Weekend Boxoffice Chart

[Evil Avatar]

The Exorcism of Emily Rose bedeviled its competition in its box-office debut this weekend, hauling in $30.2 million with its mix of courtroom drama and classic horror.

Here is the Weekend Boxoffice Chart for the weekend of September 9th to September 11th.


The Exorcism of Emily Rose $30.2/$30.2
The 40-Year-Old Virgin $7.9/$82.3
Transporter 2 $7.2/$30.1
The Constant Gardener $4.8/$19.1
Red Eye $4.6/$51.3
The Man $4.0/$4.0
The Brothers Grimm $3.3/$33.2
Wedding Crashers $3.2/$200.0
Four Brothers $2.9/$68.2
March of the Penguins $2.5/$66.8
The Skeleton Key $1.6/$45.9
Underclassman $1.2/$4.6

[Kefkataran]

I had a few friends go see Excorcism of Emily Rose. Apparantly it's not half-bad. I might check it out eventually.

[Morratut]

I saw the 40 Year Old Virgin. It was a funny film. I'll be buying it when it comes out on DVD.

[Justin_McElroy]

Don't you give up on me transporter 2! Don't you give up on me!

[rickmus]

Those $ numbers seem low overall

[Maskatron]

After seeing the trailer for Emily Rose, I can't believe more than a handful of people would be interested in seeing it. It looks like a complete rip-off of you know what, and a poorly done one at that.

[Chagrinful]

Nice to see a comedy at the top again.

[Xerxes]

I looks like what(?) because I don't know it looks like you know what what. I knew after the slightest looking into that it takes place in courtroom and all that jazz. I thought it was pretty good and better than most the bs they consider horror now days. Ring 2: The Race to the Top Well and Amity-Ryan takes his fucking shirt off in every scene... >_<

[chazio]

After seeing the trailer for Emily Rose, I can't believe more than a handful of people would be interested in seeing it. It looks like a complete rip-off of you know what, and a poorly done one at that.

Actually Emily Rose is quite different from The Exorcist. A lot of the movie takes place in a court room, the exorcisms are in flashbacks. I saw it this weekend, I liked it.

[Maskatron]

I looks like what(?) because I don't know it looks like you know what what. I knew after the slightest looking into that it takes place in courtroom and all that jazz. I<

Actually, a quick glance of Rotten Tomatoes confirms (at least with most of the critics, FWIW) what I said:

1) The movie sucks
2) It's a rip-off

[Xerxes]

meh I trust imdb over Rotten Tomatoes...

[if76]

meh I trust imdb over Rotten Tomatoes...

You trust a bunch of random posters (who could very well be working for the studio itself) over hundreds of trusted movie critics? Oooookaaayyyy.

[Roc Ingersol]

I expected average genre flick from Emily Rose -- it was a little better than that.

[MasterEvilAce]

E.o.E.R. was Law & Order disguised as horror movie.. is how i worded it. There were some damn creepy parts about that movie.. although nothing that scared me (guess I expected it).. the rest of the theater screamed on multiple occasions.

However, it's just weird screaming one second, and going back to the court room having to think about what they're saying, the next. I don't think court room VS horror movie makes a lot of sense from a watching perspective. I honestly did not see it as a horror movie at all, but it had good horror moments in it.

[Xerxes]

Damn stright. Random posters are more likely just that, random people who have seen the movie. I'm more inclinded to agree with them over "trusted" critics who i feel maybe getting more studio kick backs sometime. I have never seen a movie based on Ebert's reveiw.

It's like saying IGN and Game Spy are better than gamerankings.com

I decided to go over to Rotten Tomatoes and give it a gander cause it's been a while. Most film reviews scores are on par with IMDBs. One of my favs Equilibrium however is trashed on there. I don't really care to say much more. Looks like folks shooting for the perfect one liner. On good movies and bad ones.

[PantherModern]

I ended up choosing Transporter 2 over Emily Rose this weekend, mostly because the included free pass and a Best Buy reward zone certificate netted me the first Transporter for nigh under 3 dollars spent. :)

I have to say that it was fun action movie. My wife and I both enjoyed ourselves quite a lot, and while the film was mostly an hour-and-half-long Audi commercial (albeit a very, very cool one) there were enough decent one-liners and "gee whiz" moments to keep us engrossed. That, and Jason Statham is straight-up bad ass. Period.

[agentgray]

Two movies may offer hope: Serenity and The Corpse Bride

[The Iron Weasel]

Red Eye sucked, period, dont see it (sooooo predictable), though actually the first half was cool then it just got really stupid!

[Ernst_Jager]

I use to like Firefly, that is until I watched Battlestar Galactica. I know they are totally different, but BSG just does it so well. Serenity just looks like a 2 hour long episode.

I am kind of looking forward to Bandidas myself. Salma, Penelope, Steve Zhan...sounds like winning combo to me.

[Worldcrafter]

Trasporter 2 had some good action scenes, but was so silly, and over the top, I ended up laughing out loud through a bunch of the movie. I would highly recommend going to see it with some friends and just enjoying the campiness of the movie.

[bobbler]

Anyone see The Constant Gardener?

It looked good, but I haven't heard much about it.

[Crabby]

Actually, a quick glance of Rotten Tomatoes confirms (at least with most of the critics, FWIW) what I said:

1) The movie sucks
2) It's a rip-off


Go see it first. Calling it a rip-off is the last thing I would do, especially considering it is loosely based on an event. I mean, come on, rip-off? Clearly those people didn't go to see it either.

[Kefkataran]

I have never seen a movie based on Ebert's reveiw.

That's unfortunate. He's a pretty smart guy overall, has an intense love of and knowledge for the film medium, and writes damned well. I don't always agree with him, but if he says something is good and I wasn't sure about it, he'll usually push me into seeing it.

[thecrazyd]

Actually, a quick glance of Rotten Tomatoes confirms (at least with most of the critics, FWIW) what I said:

1) The movie sucks
2) It's a rip-off
Except RT always lowballs horror movies. A 42% is pretty good.

In fact, most of the negative reviews state tohat it is not enough like the Exorcist.

[PixelSamurai]

The Man looks to be tanking and I'm glad of it. It looked awful to begin with but then it was confirmed when all the previews consisted of "He was a Killer. Then a Renegade Cop. Then a Jedi Knight..." Now, he's in a complete turd!

[Xerxes]

That's unfortunate. He's a pretty smart guy overall, has an intense love of and knowledge for the film medium, and writes damned well. I don't always agree with him, but if he says something is good and I wasn't sure about it, he'll usually push me into seeing it.

Kef I don't see anything based one what anyone says... :(

I have nothing against Ebert, although we really don't have the same taste in movies at all. I was shocked to hell when we both like Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. And his track record for movies he likes and movies I don't like could never persuade me to see anything. I already have in my mind if I'm gonna see something.

[RevXwise]

The Man looks to be tanking and I'm glad of it. It looked awful to begin with but then it was confirmed when all the previews consisted of "He was a Killer. Then a Renegade Cop. Then a Jedi Knight..." Now, he's in a complete turd!

Agreed, I'm also glad to see underclassman horribly failing.

[chazio]

Actually, a quick glance of Rotten Tomatoes confirms (at least with most of the critics, FWIW) what I said:

1) The movie sucks
2) It's a rip-off


Any movie critic who calls it a rip-off is ignorant or hasn't actually seen the movie. Both movies were based on two seperate real life events, the only "rip-off" is that the same Exorcism rites were done...since...oh you know...Exorcisms have been around forevvvvvvvvvver. And that specific rite was the one used since 1641 or something.

[Kelegacy]

I had a few friends go see Excorcism of Emily Rose. Apparantly it's not half-bad. I might check it out eventually.

Okay, now we know your are lying. How are you ever going to gain credibility when you pathologically lie so? When you said, "I had a few friends" I knew you had to be full of shit.

Kefkataran has no friends. Only Beanie Babies with human names.

[Kelegacy]

That's unfortunate. He's a pretty smart guy overall, has an intense love of and knowledge for the film medium, and writes damned well. I don't always agree with him, but if he says something is good and I wasn't sure about it, he'll usually push me into seeing it.

I agree. I always listen to some reviews before seeing a movie or buying a game. Well, nearly always. Ebert and Roeper's reviews have made me rent or attend quite a few movies I would have otherwise ignored. Closer is one of those recently, as was the Machinist. To ignore 100 reviews that say a movie is horrid is to knowingly toss your money at a turd--but when a movie gets mixed criticisms, I will probably still watch the film to form my own opinion. I was glad when 40 year old virgin garned good reviews, telling me it wasn't a stinking pile.

[Kelegacy]

Anyone see The Constant Gardener?

It looked good, but I haven't heard much about it.

A few people last week said it was extremely good.

[dr_wily]

Damn stright. Random posters are more likely just that, random people who have seen the movie. I'm more inclinded to agree with them over "trusted" critics who i feel maybe getting more studio kick backs sometime. I have never seen a movie based on Ebert's reveiw.

It's like saying IGN and Game Spy are better than gamerankings.com

I decided to go over to Rotten Tomatoes and give it a gander cause it's been a while. Most film reviews scores are on par with IMDBs. One of my favs Equilibrium however is trashed on there. I don't really care to say much more. Looks like folks shooting for the perfect one liner. On good movies and bad ones.

Oh man I totally agree! I love equilibrium and make people see it all the time, but i love RT too.
damn conflicts.

[Kelegacy]

Damn stright. Random posters are more likely just that, random people who have seen the movie. I'm more inclinded to agree with them over "trusted" critics who i feel maybe getting more studio kick backs sometime. I have never seen a movie based on Ebert's reveiw.

It's like saying IGN and Game Spy are better than gamerankings.com


No, Rotten Tomatoes and gamerankings do basically the same thing: take the scores of critics and throw them together. There is no random posting on gamerankings. I would rather get the opinions of critics than average joes...check out the user reviews on EB.com or any booksites like B&N or Amazon for proof. I saw a retarded viewer review of Closer over the weekend that trashed the movie because it was "icky" and not a typical, guy-gets-girl Hollywood-factoried love story.

People are stupid. At least professionals try not to be.

[Kefkataran]

Kef I don't see anything based one what anyone says...

Fair enough.

I was shocked to hell when we both like Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

He's been a pretty big fan of all the Kaufman films. He likes that playfully intellectual stuff, as do I.

How are you ever going to gain credibility when you pathologically lie so?

How will I be a good writer without it?

[Xerxes]

Kel you right(about gamerankings being about severeal critics averaged out), but I think critics are just as stupid... Again, Equilibrium got bashed by your precious critics and it's cause they didn't like it for what it was. I watch alot of movies and I rank the movies on imdb. I'd like to think, and so far it's not "retarded", that when you get 3000 votes for one movie you get a general people type idea on if it's good or bad. I understand Equilibrium getting a 70 something from the people, 30 something from critics is something I would expect from them. That one "icky" vote for closer still averages out to a decent rank (better than rotten's) on imdb.

[Kelegacy]

Kel you right(about gamerankings being about severeal critics averaged out), but I think critics are just as stupid... Again, Equilibrium got bashed by your precious critics and it's cause they didn't like it for what it was. I watch alot of movies and I rank the movies on imdb. I'd like to think, and so far it's not "retarded", that when you get 3000 votes for one movie you get a general people type idea on if it's good or bad. I understand Equilibrium getting a 70 something from the people, 30 something from critics is something I would expect from them. That one "icky" vote for closer still averages out to a decent rank (better than rotten's) on imdb.

Didn't Ebert and Roeper give Equilibrium Two Thumbs Up? I'm pretty sure I saw that right on the display box. I have never seen the movie, but because Ebert even remotely enjoyed it, I'd probably see it.

[Kefkataran]

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20021206/REVIEWS/212060303/1023

3 out of 4 stars. It's a good flick. Been a while since I've seen it though, so I should check it out again. Sort of a mix of the Matrix and 1984.

[Xerxes]

Rotten Tomatoes is the critics we hold in question. I'd like that pointed out as I just found out Ebert liked Equilibrium. I really don't know what to say on that, just wow. Ebert normally would just dis anything I liked and now to find record that he liked one of my top ten movies. I gave up on him long ago. But look how far his voice is carried with the whole RT group.

[Kefkataran]

Ebert is included on Rotten Tomatoes. It's just a collection of all the critics. And his voice wouldn't "carry". Critics don't try to convince each other. They just... review movies. I'm not sure you're understanding the fundamentals of how a site like Rotten Tomatoes or Gamerankings or MetaCritic is run.

[Kelegacy]

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20021206/REVIEWS/212060303/1023

3 out of 4 stars. It's a good flick. Been a while since I've seen it though, so I should check it out again. Sort of a mix of the Matrix and 1984.

Jesus Christ. I just read that review and synopsis and I found out my creative mind is a piece of goddamn shit. I wrote a story last fall about nearly the same thing...it was about taking required doses of medicine to stop emotions, and about a guy who works as a rehabiliator (in the film, a Cleric) and decides to stop taking the medicine as a result of an incident he witnessed at his facility. I know this isn't the most original of plots and is heavily influenced by dystopian films and books, but the Equilibrium premise sounds eerily close. Fuck. I was trying to make a political statement with the story, but goddamn I guess I wont be trying to get that one published ever again.

[kwillhan]

I've always found critics criticism to be pretty much useless, save for a few. They try so hard to make their 'job' seem like it's valuable, and an art form on par with actually creating and living art and movies and games, that they often times consider themselves to be more important than the medium they are looking at.

I'd trust a bunch of my drunken friends reviews of a movie over some high paid failed actor/director any day.

Even more so I'd rather trust my own good judgement as to whether I liked something or not, before bashing it because of what someone I don't even know thinks about it.

Roger Ebert is some semi fat dude that sits around and watches movies constantly, and then writes about it. what exactly does the majority of america have in common with him, and why should his opinion be more important than mine?

dunno though. that's just me.

kel

[Xerxes]

Kef I understand how those sites work. I am pointing out the same thing with IMDB. Except aside from "professional" movie critics, normal folk such as myself login and say "Hmmm that's about 8." Where as it's only a few hundred high and mighty critics there's a thousands of people who I can assume are like myself, aside from the few hundred trolls if even that many. Oddly enough equilibrium is the only movie i can think of or even find with any big diferrence between the two sites. If i want a general veiw IMDB can give me that. If I wanted to read about plot, synopsis, reveiw, and opinoin, reveiws is where it's at.

Kelegacy, stuff llike that has happened to me all the time, but when you see it you can say it's probably not the exact same. I always do or find that it was done porrly by hollywood.

[Kefkataran]

Roger Ebert is some semi fat dude that sits around and watches movies constantly, and then writes about it. what exactly does the majority of america have in common with him, and why should his opinion be more important than mine?

He's watched literally tens of thousands of movies in his life and has an extremely intimate understanding of the art of film, not to mention how it works technically. And he's also a better writer than 99% of critics in any medium. Like I said, I don't always agree with him, but there's no reason I shouldn't respect that. He's a smart guy.

They try so hard to make their 'job' seem like it's valuable, and an art form on par with actually creating and living art and movies and games, that they often times consider themselves to be more important than the medium they are looking at.

Where as it's only a few hundred high and mighty critics

See, your guys problems seem mostly to do with this conception you have that critics think they're better than you. Just because they write about movies and may not agree with you doesn't automatically make them "high-and-mighty" pricks. They might think they know more than you because in many cases they've studied film for most of their life, but even then I don't know (or don't read) many critics who act like pricks.

[Xerxes]

Kef, they sit in there little booths without buying tickets. You damn striaght they think they are better than me. (sarcasm)

I've did theatre and storytelling classes and righting reviews for credits. Probably not at the critics abundance but I've got the jist of disecting plot and what's going on visually and all that jazz. I did very well in my class so I can respect these guys who do it for life.
My discrepancy was with the claim that we can't trust normal folks to rate movies. That rotten tomatoes in the end all in being told what good movies are, and imdb's ratings are trash. Imdb REVIEWS are worthless most of the time. I even wrote one(before the few college classes) and I kinda stepped away from it like blah. It was for equilibrium matter of fact, and I can say I crammed alot babble in it and lots of opinoins defending the movie from the likes of real critics. That's how most reveiws on there are still, but in same cases you can find some gems of people who care to be open handed with there reviews. I never went back to writing reveiws after classes because I find it too time consuming. I'd rather prattle on in forums about why xbox 360 is the shiznit. ;-)

[Kefkataran]

My discrepancy was with the claim that we can't trust normal folks to rate movies.

Ah. Well, in that case, to each his own. I mean, that's just a personal decision you have to make. Personally, I'm *probably* going to go with what critics think faster than what the "average" people think, but even then I won't always agree with either.

I'd rather prattle on in forums about why xbox 360 is the shiznit.

:p There's your problem.

I still write reviews ocassionally for the campus paper. Videogame reviews, though, so it's a fairly different ballgame. I stick to my belief that the videogame medium needs an Ebert, though.

[Xerxes]

Eww... a game ebert on g4...

[Kefkataran]

Hey, who said anything about G4? I was talking specifically about print stuff. I could care less about Ebert on TV.

[Xerxes]

It's too many print idiots. You can't find the one. I never heard of Ebert until he had a show. NOW, if you had a ass hat on tv who took his/her games seriously and gave real insight COUPLED with a publication to read good reveiws yeah then maybe.