Yes, my friends, the action starts right here, right now, right after the jump.
New comments will go above older remarks, so if you’re reading this later and want to start at the beginning, you’ll scroll down to the end. Got that? Good. Let’s hope for an interesting night and don’t forget to keep refreshing — the page and yourself with the commestibles of your choice.
If anyone out there still remembers my pre-weekend box office post, I was slightly bemused by predictions that Tim Burton and Disney’s spin on the two short pre-surrealist Lewis Carroll novels we know sometimes refer to as “Alice in Wonderland” would make upwards of $75 million. I didn’t doubt it, but I did doubt that the infamously hard to adapt, and emotionally cool (in a good way) stories would have ongoing appeal with the public, even as rejiggered by screenwriter Linda Woolverton. I still wonder about that, but can only be impressed by an estimated $116.3 million weekend estimate being reported by this morning by Box Office Mojo and everyone else.
Just for comparison, “Avatar” debuted with a mere $77 million, though it’s likely the grosses that weekend were depressed somewhat by the huge snowstorm then barreling through the East coast. In any case, the film showed remarkable staying power because on the odd fact that people were actually moved by it as well as being wowed by the visuals. Still, this is amazingly strong business. As pointed out on the first first of a new series of box office reports by Anne Thompson, the showing of “Alice” is also well north of $102.1 million earned by “Iron Man” on its spectacularly lucrative opening weekend a couple of years back. As for the “why” of it, I think Ms. Thompson put fairly succinctly:
[The massive opening weekend success of “Alice in Wonderland”] proves yet again why studio marketers keep chasing the perfect match: branded family title + proven visual master + global movie star=blockbuster.
I still have my doubts on this having the long-term appeal of an “Avatar,” but we’ll just have to see how it holds up. Also, the accuracy of the estimates could be a hair or two off, given that today is Oscar day and that could make for a much slower than usual Sunday evening. I can say one thing for sure, those hoping for a break from 3-D movies are going to have to hope for a lot longer now.
Moving on to the #2 slot, it’s a long, steep drop from over $106 million to $13.5 million, but “Brooklyn’s Finest” nevertheless proved to be a pleasant surprise for still-newbie studio Overture Films, which managed to beat the still fairly strong “Shutter Island.” People like movie cops.
****
Just a moment for a quick programming note: In a couple of hours or so, I’ll be experimenting with this crazy new online thing all the kids are doing, and will be live-blogging the 82nd Annual Academy Awards. Get out out the martinis and, with a little help from the miracle of DVR, we’ll have some bloggy fun. I’m actually thinking about breaking my usual “no cocktails until blogging/writing is finished rule” tonight, so the typos may really be flying!
Continuing yesterday’s series of moments designed to reawaken (my) cinematic affection, pre-Oscars. First, the Alfred Hitchcock cameos.
And now one of Hitchcock absolute greatest films –somewhat underrated these days and having absolutely nothing to do with Biggie Smalls — is discussed by my favorite living underrated director, Stephen Frears (“The Hit,” “Dangerous Liaisons,” “Dirty Pretty Things,” “High Fidelity,” “The Queen,” and the list goes on and on), who explains why Hitchcock is not one bit overrated.
And, yes, I know, whoever posted this got his “Steven” and “Stephen” wrong here. It made it slightly tricky to re-find this video on YouTube, put perseverance has its rewards.
For numerous reasons, I haven’t had time to give certain movie news items their due this week, like the inevitable lawsuit that accompanies any unexpectedly successful film and countless items about who’s going to be in which movie (maybe), or how every single movie will be in 3-D or whatever.
But here’s the thing, I’ve been through a lot this past month or so (though things seem to be resolving themselves nicely, thank you), the Oscars are coming and for numerous reasons, I’m behind on my movie going and badly in need of a shot or two or three of movie love.
I may acknowledge the results of the very important Independent Spirit Awards tomorrow morning — a bit begrudgingly since Film Independent teased me by sending me an application and then rejecting me as not quite important enough to attend. However, as far as my other daily blog posts are otherwise concerned for the next two days as I prepare for the closest thing this non-sports-fan has to a superbowl, they are going to be little shots of film love. Nothing but clips that will remind me why I love movies and maybe draw you in a bit too.
So, why do I love movies, well, for starters there’s violence.
And where there’s violence, there must also be a little sex.
More to come.
Well, depending on how long this takes.
* The Oscar voting deadline passed today and the big story ’round the town was on the punishment meted out to producer Nicolas Chartier, whose over-aggressive e-screeds against “Avatar,” and in favor of his own, “The Hurt Locker.” He’s banished from the ceremony. Still, as Nikki Finke reports, don’t feel too bad for him, if you feel bad at all, and I’m not sure why you should.
Wouldn’t it be nice — and naive — to think that stuff like this actually affected no one’s vote, in any direction?
* I like Tim Burton‘s work and dislike Timur Bekmambetov’s films, but the two nevertheless insist on working together to produce “Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter” based on the book by the author of the also soon to be filmed “Pride and Prejudice with Zombies.” The reportedly erratic but extremely talented writer-director David O. Russell, who infamously got into a scuffle with George Clooney over the treatment of extras while making 1999’s “Three Kings,” is “circling,” Mike Fleming says.
* Hef on Bogie. And, when you think about the Playboy mansions, almost everybody really does come to Hef’s, or wants to, anyway.
* James McAvoy leaves a “cancer comedy” for mysterious reasons and Joseph Gordon-Levitt jumps on board, reports THR‘s Gregg Kilday. McAvoy’s pretty good, but that still might be an improvement.
* Martin Scorsese is so busy these days I get tired just reading about him. Oh, and that gangster film with De Niro is starting to take shape, alongside at least three documentaries about Fran Lebowitz, George Harrison, and the history of British cinema, including much, I’m sure, about his old friend and mentor/influence, Michael Powell — the greatest director even many cinephiles barely know. Oh, and elsewhere he discusses the possibility of making films “like ‘Precious‘” in 3-D. I see his point about how the technology could theoretically be used to enhance intimate stories. I guess. Maybe.
* I meant to mention this days ago, but this lawsuit over the fictional destruction of the “Christ the Redeemer” statue in “2012” is based on the fact that the statue is covered by copyright — something one usually doesn’t think about for iconic statuary. In any case, I really just wanted an excuse to quote Matthew Belloni‘s opening to the story:
With apologies to the Coen brothers, Columbia Pictures is learning the hard way not to f— with the Jesus….
© 2026 Premium Hollywood
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑