Jump to content

Eric Duncan

Just Mercy l Warner Bros. | Xmas 2019 limited, January 10, 2020 wide | Free to rent all June

Recommended Posts

I'd pump the brakes on the "not getting any Oscar play" takes - people said that exact same thing one week ago when Ford v Ferrari reactions were more muted than expected, but with a week of reflection and reviews to come in, it looks like a generally very well-liked crowd pleaser that should make money and have a real campaign behind it, so its sticking in everyone's predictions. Very possible it is the same case here. Said the same thing in that topic - a well-liked, classical crowd pleaser can definitely make it in even if it doesn't have the over the top Twitter reactions of a Parasite or something. 

Edited by Cmasterclay
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





From the depths of the archives I summon thee. Riiiiiise, Riiiiiise my minion.      
 

Anyway, this is very small sample and a bit of an obviously skewed population, but seem good nonetheless:  

Quote

Warner Bros.’s social justice drama Just Mercy starring Michael B. Jordan, Jamie Foxx and Brie Larson opened to $81K at four NY and LA sites scoring A+ CinemaScores among all major demos including females (63%) and males (37%), and 25+ (89%) and under 25 (11%).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites









Saw it last night. I'll confess I'm slightly biased since I read the book first, but honestly I was pretty underwhelmed by it. It took a legitimately interesting and rage-inducing story and turned it into a very generic 'racial-relations Oscarbait' movie. It had all the hallmarks and tropes of a 'White Saviour' movie, just without the white saviour themselves. You could practically make a bingo card out of all of the Hollywood tropes involved. 

 

Don't get me wrong, it had a handful of scenes that worked and the actors do a solid job (with special mention to Tim Blake Nelson, who is taking that southern accent he had from Watchmen and fully running with it), but I do think it's somewhat telling that halfway through the movie I became convinced that this movie wasn't written/directed by an actual black guy, simply because its portrayal of the black community/issues was so cartoonishly stereotypical. (I was right, although it was an asian director rather than a white one). Maybe a few years ago, this sort of movie would've gotten past me just fine, but considering how many great black-directed movies there were last year dealing with complicated racial issues in a way that felt genuine, this sort of film just doesn't feel like it cuts it for me anymore.

 

Once again though, I will say I am fairly biased, having the vastly superior book to compare it to, but even trying to view it through an objective lens as its own thing separate from the book, I still can't bring myself to be very impressed with it. It's not Green Book levels of willful ignorance and terribleness, but it definitely feels like the sort of movie we should've moved on from by now. I won't exactly be surprised if other people without my biases can sit down and enjoy it- that Hollywood formula is a popular one for a reason- but I can't really bring myself to say I liked it very much.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





5 hours ago, dudalb said:

Problem I have it it looks too much like just a big screen version of a made for TV movie.

Yeah it doesn't really stand out in any way. Looks like whatever buzz there was for Jamie Foxx's performance died too. Like I said, though: WB won't mind, given all the accolades Joker is getting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



16 hours ago, JB33 said:

Yeah it doesn't really stand out in any way. Looks like whatever buzz there was for Jamie Foxx's performance died too. Like I said, though: WB won't mind, given all the accolades Joker is getting.

It's getting an OK reception (let;'s face it, critics are probably being generous with it because of the Subject Matter) whereas 1917 is getting an really good reception and just looks like a better, more interesting film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



7 hours ago, dudalb said:

It's getting an OK reception (let;'s face it, critics are probably being generous with it because of the Subject Matter) whereas 1917 is getting an really good reception and just looks like a better, more interesting film.

Oh yeah, JM's reception is just fine. It's actually gone up a few points on RT from 79 to 82%. Box office wise, I'm thinking a wide opening between $7M and $9M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



$800K previews, 2,375 theatres. Not sure what to use as a comp. Selma had $400K previews and an $11.3M wide OW (28.3x multi). It won't have that strong a multi though. I honestly don't know.... maybe this will surprise.

Edited by JB33
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Estimated to do about $10M this weekend. It's better than I first thought (around $7.5M) but still not great, given the $800K previews. Several dramas that expanded wide on this particular weekend had greater multis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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