Category: News (Page 22 of 401)

Box office preview: “Harry Potter” to smash strong competition like so many horcruxes

Even though we have four major releases hitting theaters tomorrow for this five day Turkey day weekend, I’m going to keep it short. Especially as, in some respects, this weekend is a foregone conclusion.

On the heels of its boffo $125 million opening weekend, Warner Brothers’ “Harry Potter and the Deathy Hallows: Part One” would have to drop by what I’d think is an unprecedented percentage in its second weekend to get anywhere even close to the $40 million or so jolly Carl DiOrio expects for this week’s new CGI animated comedy based on the fairly tale “Rapunzel,” “Tangled.” The film, which Disney has seemed slightly nervous about, marks the final bow for the Disney princess brand and fairy tale adaptations for some time, we’re told, and the studio has been trying hard to sell it to males.

Though I might personally prefer my princesses 2D and traditionally animated, the tale has enraptured most critics and our David Medsker is rather sweet on it. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it over perform — not because the people listen to critics but because the critics are (mostly) people. Maybe it’s a bit early to retire the whole fairy tale princesses thing.

Also looking strong and with definite female appeal — though plenty of PG-13 level under-clothed attractive women are on offer for ogling males — is the apparently deliberately hoaky musical, “Burlesque.” Though the film is getting some guilty pleasure semi-love from Jason Zingale, it’s not getting the guilt-ridden love of critics over all, not that it will matter for a movie, fans of Cher and Christina Aguilera and glitz will show. Fans of rom-coms, however might not show as  much for Edward Zwick’s attempt at something a bit more biting than the usual in the genre, Fox’s “Love and Other Drugs.” Any Oscar hopes for the Jake Gyllenhaal/Anne Hathaway pairer seem beyond remote in the face of unimpressive reviews. and I suspect this is the kind of movie that actually needs to be good to do terribly well. Still, the considerable charisma of its two stars and the lack of adult-skewing date-type movies might help it achieve its rather modest expectations.

Bringing up the possible rear, or maybe not, is the relatively lowish budget actioner starring Dwayne Johnson, “Faster.” Though I enjoyed interviewing director George Tillman, Jr., the movie has received little critical applause, not that it particularly needs it. It’s possible, however, that considering the lack of action-fare right now, males might want to smell what Tilman, the ex-Rock, and a strong supporting cast are cooking. I’m sure CBS Films would find that delicious.

Dwayne Johnson is going

RIP Ingrid Pitt

pdvd403

I haven’t seen as many of her films as I’d like, and I’m not sure when the phrase “scream queen” was coined, but I’ve seen enough to know one of the best and sexiest scream queens ever has left us. As you can read in this appreciation by Clark Collis over at EW, the feisty and outspoken Miss Pitt had an amazing life.

She was apparently saved from death as a child at a Polish [note: see comments] Nazi concentration camp near the end of World War II when the gas chamber failed to work as Russian troops were invading. Later, she swam her way out of Soviet-dominated East Berlin before being rescued by an American soldier whom she later married. She eventually headed to England and, ultimately, the Hammer Film studios where she became one of the studio’s regulars in such horror outings as “The Vampire Lovers” and “Countess Dracula.” She also appeared, briefly but memorably, in one of my favorite movies, 1974’s “The Wicker Man.”

In celebration of her life  we present a clip and a complete film after the clip.

Continue reading »

The Whedon-free “Buffy” and some small triumphs for smart PR

Way back in May of ’09, I wrote about a geek-storm caused by a possible movie reboot/remake of the “Buffy, the Vampire Slayer” franchise not involving the creator of the original TV series and writer of the original film of that name, Joss Whedon. The response from Whedon fans at the time — a group that includes myself and, to a great or lesser extent most of the other writers here at Premium Hollywood/Bullz-Eye land — was pretty much catcalls.

It seemed such an obvious and hamfisted attempt to cash-in on the success of “Twilight,” “True Blood,” etc., even though it was actually the “Buffy” TV series that milked the concept of vampire-human interspecies romance and the rights holders behind it didn’t have the rights to anything from the television show, just the original, likably mediocre, movie.buffy_the_vampire_slayer_1992-thumb-550x321-18443

Continue reading »

Weekend box office: There’s no way other way to say it, Harry Potter is a lot more popular than Russell Crowe

So, folks, here’s your key to box office success: fund the kind of European-styled welfare state that would drive Tea Party activists into a state of complete hysterics, if they weren’t already there. With impoverished moms actually having a modest amount of free time to themselves because they don’t have to worry about their children starving or being unable to go the doctor and your society as a whole benefiting from improved physical and mental health, wait for one of those moms with a literary bent to come up with a once-in-a-century sensation of a book series. Hopefully, it will be aimed at a young audience with time to watch each movie several times. Then, film it — competently, will suffice, no particular need for brilliance — making sure, as Anthony D’Alessandro reminds us, to avoid the need for a momentum-killing reboot by recruiting strong and likable leads you can continue with for the entire length of the franchise. Repeat.

Daniel Radcliffe can probably afford better mirrors than this That’s pretty much the formula for the massive success of the Harry Potter film franchise. So, as stated Thursday eve, the question for the first weekend of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One” was always whether it would have a great opening or the greatest opening of all time. Well, it did have the greatest opening of all time…for a Harry Potter film. To be specific, according to Box Office Mojo, it earned an estimated $125 million, still well shy of the current opening weekend record holder, “The Dark Knight,” which grossed over $158 million on its mega-huge opening weekend.

On the other hand, that is a series best, significantly well north of the $102 million and change earned by “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” five years back. Also, as the saying goes, $125 million here and $125 million there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money. The emotionally rather dark-hued installment (I haven’t seen it, but I’ve read the book, and I can only imagine) also earned the highest per-screen average this week, a rather unusual achievement for a super-wide release like this, earning a whopping $30,332 average in over 4,100 theaters. That’s a nice infusion into our failing economy, as well, even if we have to share it with billionaire ex-welfare mom J.K. Rowling and a bunch of other Brits because of that whole welfare state thing I propagandized for up top. Well, don’t worry because “austerity” might mean that there won’t be any more new English Rowlings for a while, either. Still, she’s got another even bigger pay day ahead of her with the upcoming 3D series finale.

Meanwhile, last week’s trinity of top moneymakers held on decently with drops somewhere not too far above the 40% region. #2 “Megamind” amassed an estimate of $16.175 for its world domination war chest; runaway train thriller #3 “Unstoppable” was not stopped and earned an estimated $13.1 million; #4 “Due Date” avoided lateness penalties in its third weekend for a star-driven $9.15 million.

Meanwhile, the wide theatrical run for Russell Crowe‘s latest may not be all that much longer than, you guessed it, “The Next Three Days.” Paul Haggis’s underwhelmingly reviewed thriller costarring Elizabeth Banks debuted in the deadly #5 spot with only $6.75 million. The budget on the film, which could well be very modest if you subtract Crowe’s paycheck, is unknown at this point, but Nikki Finke is quick to remind that marketing costs for a film like this pretty much start at $30 million.

Will Russell Crowe and Elizabeth banks last for

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Premium Hollywood

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑