not drop because I enjoyed it. It was an intelligently written story portraying the best - and worst - of all of the characters. It showed that united one is far more powerful than alone. That same theme is repeated endlessly in Potter as well. So not sure why there's this fighting.