MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates by Klady

Weird weekend.

A Good Day To Die Hard is doing decent business… but not great business.. not Die Hard business. Of course, they are opening in February, not the summer. Why? I have no idea. The $33m that Die4 opened to is quite doable in February. ID Thief opened to $34m just last weekend. Or perhaps it is a dump in the most advantageous position to put a film they knew was trouble. Or were they just getting crummy old domestic out of the way so they could go out and chase what has been a $200m+ international franchise the last 2 times out… Mutha Russia indeed. But don’t be too shocked if this is the lowest domestic grosser of the franchise… and still over $250m worldwide… profitable.

Safe Haven is a movie with two stars, neither of whom (aside from a supporting role in the Transformerses) have ever been in a movie that opened to over $16m. But the star of the movie is Nicholas Sparks and the actors are about as important as the people on the covers of a romance novel. The author has a glass ceiling, but these movies tend to be made on the cheap and deliver $40m-$60m domestic each time, with $80 as the extreme high. They also have a lot of ongoing value for a very committed Home Entertainment segment… women who like to exercise their tear ducts. Safe Haven could well end up doing what Hans Gruber could not, beating out John McClane.

Escape From Planet Earth is another piece of low-end animation released by The Weinstein Company. It’s their fourth shot, as best I can tell, and it will be closer to the top of their success (Hoodwinked) than the $3m and $4m openings of the others.

And the horror show of the weekend is Beautiful Creatures, which seemed to be EVERYWHERE… but is being seen by almost no one. From my perspective, a really clear case of “What The F–K Is It?” syndrome. Is it an Emmy Rossum movie? Is it about some girl who kinda looks like Emmy Rossum? I am an Alden Ehrenreich fan, but almost no one knows who he is. And just throwing Jeremy Irons and Emma Thompson at a mess still leaves a mess.

Warm Bodies is a bona fide hit for SummitGate… half the buzz of The Perks of Being A Wallflower and triple the business (or more). It moves into Summit’s Top 10 all-time and Top 5 aside from The Twilight Saga this weekend.

Meanwhile, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is heading to $50m and Mama to $70m… and you wonder, if these numbers aren’t good enough, what would be good enough? If $50m for a pulp horror/thriller or $70m for a scarefest – domestic alone – isn’t okay, how does this business work?

59 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady”

  1. movieman says:

    Even with the recent dearth of kid-friendly titles in the marketplace, I’m surprised Weinstein’s ‘toon did as (reasonably) well as it did yesterday.
    The marketing was non-existent.
    Amusing to see “Power of Few” on the chart–especially since one of the two theaters that opened it is in my home town (a local yokel directed it).
    Kind of shocked that “Few” somehow managed $2,000 per-screen.
    Sorry that “B. Creatures” didn’t do a little better. Flaws and all, it’s still vastly superior to most of the “Twilight”-ish tweener bait we’ve been subjected to these past few years.
    Alden Ehrenreich and Alice Englert are both crazy good. They deserve to become major stars.
    Or at least regularly employed actors.

  2. YancySkancy says:

    Yeah, I thought Beautiful Creatures was going to do well, for some reason. It starts out a bit slow, I guess, but I agree with movieman about the appeal of Ehrenreich and Englert, and it’s certainly a smarter enterprise overall than Twilight. Too bad.

  3. etguild2 says:

    Warner Bros. is certainly having a rough start to the year. Three misfires (Gangster Squad will still end up in the red), and I have a pretty bad feeling about JACK THE GIANT SLAYER.

    BODIES looks like it may leg it out to become the #2 zombie grosser ever.

    Yeah, Fox could care less about domestic at this point…and that goes for practically its entire release slate.

  4. movieman says:

    I think you’re right about “Jack,” Et.
    I’m still can’t tell whether they’re trying for a “Mirror, Mirror” type romp, or playing it straight a la “Snow White and the Huntsman.”
    And is it just me, or does Nicholas Hoult look like a young version of Hugo Weaving?

  5. movieman says:

    I still can’t tell.

  6. movieman says:

    Glad to see that Ehrenreich is in the new Woody Allen movie.
    He would be genius casting as the male lead in the “Endless Love” remake.
    And Englert could become the Kate Winslet of her generation if she makes the right career choices.
    She impressed me as much as the young Winslet did in another movie w/ “Creatures” in the title–Peter Jackson’s “Heavenly Creatures.”
    Speaking of the “EL” redo:
    I’m more than a little disappointed that they didn’t aim a little higher re:
    choosing a director.
    Sofia Coppola or Todd Field would have been truly inspired choices. (“The Virgin Suicides” is practically a dry run for a proper adaptation of Scott Spencer’s great novel.)
    Shana Feste is just so….ehhh. Nothing about her first two movies impressed me much.
    Why bother making a corrective version of a terrible movie if you’re not committed to getting it right this time?
    While I can certainly understand the need to so Spencer’s “Endless Love” justice (if that’s what they’re hoping to do), the upcoming “Carrie” remake screams of “moneygrab.” DePalma’s version will never be improved upon.
    And oh yeah: Elle Fanning really needs to play the female lead in a new “EL.”

  7. etguild2 says:

    Yeah the tone of the marketing is all over the place, and I can’t help but think confused audiences will hold out for OZ, despite the fact I think GIANT SLAYER is the more interesting looking film.

  8. anghus says:

    Jack the Giant Slayer looks like a huge bomb. The marketing is all over the place, and i think it’s going to be eaten by Ox the Great and Powerful. Opening these two movies remotely close to one another is a terrible idea and unfortunately no one swerved. I think Jack gets the shaft.

    Im trying to figure out if Safe Haven and Die Hard 5 will be the worst reviewed one-two punch to ever top the box office. Die Hard at 17%. Safe Haven at 13%. Hell, Identity Thief is at 24% and will probably be number three. So this could be the shittiest top three films in the history of modern box office calculation. This will require some additional research.

  9. movieman says:

    I can’t believe “DH” actually has a 4-point RT edge over “Safe Haven,” lol.
    Even a mediocre Lasse Hallstrom movie beats anything (seriously, ANYTHING) by John Moore.

    ****Spoiler Alert****

    I liked “Safe Haven” a whole lot better when it was called “Sleeping w/ the Enemy.” And didn’t have “SH”‘s cutesy-pie kiddies and preposterous “Sixth Sense”-style twist.
    Can’t believe no one has made the (obvious) comparison (to Julia Roberts’ 1991 hit).

  10. etguild2 says:

    @anghus, I can think of at least one, and I doubt this can be topped. It was when I was the student reviewer for my university: BECAUSE I SAID SO, THE MESSENGERS, and EPIC MOVIE pre-Valentines 2007, a weekend that shall live in infamy.

    Combined top 3 rating this weekend: 51% on RT
    Combined top 3 weekend, 2007: 19% (!!!)

  11. chris says:

    Six years ago, Ehrenreich might have been good casting in an “Endless Love” remake but, now, I suspect he’d look as embarrassed to be playing a teenager as he does in “Creatures.”

  12. anghus says:

    movieman, the comparison has been made in my neck of the woods, A LOT. Both films were shot around here and the comparisons were mentioned every single time it was mentioned.

    “what are you working on?”
    “Safe Haven.”
    “What is it?”
    “It’s Sleeping with the Enemy by Nicholas Sparks.”

    The best story i heard while filming was that they had to reshoot an entire day because they filmed a scene with Julliana Hough on the beach wearing a bikini top and jean shorts. Apparently the producers watched the dailies and decided that the scene needed to be redone, and i quote “with her wearing less.” So they reshot the whole day ditching the shorts in favor of bikini bottoms.

  13. Joshua says:

    I don’t understand. Who says that $70 million domestic for “Mama” wouldn’t be good enough?

  14. anghus says:

    i don’t think there is a ‘they’. Hansel and Gretel had such limited expectations. Anything other than a total bomb has to be considered a success. Some people will say 50 million dollars with inflated 3D prices ain’t great. But still, this movie felt like an Underworld or a Priest. 50-75 million felt like a best case scenario here.

    Mama. Another scary story “from” Del Toro which have traditionally been more likely to find 30 million than 60 million. So who wouldn’t be thrilled with 70 million?

    They who?

  15. movieman says:

    Anghus- I’m surprised that none of the “Haven” reviews I’ve gleaned have mentioned “Sleeping w/ the Enemy.”
    Either they didn’t want to be accused of spoiling the plot “twist.” Or, sadly–and more than likely–they didn’t see “Sleeping” because it’s 23 years old.

    I don’t know, Chris.
    H’wood history is filled w/ movies about teenagers that were cast w/ young adult actors.
    Kazan’s great “Splendor in the Grass”–which an “Endless Love” that gets it right would belong in the same league as–for starters.
    I think it’s odd how Ehrenreich reminded me so much of Emile Hirsch in “Tetro.” Yet looks absolutely nothing like him just a few years later.

  16. scooterzz says:

    fwiw — when i mentioned the ‘sleeping with the enemy’ comparisons that would undoubtedly be made to sparks, he countered that what he feels differentiates ‘safe haven’ from titles like ‘sleeping’, ‘the burning bed’ and his own novel ‘the guardian’ is that none of those also had a romance angle attached…he felt that was putting a ‘new spin’ on an already familiar story…i’m not saying i agree, just repeating/paraphrasing what he said…

  17. movieman says:

    Sparks is utterly shameless, isn’t he?
    I think the only good movie to be made from of a Sparks book (I hesitate calling them “novels”) was “The Notebook.”
    “Dear John” was marginally tolerable, solely because of Tatum and Seyfried.

  18. Prettok says:

    I liked Safe Haven a lot better when it was was called “The Tenant of Wildfell Hall” by Anne Bronte.

    I know ‘Sleeping with the Enemy’ was a big hit when it first came out, but has it really remained part of the popular cultural consciousness? I barely remember it as part of that cycle of obsessed mistress/ stepfather/ nanny/ babysitter/ hairdresser/ cop movies that came in the wake of ‘Fatal Attraction’

  19. movieman says:

    “Enemy” was a $100-million grossing b.o. hit, directed by cult fave Joe Ruben and starred Julia Roberts at the height of her post-”Pretty Woman” stardom.
    So, yeah, I think anyone who calls themselves a movie “critic” should have a passing acquaintance w/ it, Pret.

  20. etguild2 says:

    As far as throwaway Roberts romance-thriller star vehicles from that era, I much prefer “The Pelican Brief”

  21. anghus says:

    As long as no one lists I LOVE TROUBLE as their favorite Julia Roberts movie, there will be no reason for unbridled anger.

  22. jesse says:

    I thought of Sleeping with the Enemy during Safe Haven (and I haven’t seen it in probably almost 15 years), but I didn’t think to mention it in my review, simply because the movie brings to mind so many other Sparks movies before it really recalls that one.

    I mean, an abusive-husband angle to the thriller aspect of the movie that takes up about 30% of its running time? It’s too generic and not thriller-y enough to really register beyond being, you know, pretty much the most famous domestic-abuse thriller. Basically, Safe Haven can’t deviate enough from Sparks formula to EVEN rip off that movie.

  23. leahnz says:

    i have a soft spot for ‘the Pelican brief’, my fave post-’Sophie’s Choice’ Pakula. I guess maybe that’s not saying a lot, but it’s definitely my fave Julia Roberts movie.

  24. Gus says:

    Assuming I can’t pick the Ocean’s movies, I’ll call FLATLINERS my favorite J.R. movie. Still one of my favorite ideas for a movie ever.

  25. Joe Leydon says:

    Even after all these years, I still don’t get the hate some people have for Julia Roberts.

  26. Lex says:

    How did BEAUTIFUL CREATURES gross so little? It’s sort of mystifying following the “Twilight”-inspired teen-romance based-on-hit-novels flicks; Like I’d figure– and a studio wouldn’t be insane to figure– that if Twilight or Hunger Games is good for a 150 mil opener, then, shit, anything in that genre’s gotta be good for at least a 40-60 mil opener.

    I’m sure at least at some point someone, somewhere, at WB figured Beautiful Creatures could do 50 mil this weekend. But there’s no rhyme or reason for which ones catch on and which ones don’t. “Warm Bodies” isn’t dissimilar, but is a HUGE “surprise” hit, then this one tanks, then you know “The Host” will hit, and you kinda know “Mortal Instruments” is gonna flop. It’s like there’s some indiscernible quality that distinguishes which ones “the kids” are all about, and which ones get a pass even though they’re really popular in book form.

    Head-scratcher.

    Also: HAVEN. HOUGH. BOW.

  27. leahnz says:

    I like ‘flatliners’ too (yeah the concept is better than the execution but it’s still pretty stylish by the Schu, and genuinely creepy at moments) but Roberts is more part of the ensemble cast and not really the headliner/lead – I’d say that was more Sutherland if anything (by the marketing as well) then Julia and Kevin Bacon

  28. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Well, Mortal Instruments apparently has the incest angle to throw a spanner in the works (no, I don’t know the details – I’m just going from interweb summaries). It didn’t stop Twilight with the Jacob and Renesmee “bonding” though…

    I’m not entirely sure The Host will hit either – almost certainly not to the white hot levels of Twilight and Hunger Games, but a 30mil opener is probably well within scope.

    Also, leah, isn’t it like 4am in Kiwiland right now? Or are my timezones still screwed up?

  29. etguild2 says:

    Julianne Hough has one of those faces that seems to change from movie to movie. She also looks 34 instead of 24. Her closeted brother is more entertaining to watch.

  30. movieman says:

    I’ve been an Andrew Niccol fan since “Gattaca” (I even liked “Simone”), but “The Host” looks positively dreadful.

    Who are those actors??
    And why do they look/sound just like really bad daytime soap performers?

  31. etguild2 says:

    I’m sad that “The Host” isn’t a remake of the Asian monster movie.

  32. anghus says:

    “Even after all these years, I still don’t get the hate some people have for Julia Roberts”

    I don’t hate Julia Roberts, but i’ve always found her to be an absolute nails-on-the-chalkboard presence in movies. I remember seeing Closer, and it was the first time i wasn’t just rolling my eyes every time she was on camera.

    Her work is often so telegraphed. My biggest complaint is that you can see her acting. There’s far too much effort being made to look effortless. Julia Roberts on screen, to me, is like Anne Hathaway accepting an award. She just tries way too hard and it always comes across feeling phony. Other than Closer, i’ve never thought of any performance she delivered as being anything other than forced.

    My favorite Julia Roberts movie moment is in Oceans 11. It really speaks to the talent level of Matt Damon than anything else. There’s a scene where Brad Pitt and Matt Damon are in the casino. Damon’s character has been tailing Terry Benedict’s girlfriend. Damn is setting up the reveal, and right before she appears Damon gushes

    “This is the best part of my day.”

    Cut to an emaciated stick figure Julia Roberts descending the staircase.

    I laughed for a good five minutes. It’s such a great set up. Based on the build up you’d expect to see the hottest, most alluring woman in all of Las Vegas. Instead you get a blank faced Julia Roberts.

    Give Damon props, because he delivers the line like a pro. It’s delivered so well it makes Olive Oil’s staircase descent all the more laughable.

  33. bulldog68 says:

    I always thought Kevin Bacon was the lead in Flatliners.

  34. movieman says:

    Roberts and Clooney had mad chemistry together in the “Ocean’s” movies.
    Too bad Roberts wasn’t able to convince him to costar w/ her in “Duplicity.”
    Owen can be a fine actor in the right vehicle (e.g., “Croupier”), but he really is a bit of a cold fish onscreen.

  35. anghus says:

    i think Clooney and Roberts were very well matched in Oceans 11 in terms of personality. But selling her as a sex bomb… come on now. “Suspension of disbelief” can only take you so far.

  36. YancySkancy says:

    movieman: That’s Saoirse Ronan in THE HOST; she’s growing up, so she looks a bit different these days. The guy is Max Irons, who was pretty bad in RED RIDING HOOD.

  37. etguild2 says:

    The entire LOOK IT’S JULIA ROBERTS PLAYING A CHARACTER PRETENDING TO BE JULIA ROBERTS shtick in “Ocean’s Twelve” was so grotesque that it destroyed any memory of her for me in the previous film. The entire cast and crew must have been binging on limoncello at Clooney’s villa.

  38. movieman says:

    I had no idea that was Ronan, Yancy.
    Yikes!

  39. movieman says:

    Since we know Ronan can indeed act, could everyone’s seeming amateurishness be deliberate somehow?
    Is that part of “The Host”?
    Either way, it’s definitely off-putting–at least in the trailer.

  40. cadavra says:

    Sparks has announced that he’s trying something a little different for his next novel. In this one, the young couple who meet and fall in love on a North Carolina beach are Jewish, and she spends most of the book hollering at him for tracking sand into the house.

  41. movieman says:

    I don’t hate Julia Roberts, but i’ve always found her to be an absolute nails-on-the-chalkboard presence in movies. I remember seeing Closer, and it was the first time i wasn’t just rolling my eyes every time she was on camera.

    Her work is often so telegraphed. My biggest complaint is that you can see her acting. There’s far too much effort being made to look effortless. Julia Roberts on screen, to me, is like Anne Hathaway accepting an award. She just tries way too hard and it always comes across feeling phony. Other than Closer, i’ve never thought of any performance she delivered as being anything other than forced.

    Anghus- Substitute “Michelle Wlliams” for “Julia Roberts,” and you’ll have some idea how I feel about Ms. Williams.
    Never really felt that way about Roberts (the uber self-consciousness; the “Look Ma, I’m acting!” thing; etc.) at any stage of her career. In fact, it’s her unaffected naturalness which has made Robert so refreshing to me…from “Mystic Pizza” on.

  42. movieman says:

    Roberts

  43. anghus says:

    movieman, i think everyone has an actress or actor they feel that way about. Someone who just never seems as believable or genuine as you’d like. Obviously Julia Roberts had a lot of fans and was at one point the most bankable actress in the world. I think like all big actors, the welcome is eventually worn out.

    I’m still trying to figure out the fascaintion with Act Three Meryl Streep who i think is about as grating a screen presence as i’ve ever seen. It’s Complicated was, to me, an unmitigated disaster of acting. And don’t get me started on the Iron Lady. I’m still trying to figure out who considers that to be quality acting. It was like watching Eddie Murphy in the Klumps. You marvel at the amount of work poured into creating the character, but the character comes across as so phony. Much like Hopkins in Hitchcock. Hard work and prosthetics to create a cartoonish caricature, and people call that ‘great acting’. Hysterical.

    I think most actors have a certain cinematic life span, and it’s not a bad thing. I love young Robert Deniro and like middle aged Robert Deniro. I loathe senior citizen Robert Deniro. The nomination for Silver Linings Playbook, to me, is hysterical. The guy has turned in one decent performance in the last decade and people act like it’s a revelation. At some point most actors hit the ‘phone it in’ phase of their career. It’s kind of why i like when an older actor shows up who hadn’t gotten much recognition in their career. I feel like i’m meeting someone new rather than watching the same tired old shtick they’ve been hawking for decades.

    There’s always the occasional exception, but guys actors like Pacino, Deniro, and Streep turn in the same performances over and over again and maybe one out of twenty manages to tap into that exceptional ability and you get a glimmer of what they once were. The other 19 are painful reminders that they had seen better days.

    I wish more aging actors had taken on Jack Nicholson’s pace. You do a film every two or three years. As opposed to Deniro who manages to be in two to three films per year. Manage your output, make your presence onscreen something to celebrate.

  44. Joe Leydon says:

    Just curious, Anghus: How does Michael Caine measure up at this state in his career?

  45. Lex says:

    Absolutely mystified that someone who’d seen Saoirse Ronan before wouldn’t recognize her looking exactly like she always does (ie, HOT) in the HOST trailers.

    I mean this affectionately, but isn’t movieman also kind of the HB king of “lookalike comparisons” that absolutely nobody else “sees”? Like his above Hoult/Weaving thing? IDK, maybe movie has some special x-ray vision that can see into souls or something, but when he wheels one of those out it’s like the IMDB boards where every “Looks like!” thread is comparing Ving Rhames to Natalie Portman and the like.

    Again: HOST. SAOIRSE. LOOK AT HER. Been on board that train since “Lovely Bones.”

  46. movieman says:

    Nicholas Hoult IS turning into a junior league version of Hugo Weaving, Lex, lol.
    Consider:
    They both have the same mildly freakish facial bone structure, beady eyes and greasy, unkempt hair.

    And maybe if I’d known Ronan was in “The Host” before seeing the trailer, I might have had an easier time of deducing that it was her.
    Have to say that while I’ve always admired her thesping talent, I never considered Ronan a raving beauty by any stretch of the imagination.
    No offense intended, of course.

  47. Lex says:

    Well, for whatever it’s worth, I’ve seen the Host trailer about a half-dozen times, and never know conclusively if that’s Diane Kruger or not in the lab scenes.

  48. christian says:

    Oddly, just watched the THE POM POM GIRLS last night directed by none other than Joe Ruben. Long strange career….

    Is that a real quote by Apatow trying to be the Cassavettes of Comedy? Try less ass jokes…

  49. anghus says:

    It is Diane Kruger in the lab scenes.

    Joe, Michael Caine has always been a workhorse in every part of his career. He didn’t turn it up in the third act like some of his peers. Guys like Morgan Freeman who went from respectable actor to supporting role in any studio movie that cuts him a check. You can’t begrudge people for cashing in on their body of work in the third act, but man does it do so much to help make you forget how good they used to be. Freeman is set to appear in five movies in 2013.

    Five fucking movies. Yikes.

    I would argue Caine has been doing this his entire career. The man has been regularly appearing in multiple movies per year since the 1980′s. And after doing some research it seems Deniro has been averaging two movies a year since the mid 80′s, so it seems to be unfair to accuse him of increasing his output, though the movies he appears in have taken a sharp decline in quality since… let me look…. the year 2000 when he started doing Analyze and Focker sequels.

    Back to Joe. Joe, i think Caine’s output this century has been interesting enough. He’s done a great job attaching himself to nice tiny roles in Nolan films. I liked him a lot in Prestige (very underrated film, imo). Loved him in the Batman films. Loved him in Children of Men. He was good in Harry Brown. Other than dreck like Journey 2: The Mysterious Island he seems to be finding himself in good movies. It seems like Caine is still finding roles in relevant films.

    Sure, you could say Deniro did the same thing with Silver Linings Playbook, but after a decade of shitty films, SLP felt like a gift. Like a ‘remember when Robert Deniro actually made an effort?’ I think his nomination was a shit choice.

  50. Joe Leydon says:

    I think all of these actors might just look back at Marlon Brando and Laurence Olivier, and say, “Wait? You’re trying to tell me that’s not the way it’s done?”

  51. hcat says:

    Caine is in a different camp than Streep or early Deniro. He has been more of a ‘always be working’ actor than someone who is cultivating a body of work. Capable of amazing work when the right project comes, willing to cash the check in the interim.

    It reminds me of a quote that someone attributed to Gene Hackman. When he was asked in the late eighties why he would willingly appear in movies so terrible, Hackman replied something like “I am simply hired for the role and do my best in it, the quality of the script or competency of the direction is not my responsibility.” You can almost picture this quote coming from any of the current crew of journeymen actors that achieved but failed to maintain their a-list stardom (Cage, Cusack, Sam Jackson, McGregor and Harrelson). And before Iron Man and Pirates you could have tossed Downey and Depp on the list.

    With any of these who go the Caine route as opposed to say the Day-Lewis approach, you simply have to seperate the wheat from the chafe, not counting the fact that they are making a living against their acting ability.

  52. Joe Leydon says:

    This reminds me a bit of something the late, great Philippe Noiret told me years ago during an interview:

    ”You never know what will be the success of a film,” he explained. ”And it’s always comfortable to be making another film when you’re reading terrible notices for your last film. You can say, ‘Well, that’s a pity, but I’m already working on another job.’ It helps in your living. You see, if you’re only making one film a year, or one film every year and a half, it’s hard. Because when it’s a failure, what do you do? What do you become? You’re dead.”

    Besides, he added, being a workaholic has its advantages: ”I never get bored. Tired? Sometimes. But bored? Never.”

  53. anghus says:

    http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/02/18/silver-linings-playbook-will-break-100-million-by-tuesday

    Holy shit does this article read like a press release from Weinstein. Listen to this line:

    “And even if “Silver Linings” doesn’t win Best Picture, its box office numbers assure it — along with its many accolades and rave reviews– of status as an instant classic.”

    Seriously? DIdn’t like, half the nominees cross 100 million and get rave reviews? By Friedman’s logic are they all ‘instant classics’.

    Giant brass balls.

  54. Joe Leydon says:

    Life of Pi has grossed more than a half-billion worldwide. And it has a tiger. So I guess that makes it an instant super-duper-deluxe classic. With a side order of chips.

  55. YancySkancy says:

    When I was in film school, I got Michael Caine, Gene Hackman and Jason Robards, Jr. to appear in my final project. They got bus fare to and from Carbondale, Illinois, and all the pizza they could eat. Those were the days. Wish I’d made a video copy of the film. It’s in 16mm, and I don’t have a projector.

  56. anghus says:

    find a conversion service. pay any price. that’s the kind of thing you want to have a readily viewable copy of. I would think….

  57. YancySkancy says:

    I dunno, anghus. They all kinda phoned it in. Robards was drunk the whole time, Caine spent most of his time at the motel, giving cute coeds “acting tips,” and Hackman was recuperating from an angioplasty, so he was usually beat after two takes. But I’ll think about it.

  58. christian says:

    Yancy is joking anghus…

  59. YancySkancy says:

    Um, me, too.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

lazarus on: BYOB 41614

SamLowry on: BYOB 41614

SamLowry on: 17 Weeks Of Summer: Episode One - The Studios

storymark on: 17 Weeks Of Summer: Episode One - The Studios

Smith on: BYOB 41614

YancySkancy on: BYOB 41614

YancySkancy on: BYOB 41614

hcat on: BYOB 41614

movieman on: BYOB 41614

hcat on: BYOB 41614

Quote Unquotesee all »

“I wanted to make you love a murderer. There’s no way of redeeming him. He’s a drunk and a killer. He killed at least seven people (that we know of). But there were reasons he was a bad guy. He was surrounded by evil in those days. A lot of people were killed building modern Florida—modern everywhere. Watson had plenty of opportunities to see how rough those guys were playing and he thought he could do it too. At least he rationalized it that way. He had the devil beaten out of him and became a very dangerous guy. And he couldn’t handle his liquor, which is one of the worst aspects of him. And he went crazy. Understanding how that happened is useful, I think. There’s no reason any one of us couldn’t be Edgar Watson.”
~ Peter Mathiessen On Writing “Killing Mister Watson”

 

“Objects and their manufacture are inseparable, you understand a product if you understand how it’s made.”
~ Jony Ive