TheMovieman

Not according to Nikki Finke.

With a $10.2m midnight, hoping for more than that.

Seems a bit low.

Off-topic, but I'm interested to see what movie The Rock is doing. As for this one, impressive start; can't wait to see it (going Sunday) and I'm saying that as someone who wasn't impressed with CA1.

Yep. Great anime series (and I'm generally not a fan of the genre)

lol, out on a limb.

Oh yes, I'm sure Warner will walk away from hundreds of millions...

If I were WB, I'd move BvS to early April

Eh, still not impressed and I found this one, like the last, to be bloated and awfully hard to get through making clear once again this should have been two movies. The action was OK and there was a lot of work put into the costumes, sets and such but I found this to be pretty boring and by the end, was kind of numb to even care about anything or anybody. It's clear now this is not the series for me and I don't hold much hope the third movie will salvage it. **½/*****, (C, 4.8/10, 2/4)

Agree 100%

Not seeing $40m anymore. IMO: $16m+12.5m+7m=$35.5m

IDK, it might be frontloaded but I don't see it opening with less than $30m. It's probably headed for around $40-45m and then prominantly fall off in its second weekend (60%+)

Eh, I wasn't a big fan of the first Thor (though half of it, when on Asgard, was great while the stuff on Earth was mediocre), and while this one had plenty of problems (a muddled plot, bland acting and yet again an absolutely forgettable villain, typical in the Marvel movies; jokes that didn't hit the mark) and the end title scenes was just confusing, though I'm not a comic book reader anymore (haven't been for 10+ years now and even then it was mostly Batman). Still, the action was decent and the visual effects were pretty good. On the whole, it managed to keep my attention so it's not terrible and sure as hell better than Iron Man 3. ***/***** (B-/C+, 5.8/10, 2.25/4)

Good final fight, solid acting but silly moments do drag it down somewhat. And despite the personal passion with the passing of Mickey, it doesn't quite have the emotional, pardon the pun, punch the other two had. Still, decent enough movie. ***½/*****, (B, 7.5/10, 3/4)

Fantastic movie all around and yet another one to come out of the 70s, one hell of a decade for cinema. *****/*****, (A+, 9.8/10, 4/4)

My first viewing was at home (tonight) and I really, really liked it (not sure if I'd use the word love right now). It's heavy on symbolism almost to the point I had to roll my eyes, but I still enjoyed the hell out of it and Bullock, much like Redford in All is Lost, gives a great performance (though bigger edge to Redford since he had to solely carry that movie). And I agree with BoxOfficeZ, the score is incredible and I will buying it tomorrow morning. ****½/*****, (A, 9.0/10, 3.75/4)

Got a lot since I last posted here, but most recently: Captain Phillips Dallas Buyers Club Diana Ender's Game Escape Plan How I Live Now Scorned The Shadow

A big yawn from me. Naveen Andrews wasn't bad and I give some credit to Naomi Watts, but sadly there's really not much to a story that should've been so much more compelling. At just under two hours, I really didn't learn that much and I suspect the liberties taken by the writer, still don't know the real Diana. I don't know, I suspected it wouldn't be very good but had hoped for the best but it just didn't deliver despite some good talent in front of and behind the camera. **½/*****, (C, 5.2/10, 2/4)

Ender's Game was one of those movies I didn't love yet didn't hate, it's just a good movie that managed to keep my attention until the end, and yet I doubt I'll remember anything about it in a week. The biggest positive is Asa Butterfield and the visual effects are quite good. However, the story never hit the mark although I did like the semi twist at the end. ***½/*****, (B, 6.8/10, 2.75/4)

Campy but a lot fun and the stunt work at the end, for the distant shots, were well done. It's a mixed bag for sure but still enjoyed it a lot. ***½/*****, (B, 7.0/10, 2.75/4)

Didn't like it at all and found every performance to be over-the-top, even Moore (at least early on) came across as a caricature. I like Chloe Grace Moretz but the look on her face at the end as she does what she does was utterly laughable and not in the least shocking. I also didn't buy a single motivation of any of the high school kids. I'm fine with Hollywood doing remakes but make it count, in the case of Carrie, it was utterly pointless. **/*****, (D+, 4.1/10, 1.5/4)

Was Thief (1981) added? Michael Mann's theatrical directorial debut.

It was OK, though I only chuckled a few times. But the story was at least unpredictable and fun. However, have little desire to watch again. ***¼/*****, (B-, 6.4/10, 2.5/4)

Thief (1981)

Good, well-made movie but could've been amazing. It was a bit too long, 20-minutes could've been shaved off, but some of the actions by the characters were really dumb and I don't understand the ending, it was unnecessarily done. We're already at 150-minutes, would an extra 4-minutes hurt? It wasn't ambiguous nor controversial as we know what Loki would do, nothing in the film suggested he'd do otherwise, so why not just have a conventional ending? Anyway, strong performances from Jackman and Gyllenhaal and once again amazing photography by Roger Deakins who will probably get yet another Academy Award nomination and will, yet again, lose. ***¾/*****, (B+, 7.6/10, 3/4)