Box Office "Rock"ed. How Was Your Easter Weekend?
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 9:24PM Easter is quite a benevolent holiday what with the fluffy bunnies, pastel eggs and resurrection from the dead sans zombie feelings. But the world wanted big explosive violence and big muscled men at the movies. Does anyone remember on Monday how troubled GI Joe: Retaliation once was, what with the very expensive "oops, we're not going to release it after all!" that it went through last year.
The Rock was top of the box office.
1,000 + Screens
01 GI JOE: RETALIATION $41.2 *NEW*
02 THE CROODS $26.5 (cum. $88.6)
03 TYLER PERRY'S TEMPTATION TO PUT HIS NAME IN EVERY TITLE $22.3 *NEW*
04 OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN $14 (cum $54.7)
05 OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL $11.69 (cum. $198.2) Review
06 THE HOST $11 *NEW*
07 THE CALL $4.8 (cum. $39.4) comment discussion
08 ADMISSION $3.2 (cum $11.7) on Tina Fey / on Paul Rudd
09 SPRING BREAKERS $2.7 (cum $10.1) False Advertising?
10 THE INCREDIBLE BURT WONDERSTONE $1.3 (cum. $20.5)
So the gamble to waste all that prep P&A last year and pull the movie last minute in 2012 for a safer spot pre-summer movie season in 2013 paid off. In very limited release I don't think you can say that wasting your early press and publicity efforts paid off at all.
Less Than 100 Screens
01 THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES $.2 *NEW & REVIEWED*
02 NO $.2 (cum. $1.3) Review
03 GINGER & ROSA $.1 (cum. $.3)
04 FROM UP ON POPPY HILL $.1 (cum $.2)
05 ON THE ROAD $.1 (cum $.4)
Ginger & Rosa and On The Road are two more pictures to add to the endless pile of "one week qualifiers" that have worked hard to win attention at festivals and on the Oscar circuit in one year only to not let anyone spend money on them until well into the following year when people have moved on and are confused when the movie is brought up again as a "new" film. It's a strange strategy that almost never pays off and yet distributors keep trying it! Eternal optimism.
For what it's worth both pictures have plenty to recommend them even if they aren't home runs: Ginger & Rosa is a completely rare beast - a thoughtful intelligent picture about teenage girls flinging themselves into politics and hormonal indulgences with a terrific emotionally expressive performance by Elle Fanning; On the Road is beautifully shot but more hit and miss with performances but man does Garrett Hedlund ever hit it as the object of everyone's erotic and creative attention.
Reader Comments (8)
April fools predictions soon??? I can't wait. :D
Finally saw NO this weekend, and I was not quite as enamored of it as I thought I was going to be. It's a fascinating story, and I liked what a lot of people seem to hate most about it (the 80s-video-style look of the cinematography), but something was missing. I kind of wish it had been a full-out documentary instead. The best parts of the film were when we actually watched the competing Yes/No ad campaigns. The rest was interesting enough, but a bit lacking for me. Gael Garcia Bernal gave a great performance, though.
I've managed to blow every opportunity I've had thus far to see On the Road on the big screen, and my local cable provider, in its infinite wisdom, seems to only have it on demand in standard def, so looks like I'll now have to wait for Blu ray. If it even gets a blu ray release!! Such a bummer!
On the plus side, I managed to see Upstream Color at MOMA on Saturday, and it pretty much lived up the hype. I was creeped out by it, confused by it, and ultimately moved by it. It reminded me of the kinds of films Soderbergh and Aronofsky and Nolan and others were doing in the late 90s and early 00s, hyper ambitious conceptually and aesthetically, kind of chilly on the surface, done on the cheap, maybe only halfway successful even on its own terms, but so ambitious and thrilling and bold that total success is more or less beside the point. I pretty much loved it, in other words.
Regarding Ginger & Rosa: what were they thinking when they cast a 13-year-old girl to play a 17-year-old, especially when said 13-year-old has a sister who would've been exactly the right age for that part? And even if Dakota wasn't available, it's still ridiculous that they cast Elle. She's definitely a promising actress and gives a moving performance, but not for a moment did I buy her Ginger as someone who's almost of age, like Alice Englert's Rosa. Four years is a huge difference when it comes to such young people.
PS - Every time someone says "of age", I now think of Nicole in Stoker. "Of age for WHAT?"
yes, please! Where are our April 1st Actresses? No excuses please, just do it and post it as soon as possible.
Watched Miami Vice for the first time. I get its growing cult status among cinephiles I know. It is really something with good performances from all involved (though I read Jamie Foxx was a real pill to work with on that project), good action, and a sustaining story that totally embraces its connections to the TV show but gets to be more sprawling and grittier. Only issue would be the camera work took some time to get used to.
Also saw Like Someone in Love. Those last 15 minutes completely make the movie. Also, Jo Stafford has had quite a comeback in movies. The Deep Blue Sea, The Master, and now this.
My fear of NO is that it will be like Argo in that it places way too much credit on one specific group and not give enough context to the people who dedicated years to rid Chile of Pinochet. I feel like I do not need a defining thread character with a backstory, especially when they are not very interesting like Tony Mendez. I am obsessed with 70s era CIA dirty tricks and lately the movies on those subjects have really not delivered. Missing remains the best one. Others just seem tone-deaf.
Speaking of which, saw Hitchcock's thriller Topaz for the first time. I get why people were cold to it, the acting was pretty stiff and flat, but I really admire how adaptive Hitchcock was in making the post-Cuban Missile Crisis type of Cold War thriller (although set in the thick of the missile crisis) with a very different style than what we have ever seen from him. Had Hitchcock not been in such advanced age, I easily could have seen him in lockstep with Frankenheimer, Pakula, and Gavras in making those types of political thriller movies.
Yavor -- no excuses? Do you pay my salary? if so then I shan't make any :)
CMG -- rene in NO way more interesting than Tony Mendez in ARGO . just saying.
Thanks for the tip, Nathaniel. Though I feel like that is all about GBB. Ben looked like he was in the role against his will, almost a task he had to bear for the movie to be bankable because he made it a point to cast character actor look-a-likes across the board- except the Mendez part. Had they gotten a Michael Pena (who if you look at photos of Tony Mendez at that time would have been an obvious choice) or Edgar Ramirez, actual Latinos who ooze charisma in the leading role, maybe I could have enjoyed the movie much more as mindless entertainment (and still be mad at everything else).