Weekend Boxoffice Chart

[Evil Avatar]

King Kong Grabs $50M during its opening weekend and climbs atop the Weekend Box Office Chart for the weekend of December 16th to December 18th. While opening large, the $50M total still falls short of the gargantuan profits the studio was looking for.


King Kong $50.1/$66.1
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe $31.8/$113.1
The Family Stone $12.5/$12.5
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire $5.9/$252.5
Syriana $5.6/$22.4
Walk the Line $3.6/$82.6
Yours, Mine & Ours $3.5/$45.2
Brokeback Mountain $2.5/$3.4
Just Friends $2.0/$29.5
Aeon Flux $1.7/$23.2
Pride and Prejudice $1.5/$29.2
Memoirs of a Geisha $1.3/$2.2
I notice that Director Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain only pulled in a total of $3M so far. I guess moviegoers don't want to see a gay western. After the Hulk, that is two flops for Lee in a row, kind of a letdown from the director of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I would have loved to see him do a real western.

[Evil Avatar]

I also notice that despite significant advertising on TV, Memoirs of a Geisha pulled out a big flop.

But, don't worry. Cheaper by the Dozen 2 and Yours, Mine and Ours will help the studios make up for it.

[RandomViolence]

Hmmm, seems like a lot of things I want to see on there. Too bad it's not going to happen for a while yet.

Edit: Brokeback Mountain isn't really a western, is it? I thought it was a very different class of movie. Or am I mistaken and cowboys = western?

[Evil Avatar]

Hmmm, seems like a lot of things I want to see on there. Too bad it's not going to happen for a while yet.

I'm the same way, but getting out to a movie is a major hassle for me. I suspect that the week after Christmas I'll sneak out to see Harry Potter and that is about it.

[GrinR]

What's a "real western"?

I thought "western" was a milieu, not a story. From the look and sound of it, Brokeback is about as real a western as we've had for a long time... Unforgiven?

[Rirath]

So.... King Kong. Saw it, was rather bored by the end. Decent moments, some nifty effects, worth my $5.75 I suppose, but could have been so much better. And seriously, Jack Black can not act.

While the effects were really good at times, especially toward the end, the whole time I couldn't help thinking though how much it looked like a modern stop motion film. Some really cheap shots with funky wavy camera effects, poor green screen / composition... 5-10 years from now if anyone remembers this movie they'll laugh at it as an example of the poor CG era. Much like folks do at the stop motion dinosaurs and men in monkey suits of yesteryear, I suppose.

Had a much better time at Harry Potter, honestly. Quite recommended.

[thFOOL]

um, Brokeback Mountain made 2.5 mil at 69 theaters

that's $36,354 per location.

Kong made 50.1 million at 3,568.

[Banacek]

I would have loved to see him do a real western.

What, that's NOT a real western? I thought all cowboys were gay... ;)

[Royal Fool]

While the effects were really good at times, especially toward the end, the whole time I couldn't help thinking though how much it looked like a modern stop motion film. Some really cheap shots with funky wavy camera effects, poor green screen / composition... 5-10 years from now if anyone remembers this movie they'll laugh at it as an example of the poor CG era. Much like folks do at the stop motion dinosaurs and men in monkey suits of yesteryear, I suppose.

Poor CG era? Are you fucking kidding? Did we see the same movie?

[Everlost_MI]

Anyone seen Syriana? If so, is it worth watching?

[Atepsflame]

I'm not sure you and I were watching the same film rirath. Just about everyone I know who I consider to have any kind of taste in movies agrees with me that King Kong is a masterpiece of a movie. And I wonder how you'd like the part of Carl Denham to have been acted if not the way Jack Black acted it. If you want bad acting, how about the kid playing Harry Potter? As for the affects, sure, a lot of it looked fake. But you can't seriously tell me that you expected total, absolute realism out of it? I challenge you to show a film with that kind of volume of effects that are of better quality.

[Hieremias]

What's a "real western"?

I thought "western" was a milieu, not a story. From the look and sound of it, Brokeback is about as real a western as we've had for a long time... Unforgiven?

Kevin Costner had a good western a year or two ago called Open Range. Very typical story, ends with a huge gunfight, with lots of gorgeous scenery throughout. I liked it. Probably because it didn't have gay cowboys.

Sorry, but if I had to sit down and think of the most ridiculous storyline that I would never want to watch, it'd probably involve gay cowboys.

[NACIONAL]

nitpickers are everywhere..... just like opinions...

[OSX]

Kevin Costner had a good western a year or two ago called Open Range. Very typical story, ends with a huge gunfight, with lots of gorgeous scenery throughout. I liked it. Probably because it didn't have gay cowboys.

Sorry, but if I had to sit down and think of the most ridiculous storyline that I would never want to watch, it'd probably involve gay cowboys.

Open Range was filmed here outside Calgary. Nice country indeed.

Money be damned, Brokeback Mountain is an amazing film with a few Golden Globe nods to boot. But Heath Ledger dosent have a hope in hell beating Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Capote. Utterly amazing.

[SirKnightXCX]

Like thFOOL said, Brokeback is only at an extremely limited number of theaters (69). So the fact that it's already made this much money is pretty amazing, I think. From what I've also heard, it's been sold out almost non stop wherever it is playing.

[Mister Pie]

So.... King Kong. Saw it, was rather bored by the end. Decent moments, some nifty effects, worth my $5.75 I suppose, but could have been so much better. And seriously, Jack Black can not act.




5.75?! It costs 10 bucks where I live!

[Citizen Philip]

I'm guessing:

Most women do not want to see a movie about gay men if they aren't dressed like women, and particuarly not if they are dressed like cowboys.

Most men do not want to see a movie about gay men: unless there is enough naked women to make up for anything to do with gay men.

What's left:

A small audience.

[nazideathcampbirthday]

King Kong was great. I saw it over the weekend and it's definately a movie I'd recommend to anyone who's old enough. I found the first 1/4 a bit boring, but that was mostly due to establishing characters and such. The costumes, acting, effects, etc were all great. A wonderful movie.

I also saw Brokeback mountain and it was equally as great. Of course, it's not a movie for everyone. If intimacy between two men makes you uncomfortable, then you certainly shouldn't go. The movie is NOT a western. It is essentially a drama/love story that is set mostly in 1960's Wyoming.

I feel it is completely irresponsible to call either of these movies a "flop." Certainly comparing Brokeback Mountain with The Hulk is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Some movies are intended to make $$$, some are more inclined to be "art". You just can't compare them. Besides, Brokeback made a shitload of money for the small number of screens it was playing on.

[easi]

I'm guessing:

Most women do not want to see a movie about gay men

Are you kidding? Women are FASCINATED by gay men. Pretty much every shitty TV show catering to women has at least 1 homo in it nowadays.

[Kelegacy]

5.75?! It costs 10 bucks where I live!
I paid 3.50 for King Kong for a matinee, bought a super large popcorn for 4 bucks and an extra large diet soda for 1.50. This was at a non-franchise location but the theater quality was excellent.

My thoughts on the movie? Endearing, poignant, touching, heartbreaking. But these were just the parts with Kong and Anne. I knew how it would end, but I didn't want it to happen. Jackson's Kong is a likeable "hero" and they went to great lengths to make the viewer empathize with him. He's different from the previous 2 versions...Kong isn't a crazy woman-stealer, but rather a protecter, defender, and, in a way, lover.

The 1st act of the movie is slow, and I wasn't really interested at all. The second part, when they get to Skull Island, is an action movie fan's dream come true. I needed to piss really bad, but I couldn't get up due to one action scene after another...literally. For over an hour I couldn't get up out of my seat there was so much action on screen. Some of it is horrific, some of it hideously violent (Kong does some sick stuff to his fellow monsters) but most of it is adrenaline pumping. The fact that Kong doesn't make an appearance for over an hour into the movie kind of bothered me, but it's a necessity to build tension and story.

The third act we are all familiar with, the return to New York. I was able to run out and piss finally, came back and enjoyed the rest of the flick...probably the best of the 3 acts in my opinion. But really, after Kong and Anne are introduced, the movie grabs you and wont let go.

I'd strongly recommend it. I didn't come out of the theater amazed, not at first, but after a day of letting it sink in, I think it's one of the best films I've seen all year. It has something for everyone to enjoy, truly.

[MosBen]

Why does a movie about a gay relationship become rediculous if they are cowboys? If the western genre is limited to movies about a wronged woman that gets avenged by a gun slinging cowboy and ends in a big gun fight at the end the genre is pretty narrow. Everything I've heard about Brokeback Mountain leads me to believe that it has really strong performances, a great story, and good direction. Sounds like a quality movie to me, regardless of the presence of homosexuality or the location in which it takes place.

[Rirath]

For the record, me and popular opinion almost never agree on movies... Potter is an exception. So, it doesn't much surprise me Kong is loved. I've seen far better acting, effects, and story this year, and it's been a pretty poor year for movies.

I challenge you to show a film with that kind of volume of effects that are of better quality.

Top of my head: Jurassic Park. Though I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "that kind of volume of effects". I'm guessing you mean people in unreal places interacting with unreal things... but, size, quantity? If we're just going for quantity, heck, I'd give the nod to Starship Troopers. LotR for sure. Kong did not look in the least bit real as far as I'm concerned, and the scenes where he's running with Anne looked absolutely horrid.

I challenge you to tell me why on Earth the camera goes all drunk-lens like in seemingly stupid scenes like "S-K-U-L-L ISLAND" or the morse code writing. I really don't understand the direction of this movie.

[Kelegacy]

I heard Brokeback was inspired by a true story revolving around the adventures of fitbabits and Kelegacy. Uh, I mean fitbabits and Magnanimous Gnome.

[Captain Awesome]

5-10 years from now if anyone remembers this movie they'll laugh at it as an example of the poor CG era.

hahaha you're shitting me right? This film only raised the bar for CG work in films. Which oddly enough LOTR did aswell, not to mention Gollum. Everything from the animations to the lighting were just ground-breaking. King Kong is the new Gollum showcase for a long time. Everything from the models tracking so well with the live actors to real-time cg shadows panning and deforming around the environments. Kong even had detailed damage from all the fights and bumps he went through in that film. By halfway of the film, i stopped even considering it was CG and that they actually found a huge fucking ape to run around in a jungle and in NY.

I saw this film 3 times, yeah its that good.

[bapenguin]

King Kong the movie was everything I hoped it would be. I was surprised at how tense and grotesque some of the scenes were. I was also surprised by how much character was given to Kong. The effects were TOP NOTCH. You seriously will not see better effects, especially NYC and Kong itself. Amazing. I really really liked it though....that being said..I was dissapointed in one scene.

The Kong scene...the scene where Kong shows up....was weak! I've been playing the game....and it was so much more powerful. The chants of "KONG...KONG...KONG' shook my room. The anticipation...the scream of Ann...Kong coming out of the Fog...the roar. In the movie it was so..anti-climatic.

That being said...the game is possibly the most immersive game I've ever played. The complete lack of interface is great....so many good things happen in the game. While individual parts are annoying, the sum of the parts is amazing. I just finished this one part...I don't want to ruin it but I was seriously yelling out loud...."OH shit...we are so fucked..."

And then something happened....and I yelled..."fuck yeah!"

[Captain Awesome]

King Kong the movie was everything I hoped it would be. I was surprised at how tense and grotesque some of the scenes were. I was also surprised by how much character was given to Kong. I really really liked it though....that being said..I was dissapointed.

The Kong scene...the scene where Kong shows up....was weak! I've been playing the game....and it was so much more powerful. The chants of "KONG...KONG...KONG' shook my room. The anticipation...the scream of Ann...Kong coming out of the Fog...the roar. In the movie it was so..anti-climatic.

That being said...the game is possibly the most immersive game I've ever played. The complete lack of interface is great....so many good things happen in the game. While individual parts are annoying, the sum of the parts is amazing. I just finished this one part...I don't want to ruin it but I was seriously yelling out loud...."OH shit...we are so fucked..."

And then something happened....and I yelled..."fuck yeah!"


This was the one film where I saw every spectrum of emotion in the audience. People clapped for certain action sequences, people cried in parts of it. Others were squirming and tensing up in their seats. This film is the reason why movies should and will exist. Peter Jackson not only made Cooper proud but he made it just for him as a fan.

I plan to see it again this weekend, I've never done this for any other film in my life.

[Citizen Philip]

If it's a quality movie you go see it. It's christmas, I'n not in the mood for a grey landscape movie about gay cowboys *cough* roughing it out on a mountainside. About the only movie that would get me out of my house in this weather is Uma Thurman with a katana: I already have those two movies at home.

It can wait until going out to see something is worth the weather and the added expense.

[Rirath]

I say it every time such a movie achieves this type of popularity but a good popcorn action flick gets snubbed, but here I go again: Popular movie opinion makes me want to smash my DVD player and stay 20 miles from any movie theater.

It's proven time and time again. Surely somebody on this forum disliked Kong?

[Citizen Philip]

King Kong the movie was everything I hoped it would be. I was surprised at how tense and grotesque some of the scenes were. I was also surprised by how much character was given to Kong. The effects were TOP NOTCH. You seriously will not see better effects, especially NYC and Kong itself. Amazing. I really really liked it though....that being said..I was dissapointed in one scene.

The Kong scene...the scene where Kong shows up....was weak! I've been playing the game....and it was so much more powerful. The chants of "KONG...KONG...KONG' shook my room. The anticipation...the scream of Ann...Kong coming out of the Fog...the roar. In the movie it was so..anti-climatic.

That being said...the game is possibly the most immersive game I've ever played. The complete lack of interface is great....so many good things happen in the game. While individual parts are annoying, the sum of the parts is amazing. I just finished this one part...I don't want to ruin it but I was seriously yelling out loud...."OH shit...we are so fucked..."

And then something happened....and I yelled..."fuck yeah!"

If you removed all the dramatic CG. Is there enough of a good story and development to make it a great movie still? If no, It's a monster movie. If it is still good without the CG, I would definitely go see it. I haven't looked hard, but if someone has to mention "the CGI looks great" I start sliding it into the monster movie category.

You described it, as the CGI in relation to the character of Kong, which is about the onyl good way I view CG ;)

[Kelegacy]

Many parts in Kong are unbelieveable, and I was unable to suspend my disbelief in a few areas (the stampede scene is the big one I'm talking about). But I still enjoyed the film. Hey, if I can feel tears welling up over a goddamn giant gorilla, I can overlook a few weird scenes of over-the-top action.

[Captain Awesome]

Many parts in Kong are unbelieveable, and I was unable to suspend my disbelief in a few areas (the stampede scene is the big one I'm talking about). But I still enjoyed the film. Hey, if I can feel tears welling up over a goddamn giant gorilla, I can overlook a few weird scenes of over-the-top action.

Thats the great thing about its excellent animation, they gave a 3d model "soul"

And Weta deserves many awards for their amazing work. :)

[Schnoogs]

But you can't seriously tell me that you expected total, absolute realism out of it? I challenge you to show a film with that kind of volume of effects that are of better quality.

Star Wars Episode III...you may have heard of it.

[Stupid Fat Hobbit]

If you removed all the dramatic CG. Is there enough of a good story and development to make it a great movie still? If no, It's a monster movie. If it is still good without the CG, I would definitely go see it. I haven't looked hard, but if someone has to mention "the CGI looks great" I start sliding it into the monster movie category.

Presuming you're using the term "monster movie" in a derogatory sense, that's just... the most bizarre opinion I've ever seen. What about movies that are entirely CGI? Was Toy Story completely worthless as a movie?

[net7runner]

I guess moviegoers don't want to see a gay western. After the Hulk, that is two flops for Lee in a row, kind of a letdown from the director of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I would have loved to see him do a real western.If you've got something to say, just say it. Don't dance around with this implication shit. We both know what you mean.

[Captain Awesome]

Star Wars Episode III

hahahahahaha

[zipR]

Anyone seen Syriana? If so, is it worth watching?
Yes. Very good flick. Not a feelgood by any means, but definitely worth the time and attention. Everyone should see this.

[Kelegacy]

When Kong is interacting with Anne, from his angry beginnings to his inquisitive wonderment at her vaudeville displays, he positively exudes emotion. His expressions are so ape-like it's uncanny. His sounds, his body language...you forget you are looking at an impossibly large CG render instead of a real-life, endearing gorilla. It's amazing.

Just talking about this makes me wish I could see the movie again, fast forward to the Kong scenes, and just marvel at their beauty. There is a lot to dislike with the film, but if Jackson got one thing right, it's the gorilla himself, and his interactions with Anne Darrow. Those non-action scenes are as memorable as they are beautiful.

[Schnoogs]

This film only raised the bar for CG work in films. Which oddly enough LOTR did aswell, not to mention Gollum. Everything from the animations to the lighting were just ground-breaking. King Kong is the new Gollum showcase for a long time.

No dude...the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy and the Matrix Trilogy are the recent benchmarks.

LOTR had mediocre compositing and Gollum doesnt hold a candle to such ILM creations as The Hulk and Yoda.

King Kong had decent CG but Revenge of the Sith is the current benchmark and walks circles around King Kong in terms of CG quality, complexity, and volume.

[Rirath]

Well, I think we all can agree Kong could haved used some giant barrels and at least one plumber in the story.

[Schnoogs]

hahahahahaha

Glasses work wonders...try some out.

[zipR]

I say it every time such a movie achieves this type of popularity but a good popcorn action flick gets snubbed, but here I go again: Popular movie opinion makes me want to smash my DVD player and stay 20 miles from any movie theater.

It's proven time and time again. Surely somebody on this forum disliked Kong?
I thought it was so-so. Beautiful to look at, and well acted for the most part.

But despite all of the positive criticism (from sources like the NY Times and the Washington Post) about the emotional depth of the movie, I never really got involved in it.

It starts too slow. It could've easily been 1/2 an hour shorter, no problem. And I don't think we would've missed anything. Slow beginning, and a few scenes that just go on too long. (And for the record, I really liked the extended versions of the LOTR movies, and think that Jackson can do long movied just fine.)

It's disjointed. There were two scene transitions (at least) where my friend and I both went "huh?" at the same abrupt changes.

There's some corny dialogue. Sure it's a popcorn movie, but why do they all seem to have to have it? It's not as extreme as the last new SW flick, but Jackson's films usually seem pretty solid that way.

Probably the biggest thing for me was that it's just too predictable. It's not Jackson's fault, really, as you can't mess too much with a classic story, but I found myself just waiting for the next signature Kong moment. It wasn't a feeling of anticipation so much as one of "c'mon c'mon, get to scene X."

It's not a terrible movie, and I'm sure a lot of people love it. But I have no interest in sitting through it again. I'd much rather go see Syriana again.

I'm am looking forward to Jackson making a totally original movie, though. Looks like that won't be for some time as he's got Halo and The Lovely Bones on his plate right now.

[Reanimated]

Dude, Brokeback Mountain was only open at like 70 theatres. That's a killing for being open in so few theatres.

[thFOOL]

No dude...the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy and the Matrix Trilogy are the recent benchmarks.

LOTR had mediocre compositing and Gollum doesnt hold a candle to such ILM creations as The Hulk and Yoda.

King Kong had decent CG but Revenge of the Sith is the current benchmark and walks circles around King Kong in terms of CG quality, complexity, and volume.

Look, I'm an unabashed Star Wars fan, but Kong and Gollum both showed an excellent range of emotion and, yes, acting. Hulk? Are you kidding me? Yoda? Yoda had the same 3 expressions in every scene of eps 1 and 2. He was MUCH more expressive when he was a muppet.

Weta has created two digital ACTORS in Kong and Gollum. How anyone sees that as subpar I have no idea.

[aversion2k]

Hated the slow motion, low framerate blurry shots in king kong, Also I had the worst seat in the cinema, bottem corner. I could only see about 1/4 of the screen. YAy!

Still I thought it was pretty good.
He should make another B grade horror

[Evil Avatar]

Kevin Costner had a good western a year or two ago called Open Range. Very typical story, ends with a huge gunfight, with lots of gorgeous scenery throughout. I liked it. Probably because it didn't have gay cowboys.

That was an awesome movie. Really slow buildup that lets you appreciate the characters and then the sock you with that killer gunfight at the end. I've seen it like three times now and I need to buy it on DVD.

[Venkman]

Look, I'm an unabashed Star Wars fan, but Kong and Gollum both showed an excellent range of emotion and, yes, acting. Hulk? Are you kidding me? Yoda? Yoda had the same 3 expressions in every scene of eps 1 and 2. He was MUCH more expressive when he was a muppet.

Weta has created two digital ACTORS in Kong and Gollum. How anyone sees that as subpar I have no idea.

Part of the reason Yoda looked so dang fake was because we saw him as an actual rubber puppet on screen in previous films. They couldn't match the look of the old puppet, so in my opinion, failed in their execution of compositing him into the scene. Yoda's lighting and shading didn't hold a candle to the awesomeness of Gollum, nor did he interact with his scenery the way Gollum did. In Star Wars, there was a whole lot of actors staring blankly at CGI characters that weren't there, but only represented by a ping-pong ball on a stick (that's where the "eye contact" is supposed to be).

Take a look at Gollum pulling on clothing, or hanging on trees, etc. You never see any characters do that.

Kong was indeed beautiful but kinda shallow (another Titanic), but a huge task to undertake. But go to the cgsociety.org forums and look in the lighting and rendering forum and there are many mentions of the compositing being off kilter just a bit. This is coming from other professionals, technical directors, and computer animators in the SFX business. Mainly they mention some rushed green screen and slightly wonky lighting, particularly in the dinaosaur stampede scene.

I never heard people comment negatively on Gollum. You can notice, however, some odd compositing in army shots and such, especially in the Fellowship. they did get better throughout, though.

[Banacek]

That was an awesome movie. Really slow buildup that lets you appreciate the characters and then the sock you with that killer gunfight at the end. I've seen it like three times now and I need to buy it on DVD.

I really have to check out this movie now. I could go for a good western...

[saneman]

Memoirs of a Geisha also had a limited opening (52 theaters).

I don't know where you get your stats from EA, but sites like boxofficemojo.com list the theater count and per-screen average along with the gross, and tend to give a clearer picture of whether a film has 'flopped' or not. Both Brokeback Mountain and Geisha had better per-screen average than Kong. (which of course does not imply that they'd perform similarly on a wide-release).

Listing the theater count and averages is likely overkill for the quick weekly summary presented here, but should probably be taken into account if you're going to write a film off as a flop.

Geisha will have a harder time given its higher production budget, but Brokeback looks pretty certain to make a profit with domestic sales.

[Evil Avatar]

If you've got something to say, just say it. Don't dance around with this implication shit. We both know what you mean.

Why? What did you think I meant? I meant a movie that takes place in the mythical old southwest, has several archetype western characters (hopefully with decent enough acting to make them unique) and one or more realistic but still over-the-top gunfights.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in Tombstone.

[Evil Avatar]

LOTR had mediocre compositing and Gollum doesnt hold a candle to such ILM creations as The Hulk and Yoda.

Gollum doesn't hold a candle to The Hulk? Dude, it looks like you picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

Gollum was a person. The Hulk was made of plastic and looks out of place in every scene he is present in.

Yoda wasn't bad, but he lacked the depth of character that they got out of the Gollum model.

[Citizen Philip]

Presuming you're using the term "monster movie" in a derogatory sense, that's just... the most bizarre opinion I've ever seen. What about movies that are entirely CGI? Was Toy Story completely worthless as a movie?

.. The Mummy and it's sequel are both steaming piles. If you think CGI can make a movie: see what you feel about those two movies in 10 years. There is nothing wrong with a monster movie, but a monster movie is just that, nothing special. A movie can have CGI effects that augment and improve a story, not used as a cheap bag of tricks. My point was: Is King Kong a good movie with CGI, or a monster movie with no real content.

A CGI movie is like an animated movie; I'm talking about shitty movies using CGI to make up for a total lackluster production.

[Evil Avatar]

Memoirs of a Geisha also had a limited opening (52 theaters).

I don't know where you get your stats from EA, but sites like boxofficemojo.com list the theater count and per-screen average along with the gross, and tend to give a clearer picture of whether a film has 'flopped' or not.

Wouldn't you count the studios ability to get the movie shown on a decent number of screens a sign of its success or failure until itself? If you can't get a new movie to open on more than 50 screens, that might be an indication that the theater chains don't have any faith in it.

[Evil Avatar]

A CGI movie is like an animated movie; I'm talking about shitty movies using CGI to make up for a total lackluster production.

A Sound of Thunder.

They even used a CGI model from one of those BBC or Discovery Channel TV shows as the main monster. They didn't even come up with their own original monster. Lame, Lamer, Lamest.

(I won't even go into the fact that their whole theory of how time travel would change the earth is pathetically off kilter. And ask Pancake Rabbit, I know a thing or two about time travel. ;) )

[Evil Avatar]

I really have to check out this movie now. I could go for a good western...

It is a great film, but just be prepared for what you get. It is a long movie with a lot of story and characters that build up to the ending. I loved it and on a second or third viewing I felt that the story stuff goes by really quickly, but the first time I saw it the movie seemed to move kind of slow.

(And after viewing the film I was addicted to dark chocolate for months.)

I suspect it is one of those love it or hate it films.

Now, for a really fun western that not many people have seen check out South of Heaven, West of Hell (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0179473/). (Dwight Yoakam, Vince Vaughn)

[saneman]

Wouldn't you count the studios ability to get the movie shown on a decent number of screens a sign of its success or failure until itself? If you can't get a new movie to open on more than 50 screens, that might be an indication that the theater chains don't have any faith in it.

Uhhh.. not in the slightest.

A limited release prior to a wide release is common practice for "arty" sorts of films. (edit: especially when awards season approaches and the studio wants the film to be eligible)

It doesn't denote any sort of failure on the part of the studio. Particularly in the case of Geisha. That's a ~$90m film there by a major studio. If they want it on 1000 screens, they'll get it on 1000 screens.

[resikel]

Originally Posted by Evil Avatar
Wouldn't you count the studios ability to get the movie shown on a decent number of screens a sign of its success or failure until itself? If you can't get a new movie to open on more than 50 screens, that might be an indication that the theater chains don't have any faith in it.

It's call a limited release. The studio release them in December in limited theater to qualify said film for Oscar contention.

It's a strategic plow by the studio as movies release during this time are still fresh in people's mind when they start voting in a couple months, as appose to films released at the beginning of the year.

It's actually common pratice.

[The Continental]

Uhhh.. not in the slightest.

A limited release prior to a wide release is common practice for "arty" sorts of films. (edit: particularly when awards season approaches and the studio wants the film to be eligible)

It doesn't denote any sort of failure on the part of the studio. Particularly in the case of Geisha. That's a ~$90m film there by a major studio. If they want it on 1000 screens, they'll get it on 1000 screens.

Thank you sane.

Geisha is in fact getting a nation wide release later this month and Brokeback is the "arty" sort of movie that will probably play in smaller art theaters and larger cities exclusively. Geisha ain't doin' so hot review wise but Brokeback Mountain is receving very good reviews all around (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/brokeback_mountain/). As for this whole western argument, Brokeback is not supposed to be a bang, bang, shoot em up, Doc Holiday, Wyatt Erp "western", it's a love story set in some western locale where people herd cattle and wear the accompanying attire.

Cowboy hats and horses does not equal a western.

[jacktion]

I'm guessing:

Most women do not want to see a movie about gay men if they aren't dressed like women, and particuarly not if they are dressed like cowboys.

Most men do not want to see a movie about gay men: unless there is enough naked women to make up for anything to do with gay men.

What's left:

A small audience.

Woah, dude. Speak for yourself. Just because you have issues, don't assume that everyone is like you.
Ang Lee is the shit. And this movie is getting mad props and selling like hotcakes in its limited release.

"sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder if you are a fool, than it is to open it and show them that you are."

[Beelzebud]

It's funny that you call the gay cowboy movie, and the giesha movies flops, when both are Limited Release movies...

[Balthasar]

I notice that Director Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain only pulled in a total of $3M so far. I guess moviegoers don't want to see a gay western. After the Hulk, that is two flops for Lee in a row, kind of a letdown from the director of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I would have loved to see him do a real western.
Um, what? Brokeback Moutain is in limited release. It actually has grossed more based on a per-screen average than any of the other movies in the top ten for the week. Also, Brokeback Mountain is not a Western.

[Sinistar]

C'mon, everyone knows that "Hell comes to Frogtown" is the benchmark for all sci-fi and especially CG related movies.

[Balthasar]

The Kong scene...the scene where Kong shows up....was weak! I've been playing the game....and it was so much more powerful. The chants of "KONG...KONG...KONG' shook my room. The anticipation...the scream of Ann...Kong coming out of the Fog...the roar. In the movie it was so..anti-climatic.
You don't think you're suffering from a bit of a primacy effect there? That is, how many times can a climactic introduction be truly climactic when the tension only builds to a reveal? The cat's out of the bag, so to speak.

[Nite_Moogle]

I just got back from Kong and I thought it was awesome. The only gripes with it are the ones I have with LotR (excessive slow motion is tops on that list), but that's just PJ's style. He made a fantastic movie through and through. I wanted the movie to end right before the ice broke in Central Park :(

[Balthasar]

Wouldn't you count the studios ability to get the movie shown on a decent number of screens a sign of its success or failure until itself? If you can't get a new movie to open on more than 50 screens, that might be an indication that the theater chains don't have any faith in it.
Whether a studio has a movie released on 50 screens of 5,000 screens is rarely ever indicative of it's abilities to get it on that many screens. Sometimes studios make a conscious effort to trickle in a movie through the nation. It's not at all uncomon. Typically, you'll see the movie only open in LA and NY, and then move in toward the center of the country. It accomplishes a lot of things, such as getting a sense of how interested in a movie the public is and how good the word of mouth is. You'll also see this happen more often with movies that are out of the mainstream. Syriana was handled in a very similar way. Honestly, you seem a bit like a fish out of water, trying to make commentary on films here. Brokeback Mountain has been pretty far from a flop thus far. I'm pretty sure the studio also believes in this movie, with the way they have begun campaigning for Heath Ledger as a nomine for Best Actor.

[The Great Gatsby]

Maybe Brokeback Mountain shattered his childhood memories of cowboys. I dunno.

Anyways, I think Evil just needs to stick to what he knows. Video games. Obviously he knows nothing of the movie industry and the little nuances that go into a film and its release and box office take, etc...

More Nintendo bashing and Microsoft fellating!!

[Balthasar]

Look, I'm an unabashed Star Wars fan, but Kong and Gollum both showed an excellent range of emotion and, yes, acting. Hulk? Are you kidding me? Yoda? Yoda had the same 3 expressions in every scene of eps 1 and 2. He was MUCH more expressive when he was a muppet.

Weta has created two digital ACTORS in Kong and Gollum. How anyone sees that as subpar I have no idea.

Well, WETA did a great job, but don't give them so much credit. Andy Serkis is most definitely the reason WETA was able to make Kong and Gollum so damn expressive. There is something about animating a living thing that computer effects artists have yet to come close to mastering without the assistance of a live human actor.

[Citizen Philip]

Woah, dude. Speak for yourself. Just because you have issues, don't assume that everyone is like you.
Ang Lee is the shit. And this movie is getting mad props and selling like hotcakes in its limited release.

"sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder if you are a fool, than it is to open it and show them that you are."

And maybe captain crusader of the EvAv news posts you can read what I said after that post, after another one of you holy-defenders of the politically correct come charging out of the night on your brave keyboards.

*clickity clack clickity clack*

[agentgray]

That was an awesome movie. Really slow buildup that lets you appreciate the characters and then the sock you with that killer gunfight at the end. I've seen it like three times now and I need to buy it on DVD.
Yes, awesome movie.

Brokeback Mountain? I probably won't see it. You've got to admit. It's a funny name for a romantic, gay movie.

Ok. Good westerns to check if you're getting into westerns through Borkeback (heh.)

Tombstone - I'll be your huckleberry.
Sons of Katie Elder
Rio Lobo
El Dorado
The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance
The Oxbow Incident (warning: no action, GREAT drama)
Winchester '73
The Magnificent Seven
The Quick and the Dead (pure, good dreck)
The Searchers
The John Ford "Calvary" trilogy (Google it)
Unforgiven
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
High Noon (best editing ever...in real time!)
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Way Out West (Laurel & Hardy...I'm not kidding!)
the Outlaw Josey Wales
The Pale Rider
Blazing Saddles


Man, I like a lot of westerns! I left quite a few off the list.

[Herky Jerky]

Well to all those who have sufficiently cut down to size Evil's italicized opinions on the main page, thank you. I really couldn't have put it any better or as un-bitchy (read: objective).

[vivafletcher]

King Kong was an excellent movie...but the kind I don't really need to see again. Don't know if that makes any sense, but that's how I feel.

It was very long, and the Kong-free first hour was more than I needed. The acting was often poor, which is a shame because it didn't need to be. If I had a dollar every time Jack Black looked off into the distance like he was seeing the Holy Grail, I'd have my money back from the movie.

I think it's strange that Peter Jackson took such great pains to make the movie seem plausible and realistic (in its own universe) but adds scenes like "Brontosaurus Bowling" and the "Bat Taxi" (escape from Kong) that makes it seem cartoonish and silly. Considering the care that went into giving Kong a real personality, that couldn't have been the goal.

But overall I thought it was very well done. Jackson is a patient director, and that often works in his favor. It made Kong work on many levels. And the island natives were pretty damn spooky (and CGI free, I might add). That was a pleasant surprise.

[Oskin]

Why does a movie about a gay relationship become rediculous if they are cowboys? If the western genre is limited to movies about a wronged woman that gets avenged by a gun slinging cowboy and ends in a big gun fight at the end the genre is pretty narrow. Everything I've heard about Brokeback Mountain leads me to believe that it has really strong performances, a great story, and good direction. Sounds like a quality movie to me, regardless of the presence of homosexuality or the location in which it takes place.

Thank you! I saw the movie on friday night with two of my friends. It's one of the best movies i've seen in years. Even if the presentation is kind of weird (i liked it... but I could understand how someone might not), the movie makes a good presentation of the conflict gay men were faced with in the 60's. I'd recommend Brokeback mountain to anyone. Maybe it will change the way people think by showing them how love is possible between two men and help people to find happiness by accepting themselves and their feelings for what they are. I'd also like to compliment Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal for their incredible performances. Their acting was phenomenal and they did an excellent job of representing not just an affair between two gay men, but true love.

[grammatoncleric]

I notice that Director Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain only pulled in a total of $3M so far. I guess moviegoers don't want to see a gay western. After the Hulk, that is two flops for Lee in a row, kind of a letdown from the director of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I would have loved to see him do a real western.

say what you will about the hulk and its budget, it grossed the same amount domestically as the "masterpiece" that is Hidden Dragon (actually, a little more money). brokeback mountain is really being viewed as a success with its 2.4 million rake-in considering it played in 69 theaters. You can argue the quality of the film but don't base that upon its opening weekend gross.

And king kong absolutely kicked ass.

[baz]

Kong is good film, not a great one, but definately good. I'd reccomend it to anyone who likes the cinema, as that is the place to see it.

[Oblivion]

Yes, awesome movie.

Brokeback Mountain? I probably won't see it. You've got to admit. It's a funny name for a romantic, gay movie.

Ok. Good westerns to check if you're getting into westerns through Borkeback (heh.)


Tombstone - I'll be your huckleberry.
Sons of Katie Elder
Rio Lobo
El Dorado
The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance
The Oxbow Incident (warning: no action, GREAT drama)
Winchester '73
The Magnificent Seven
The Quick and the Dead (pure, good dreck)
The Searchers
The John Ford "Calvary" trilogy (Google it)
Unforgiven
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
High Noon (best editing ever...in real time!)
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Way Out West (Laurel & Hardy...I'm not kidding!)
the Outlaw Josey Wales
The Pale Rider
Blazing Saddles

Man, I like a lot of westerns! I left quite a few off the list.



ZOMG! You forgot "The Wild Bunch" !

[bapenguin]

The best way to describe the CG in Kong is seemless. Basically, sure the movie could have been done without it, the shots could have been different, composited different. But when you see Kong high above a 1920's NYC skyline with Bi-planes swooping in...it's truly awesome. Not only that, as Ann is up close and personal with Kong touching him and whatnot, it's hard to believe it's a CG character.

Sidenote and slight spoiler....
Apparantly the whole falling down schtick that makes Kong laugh is based off a truth. One of the consultants on the film studied Gorillas in Africa and noticed that they would watch Chameleons walk along tree branches and fall off. When they fell they laughed....which is how they got the basis for that whole thing.

[Everlost_MI]

Yes. Very good flick. Not a feelgood by any means, but definitely worth the time and attention. Everyone should see this.

Excellent! I have some spare time this week to catch up on movies and that one looked quite interesting.

[Wayfarer]

Am I the only person on the planet that actually enjoyed Ang Lee's Hulk?

[Wadmaasi]

A Sound of Thunder.

They even used a CGI model from one of those BBC or Discovery Channel TV shows as the main monster. They didn't even come up with their own original monster. Lame, Lamer, Lamest.

(I won't even go into the fact that their whole theory of how time travel would change the earth is pathetically off kilter. And ask Pancake Rabbit, I know a thing or two about time travel. ;) )
Did they change the way Bradbury wrote it? That was always a cool little story, despite whatever fictional theory of time-travel you subscribe to.

[Conner Dain]

Am I the only person on the planet that actually enjoyed Ang Lee's Hulk?


You're not alone. I really enjoyed it. I LOVED the muti-pane layout it used.

[phantomhitman]

There is something about animating a living thing that computer effects artists have yet to come close to mastering without the assistance of a live human actor.
Every computer animator uses real life people or animals to base animations off of or to capture motions from. If you didnt it would look almost robotic and out of place. Serkis is definatly an animated guy and an animators dream, I hope that guy is getting paid a ton of money.

[laggerific]

I'm sure it's been mentioned on this thread before, but brokeback mountain isn't in wide release yet. It's doing quite well, and many people do want to see it, especially in the GLBT community. It's also had great reviews...I hope it does well when it goes wide...

[saneman]

I'm sure it's been mentioned on this thread before


..... once or twice. ;)

[laggerific]

I loved Hulk and I will admit that the CG in that, as far as creatures are concerned, was lacking in the clearly a part of the environment department...the fades and wipes between scenes were brilliant, and the film on a whole was just fun to watch...but the CG creatures, while enjoyable, didn't really push the bounds on CG.

Yeah, I didn't get to read the thread before posting, but wanted to get my two cents. I've heard brokeback is a really powerful movie.

And crouching tiger wasn't all that, either...it most likely appealed to people in the same way that the Matrix did. Then they came out with the Matrix sequel, which killed my interest in ever seeing a 20+ minute fightscene again...maybe it would make a cool screensaver. But CTHD wouldn't have been much without its matrix-esque physics. I'm just saying...Ang Lee is great...but I don't think most people appreciate what makes him great.

[Xerxes]

CG will be my friend when we can get a better looking Hulk fighting Wolverine.

[solinari6]

I guess moviegoers don't want to see a gay western.
Actually, you'd be surprised. I was talking to a friend the other day, and asked him if his kids were going to drag him to see king kong. He said no, but his oldest daughter wants him to take her to brokeback mountain. She's in love with heath ledger, and wants to watch him make out with jake. Times sure are a changin...

[Schnoogs]

Part of the reason Yoda looked so dang fake was because we saw him as an actual rubber puppet on screen in previous films. They couldn't match the look of the old puppet, so in my opinion, failed in their execution of compositing him into the scene. Yoda's lighting and shading didn't hold a candle to the awesomeness of Gollum, nor did he interact with his scenery the way Gollum did. In Star Wars, there was a whole lot of actors staring blankly at CGI characters that weren't there, but only represented by a ping-pong ball on a stick (that's where the "eye contact" is supposed to be).

Take a look at Gollum pulling on clothing, or hanging on trees, etc. You never see any characters do that.

Kong was indeed beautiful but kinda shallow (another Titanic), but a huge task to undertake. But go to the cgsociety.org forums and look in the lighting and rendering forum and there are many mentions of the compositing being off kilter just a bit. This is coming from other professionals, technical directors, and computer animators in the SFX business. Mainly they mention some rushed green screen and slightly wonky lighting, particularly in the dinaosaur stampede scene.

I never heard people comment negatively on Gollum. You can notice, however, some odd compositing in army shots and such, especially in the Fellowship. they did get better throughout, though.

Gollum looked fake plain and simple...

[Schnoogs]

Gollum doesn't hold a candle to The Hulk? Dude, it looks like you picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

Gollum was a person. The Hulk was made of plastic and looks out of place in every scene he is present in.

Yoda wasn't bad, but he lacked the depth of character that they got out of the Gollum model.

Do you even know anything about CG or compositing??? Seriously.

You would have to be blind to think that the compositing and rendering of Gollum was on par with the Hulk. I don't even know anyone who is into CG that thought Gollum was the best example of their trade.

Just because you're a LOTR fanboy doesn't magically increase the quality of the CG.

LOTR had sketchy compositing through out the entire series. BEst example is to contrast the lava scenes in the end of Return of the King and contrast them with Mustafar in Revenge of the Sith. Sith blows it away ten times over.

Gollum had piss poor textures and the muscle animation is clearly a generation behind in comparison to The Hulk.

Sorry fan boys but ILM is the king.

[laggerific]

I thought the Hulk looked incredibly out of place at many times throughout the film...it was weird...but it didn't distract from how awesome the film was.

[Citizen Philip]

Do you even know anything about CG or compositing??? Seriously.

You would have to be blind to think that the compositing and rendering of Gollum was on par with the Hulk. I don't even know anyone who is into CG that thought Gollum was the best example of their trade.

Just because you're a LOTR fanboy doesn't magically increase the quality of the CG.

LOTR had sketchy compositing through out the entire series. BEst example is to contrast the lava scenes in the end of Return of the King and contrast them with Mustafar in Revenge of the Sith. Sith blows it away ten times over.

Gollum had piss poor textures and the muscle animation is clearly a generation behind in comparison to The Hulk.

Sorry fan boys but ILM is the king.

I know quite a bit about CGI. Gollum was very good CGI, only on a few occasions did he look more artifcial.

Let's be clear here Assassin. CGI just like claymation and stopmotion WILL ALWAYS LOOK FAKE. It's not real, you know it's not real: different effects can be convincing and with the permission of the audience you can suspend your belief. A film can only convince you to suspend your believe, you have to decide to allow it to happen. So get off your horse and STFU.

I loved Starship Troopers, the aliens looked great and worked really well: I don't really care if you agree or not.

[baz]

Do you even know anything about CG or compositing??? Seriously.

You would have to be blind to think that the compositing and rendering of Gollum was on par with the Hulk. I don't even know anyone who is into CG that thought Gollum was the best example of their trade.

Just because you're a LOTR fanboy doesn't magically increase the quality of the CG.

LOTR had sketchy compositing through out the entire series. BEst example is to contrast the lava scenes in the end of Return of the King and contrast them with Mustafar in Revenge of the Sith. Sith blows it away ten times over.

Gollum had piss poor textures and the muscle animation is clearly a generation behind in comparison to The Hulk.

Sorry fan boys but ILM is the king.

But this is where you are getting it all wrong. It doesn't matter what CG professionals think is the better CG/compositing, it matters what the viewing public think. And the viewing public (myself included) think Gollum looks better than Hulk; which is what counts.

[dr_wily]

agreed, starship troopers still looks great.

the weight of the ships still hold up well compared to todays cg as well.

[Eric_T_Cheng]

And crouching tiger wasn't all that, either...it most likely appealed to people in the same way that the Matrix did. Then they came out with the Matrix sequel, which killed my interest in ever seeing a 20+ minute fightscene again...maybe it would make a cool screensaver. But CTHD wouldn't have been much without its matrix-esque physics. I'm just saying...Ang Lee is great...but I don't think most people appreciate what makes him great.

Actually, it's the Matrix movies that borrowed heavily from Chinese wuxia kung fu movies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuxia_genre), which Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon falls under. CTHD was the West's first taste of the wuxia genre. In wuxia, the heroes' and villians' kung fu skills are so great they're essentially superheroes and supervillians with superpowers (ie. leaping over tall buildings, shooting fireballs from their fists). The Chinese comic version of CTHD is closer Dragonball Z than the movie in regards to its over-the-top powers of the people.

[Neosho]

Back to king kong...i enjoyed the movie, i never felt bored, which is something for a 3 hour and 7 minute movie. On the flip side, a few things really, really, really bothered me. For example, there's a point where Ann walks out of the fog. On a suddenly empty NY street. I was like...are you fucking kidding me? All of the sudden, a NY which has been vibrantly alive with cars and people and things happening turns into a foggy graveyard. That was just too much. After such a vibrant, alive, amazing feeling NY, turning it into a silent foggy empty street as she walks down the middle of the street out of the fog was just waaay too over the top for me. Also, many of the moments where Ann was being carried/thrown about by Kong, she would have been total freaking mush. As an example, when he's standing by his cave, and he's got her in his right hand, and is shaking her back and forth. Mush, her brain would be mush. He did it for like, 45 seconds.

Which leads me to the other problem with the movie...PJ needs to pull away from the excessive cinematic feel. I want to watch a freaking movie, not be a slave to a scene that's 60-120 seconds longer than it needs to be.

Also, disbelief was broken, over, and over. I started laughing and got glared at when there was the bit with swinging vine burrito t-rex.

Edit: Clarity

[Balthasar]

All of the sudden, a NY which has been vibrantly alive with cars and people and things happening turns into a foggy graveyard. That was just too much. After such a vibrant, alive, amazing feeling NY, turning it into a silent foggy empty street as she walks down the middle of the street out of the fog was just waaay too over the top for me.

I highly suspect Ann's emergance from the fog was a direct homage to the 1933 original, but that aside, you have to remember two very important things. One: the movie takes place in the 30's, not the 80's, 90's, or 00's. Given the development of the automobile industry and the state of the economy, you're not going to see a high volume of traffic everywhere at that time of the night, even in Manhattan. Second, where Ann meets King Kong, to my (admittedly vague) recollection, was much closer to the 50's than the 40's, placing them further uptown and closer to Central Park. Given all that, I don't find it unreasonable that a 50 foot gorrilla might find himeslf capable of clearing traffic, just a bit.

Also, many of the moments where Ann was being carried/thrown about by Kong, she would have been total freaking mush. As an example, when he's standing by his cave, and he's got her in his right hand, and is shaking her back and forth. Mush, her brain would be mush. He did it for like, 45 seconds.

I think if one is going to take such consideration into how much trauma Ann's brain can sustain when building-crawling silverback gorrilla is shaking her, one must first consider how plausible it is that her mortality be in the hands (litterally) of a silverback gorrilla of that size.

[Neosho]

I highly suspect Ann's emergance from the fog was a direct homage to the 1933 original, but that aside, you have to remember two very important things. One: the movie takes place in the 30's, not the 80's, 90's, or 00's. Given the development of the automobile industry and the state of the economy, you're not going to see a high volume of traffic everywhere at that time of the night, even in Manhattan. Second, where Ann meets King Kong, to my (admittedly vague) recollection, was much closer to the 50's than the 40's, placing them further uptown and closer to Central Park. Given all that, I don't find it unreasonable that a 50 foot gorrilla might find himeslf capable of clearing traffic, just a bit.

Right, the particular issue i have is that it's so amazingly crowded and there's cars parked on both sides of the street, all the way back, and yet all of the sudden no one is on the road. You go from the frantic pace of Adrian Brody being chased about to ghost new york. It was the suddenness of the change that really got me. Also, while it may be a homage of sorts to the original film, the shot just seemed incredibly out of place. That along with the sudden lack of population drove me up the wall in about 2 seconds, the first time that i felt frustrated with the film.


I think if one is going to take such consideration into how much trauma Ann's brain can sustain when building-crawling silverback gorrilla is shaking her, one must first consider how plausible it is that her mortality be in the hands (litterally) of a silverback gorrilla of that size.

Yes. Yes that's true. But i would have appreciated it if PJ had not gone out of his way to crap all over the reasonable limits of what a human body could take. For example, dump her on his back, sure, that'd work. Don't have him swinging her about like a maraca.