Box Office Blather: Princess Dividends and Per Screen Averages

The box office for New Year's weekend was little changed from Christmas weekend when Jeff Bridges double dipped and I had a creepy 90s flashback (that whole post still applies) so instead of sharing their grosses in that banal way you can get anywhere, let's share their gross minus their budget. This is an inexact science for sure. It doesn't include the $$$ of worldwide grosses but it also doesn't include the $$$ of advertising costs so we like it as a vague snapshot of how the movies are doing.

Top Ten Box Office
key: red (budgets way too big) black (passed their budget) green (heading towards significant profits.)

1. Little Fockers + $2 million (second week)
2. True Grit + $48 million (second week)
3. Tron Legacy -$39 million (third week)
4. Yogi Bear - $15 million (third week)
5. Chronicles of Narnia -$69 million (fourth week)
6. The Fighter + $21 million (fourth week)
7. Tangled - $93 million (sixth week - not as disastrous as it looks since Disney is its own franchise. People really like this gargantuanly expensive movie so it might restore some faith in the faltering "brand" and help the next movie. Plus it adds another "princess" to their merchandise line. Ka-ching!)
8. Gulliver's Travels -$85 million (second week)
9. Black Swan + $34 million (fifth week)
10. The King's Speech + $7 million (sixth week)

This is far less depressing than just regular ol' box office reporting right? The good movies aren't as expensive to make and they're making significant money. [Tangent: Let True Grit (review) and Black Swan (plentiful posts) be a lesson to filmmakers and studios: these movies look sensational and feature movie stars. How on earth is your movie so much more expensive?]

One more list. How about the best per-screen averages? Naturally this favors movies in very few theaters that have withheld themselves for several months of buzz whilst waiting for Golden Globe and Oscar fever to kick in. From my throne armchair that looks like distributors just throwing money away while people talk about product they can't spend money on for 3 to 12 months. This only increases the likelihood of piracy and/or likelihood that people might be sick of you in the abstract when you're finally available for tangible purchase. Yes, I live in NYC and seeing movies is easy but I remember quite well what a trial it was before I moved here. I'm still, I'm still Jenny from the block.

That list goes like so...

Top Per Screen Average

1. Blue Valentine (4 theaters) $48,000+ (debut)
2. Country Strong (2 theaters) $20,000+ (2nd week)
3. Another Year (6 theaters)  $18,000+ (debut)
4. Somewhere (8 theaters) $17,000+ (2nd week)
5. The Illusionist (3 theaters) $15,000+ (2nd week)
6. The King's Speech (700 theaters) $11,000+ (6th week)

They must be partying at the Weinstein Co. right now (#1 and #6)

I can't fathom why Country Strong, built to appeal to an enormous market of people who love country music, didn't just open wide? If the film isn't very good -- which they keep saying -- why not make all your money up front before word of mouth doesn't kick in? Naturally this chart is very good news for The King's Speech since it's already gone wide and it's still filling plentiful seats wherever it plays. But here's the sad news: It's rough going out there for Rabbit Hole which has only a $4,000+ average on 34 screens in its 3rd week. Now that's a better number than most of the top ten movies but it's not generally enough to get distributors excited about spending more money to release you winder. Sniffle. Rabbit Hole is not half as depressing as Blue Valentine so if the "depression" factor is keeping people away, they're being silly. It's a really good movie. Why can't Nicole catch a break? Sigh.

What did you spend your money on over New Year's? (I mean, besides booze)
*

Box Office Blather: Jeff Bridges Double Dips

A weekly box office series, in beta, to see if we like. To remind you that you're here and not elsewhere and we can't just do things normally, we'll come at it from weird angles when we can.

Jeff Bridges stars in TRON GRIT

1. Little Fockers $30 NEW
2. True Grit $24.8 NEW
3. Tron Legacy $19.5 (cumulative: $87.3)
4. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader $9.4 (cumulative: $62.5)
5. Yogi Bear $7.8 (cumulative: $35.8)
6. The Fighter $7.6 (cumulative: $26.6)
7. Tangled $6.4 (cumulative: $143.6)
8. Gulliver's Travel $6.3 NEW 
9. Black Swan $6.2 (cumulative: $28.6)
10. The Tourist $5.4 (cumulative: $40.8)
11. The King's Speech $4.4 (cumulative: $8.3)
12. How Do You Know $3.5 (cumulative: $15)

With Little Fockers and True Grit topping the charts and we experience an unexpected flashback. Bridges & Babs haven't dipped into the top box office together since The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996). And this time Jeff is double-dipping.

♪ this is it... OHHHH i finally found someone... someone to share my life ♪♫

The first thing to note is that Jeff Bridges is hogging the higher altitudes of the chart as both True Grit's grizzled Rooster Cogburn and the god/father figure for Garret Hedlund (and cross-generational computer geeks) in Tron Legacy. I haven't seen the latter picture but it's good to see Bridges back in sleeker form again after those last two sloshed rundown beer-bellied men in Grit and Crazy Heart. The new old western is is now the Coen Bros' best opening narrowly beating Burn After Reading (2008) which, had almost exactly the same budget but more stars to sell itself with. No Country For Old Men (2007) is their highest grosser though. Will Grit surpass it?

art by Daniel Foez

Couple other things.

• You'd think the Narnia series would die as its box office descends with each film but it's still popular globally and the budget on this one dropped considerably. Does it show?
• Christmas was the first wide weekend for The King's Speech, arguably the only major film relying entirely on Oscar buzz to sell tickets. (You can't really count the films that have barely even tried to open and they are unfortunately many.)
• Tangled is holding well, despite losing some theaters to Christmas fare, demonstrating long legs to accessorize that golden hair. It'll need them. For some reason it cost $260 to make -- which is at quite a bit more expensive than the three animated films which have outgrossed it this year. Was it the frequent retooling that made it that expensive? It'll presumably be awhile before profits once you factor in marketing costs.

Speaking of animated fairytales... Does anyone else remember The Last Unicorn? Is that even on DVD? Here's Jeff Bridges (as the charming Prince) serenading/romancing Mia Farrow (the unicorn)



 It's not some sick interspecies romance because somehow she's a beautiful woman and not just a unicorn. No, I don't remember the story at all.

Three questions to send you on your way: 

1. The Mirror Has Two Faces? Go. (even if you haven't seen it you MUST read this awesome review of it by Glenn at Stale Popcorn. It's laugh out loud funny)
2. Aren't you glad Jeff's musical talents improved before The Fabulous Baker Boys and Crazy Heart?
3. What did you see over Christmas?

Barbra Streisand

Links: True Grit, Spidey, Gay Rugby, and "Original" Films

Movie|Line celebrates a year of "The Verge," their great up-and-coming actor series.
Cinema Blend goosing the sales of True Grit (the novel)
Today One of the Fantastic Four will die in the comic's #587th issue. Does anyone still believe in these marketing ploys? I'm sure they'll come back to life within 3 years. That's how comics do.
MUBI The great Michel Piccoli is 85 today. Has anyone seen La Belle Noiseuse (1991)? That's such a good one.
CineEuropa international actor Armin Mueller-Stahl will receive a lifetime achievement award at Berlinale this year.
The Guardian talks to Andrew Garfield about Spider-Man (with audio)
Blog Stage an informative and weird animated bit describing what's going on with Spider Man's Broadway disaster.
Towleroad Mickey Rourke to pay gay rugby legend Gareth Thomas in a sports bio. We've had a lot of sports bios at the movies but you can't say we've had a lot of rugby films, gay or otherwise.
Scott Feinberg, fine Oscar pundit, delivers his top ten.

Finally, the New York Times has a totally bizarre article called "Hollywood Moves Away from Middlebrow Movies" which is about the new quality edict in Hollywood. I never understand these articles which seem to find all sorts of bizarre trends that the box office data doesn't actually support like "originality sells!" Er, no... I wish! I knew the article was in trouble when it says that Hollywood is going for quality and Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is referred to as "arty" example of directorial artistry. Let me get this straight, in an article praising studio interest in Quality Original Films one of the prime examples is a messily 3D converted 2D film of a story that's been adapted literally dozens of times for the movies back to the days of silent film?

sigh

I swear to the cinematic gods that that one 2010 junkpile is going to be the death of me. It will not go away. I'll even have to be dealing with it in 2011 for the Oscars. Nooooooooooooooooo
*

Box Office Blather: Spectacles, Star Vehicles, Subtitles and Easy $

Year in Review Pt 1 of Many
It's time to wrap up 2010. You'll have to have patience since The Film Experience likes to do this piecemeal... and often! Let's do it every day at 10 AM or 10 PM or both when we magically have free time. How about that? We'll start with the US box office.

Box office hits get much coverage in the media so let's just dispense that basic "smash hit" list quick-like and move on to more interesting less covered seat-filler topics. All figures on all lists are up until the December 18th. And please go easy on any errors as I am unskilled at math is not my strong suit.



US Top Dozen

1. Toy Story 3 $415
2. Eyesore in Wonderland $334
3. Iron Man 2 $312
4. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse $300
5. Inception $292
6. The Commercial For Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt 2 $265
7. Despicable Me $250
8. Shrek Forever After $238
9. How to Train Your Dragon $217
10. The Karate Kid $176
11. Clash of the Titans $163
12. Grown-Ups $162

The list proves again - as in every year - that the American moviegoer has an extremely limited palette. There are only four types of films he/she will go to in droves: animated features, sequels/remakes (i.e. "franchises"), action/visual spectacles and broad comedies. It doesn't get more diverse until much further down the list. The only film in the year's top 25 that doesn't fit neatly into one of those four categories is Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island. So well done, Marty. That is a true accomplishment.

Subtitled Features
(I've included worldwide figures too for the sake of provenance)

1. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo [Sweden]  $10 (worldwide: $104)
2. The Girl Who Played With Fire [Sweden]  $7 (worldwide: $66)
3. The Secret in Their Eyes [Argentina]  $6 (worldwide: $33)
4. I Am Love [Italy] $5 (worldwide: $10)
5. The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest [Sweden]  $4 (worldwide: $40)
6. My Name is Khan [India]  $4 (worldwide: $41)
7. A Prophet [France] $2 (worldwide: $17)
8. Dabangg [India] $2 (worldwide: $3)
9. Kites [Miscellania] $1.6 (worldwide: $3)
10. Raajneeti [India] $1.5 (worldwide: $12)
11. MicMacs [France] $1.2 (worldwide: $16)
12. Golmaal 3 [India] $1 (worldwide: $2)

Beyond interest in the Swedish "Millenium" trilogy -- which dropped steadily with each film here and elsewhere in equal percentages -- it was tough going for international fare yet again. It seems like a different world entirely than when we regularly had a couple of substantial breakout hits a year (as recently as the mid Aughts). The only steady market seems to be Bollywood features, which regularly gross about a million with barely any media coverage. Oscar nominees are a far less stable subcategory. Despite more media coverage their grosses tend to be all over the place, ranging anywhere from $10,000 (Peru's Milk of Sorrow) to just over half a million (Israel's Ajami) to the $2 million range (France's A Prophet and 2009 holdover Germany's White Ribbon) to $6 million (the winner, Argentina's The Secret in Their Eyes). In other words it's a bit hard to imagine that the Oscar nomination does all that much more for the films than they could have managed on their own... unless they win. It's tough to quantify so it's aggravating that the studios seem to think that the first quarter is the only time to release the high profile foreign contenders. (It's like how the English language Oscar contenders all have to compete with each other for the same limited seasonal dollars from November through February. It's so weird.)

Next...?
Well, I was going to do a list based purely on original material but the list was so depressing (it was basically original material that could easily be confused for a remake) that I screamed abort! abort! and changed course immediately. Let's try this. Which DRAMAS, i.e. the things audiences mostly only want to see on their TVs now, were hits with moviegoers?

Top 12 Dramas (reality based i.e. no supernatural, genre or primarily action-focused stuff)

1. Shutter Island  $128 [debatable classification - remove it if you will]
2. The Town $92 [an action movie in a sense but mostly a drama]
3. The Social Network $91
4. Eat Pray Love $80
5. Dear John $80
6. The Last Song $62
7. Why Did I Get Married, Too $60
8. Secretariat $58
9. Letters to Juliet $53
10. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps $52
11. For Colored Girls $37
12. The American $35

On this list we see that quality matters far less than having a star in your movie; just don't expect big returns on investment since big stars cost $10+ million. Also: Amanda Seyfried and Tyler Perry are good bets for non-gargantuan but sturdy profits. The Social Network, a film without any action sequence, gooey romance or crime-angle, is a true anomaly. It's only here because it's awesome and topical. But being awesome and topical will only get you to around $90-100. It's interesting that The Social Network's box office is so similar to Brokeback Mountain's, another anomaly that had quality as its chief selling point. (GASP. What a crazy thing to bank on!)

Best Return on Investment???
This list is haphazard / insufficient using only production budgets vs. US distribution returns from box office mojo. In other words it's not so accurate (merchandising, foreign markets, DVD sales and the potential windfall of sequels all contribute to insanely costly movies making a lot of money... eventually. While marketing costs subtract from that profit margin all the while.) But I think the following list is interesting as a very blurry snapshot as to what films are profitable even before you factor in these other things.

1. Paranormal Activity 2 $84 gross = 28 times its budget.
2. The Last Exorcism  $41 gross =22.7 times its budget.
3. Easy A $58 gross  =7.25 times its budget.
4. Jackass 3-D $116 gross = 5.8 times its budget.
5. The Kids Are All Right $20 gross = 5 times its budget.
6. Twilight Saga: Eclipse $300 gross = 4.4 times its budget.
7. The Karate Kid $176 gross = 4.4 times its budget.
8. Diary of a Wimpy Kid $64 gross  = 4.2 times its budget. 
9. Despicable Me $250 gross = 3.6 times its budget. 
10. Dear John $80 gross  = 3.2 times its budget.

Black Swan, budgeted at $13 million may well join this top ten since it's already earned $15 million and it's only just finished its first weekend of wide release and once it wears off its opening week energy, presumably it'll get that Oscar nominee boost to keep it going.

If you include worldwide revenues and franchise potential the numbers would change. How to Train Your Dragon, for example, which cost $165 million to make and grossed $217 million doesn't sound that profitable until you factor in the foreign gross (another $277 million) and the eventual sequels ordered up, which will come into the world market with the most cost efficent marketing tool possible: familiarity. And some movies are far more profitable overseas: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was budgeted at $13 million and has grossed $104 million worldwide, so only 10% of its gross is coming from America. But I was trying to make this as easy on myself as possible hence the US totals.

The year in box office. Crazy numbers. I'd be happy just making a really crappy "per screen average" figure this week. How 'bout you?

Finally..

It would... oh never mind. This post is long enough. What's the last movie you paid to see? Did you get your money's worth?

Wimps?

Michael C here trying to piece together some conclusions from this first wave of precursors.

One thing we can say for certain. With all the support materializing for Black Swan this past week the message is unequivocal: no discussion of the year’s best work will be complete without Aronofsky’s dance phantasmagoria in the mix. Yet Swan’s place in the lineup isn't the sure thing it should be. Due to the film’s extreme nature it is widely assumed that for every one Academy member who has the stomach for it, there will be ten others who are fleeing the screening with their hands over their ears, humming the score from Driving Miss Daisy to blot out the horrible sounds coming from the screen.

Are Oscar voters wimps?

One could be forgiven for getting that impression reading the conventional wisdom bandied back and forth about films like 127 Hours or Black Swan. The standard issue reaction for any film that has more than a sprinkling of realistic violence, sex, or stylistic daring is, "Oh, this is too much for the Academy." The average academy voter is, according to this view, a stodgy old fogey whose taste in movies calcified sometime around the release of My Fair Lady and is horrified that a movie might stray outside the bland Oscar template. They thought Inception was too confusing, Rabbit Hole was too depressing, and a lot of them avoided 127 Hours altogether. While there is undoubtedly some truth to this (we all remember the reports of some voters flat-out refusing to so much as watch Brokeback Mountain) I think it misses the larger story.

There is, of course, the simple fact that more outre the film is the less of a consensus it's going to build, but it still doesn’t add up. How could all these Academy members reach prominence while being artistic scaredy-cats who dive under their seat when things get too intense? To succeed in creative professions one needs some open-mindedness, some adventurousness of taste. After all, a lot of the current voting body is made up of people who cut their teeth during the golden age of 70’s filmmaking, people who worship at the altar of Scorsese and Altman. Yet, these are the folks who somehow mistake The Blind Side for an artistic milestone?

The Average Oscar Screening?

While there is surely bad taste and timidity around the margins, I believe the larger shortcoming of the voting pool is not that their taste is so tame but that they assume yours is. The Academy prizes its own relevance above all else, and they know marking ballots for Fish Tank and Dogtooth isn’t going to secure it for them. They can't be throwing Mulholland Drive in the lineup if it going to lead to three months worth of perplexed movie-goers promising to never trust the Academy again as long as the live.

The fact that the Academy in the past has honored films as adult as the Silence of the Lambs, Midnight Cowboy, or The Departed proves that they’re not necessarily as timid as their reputation suggests. It’s just that if they’re going to risk upsetting the blue hairs of the world than those films are going to have to arrive stamped as pre-approved hits.



I think it is fair to say Black Swan's status as an Oscar lock is going to have less to do with the intestinal fortitude of the Oscar voter and more to do with how well it performs in this, its first weekend of wide release.

(Here are the current figures)

*

Good News: Black Swan Spreads Its Wide Wings

Your wait is over (or nearly so depending on where you live). Due to its constantly packed houses -- it's been landing in the top ten US box office daily despite being on less than 100 screens -- Black Swan goes wide quite a bit earlier than expected. Tomorrow the one-of-a-kind movie flies into 800+ more theaters. Enjoy. Report back.

Box Office Blather: Unstoppable Potter and the 127 Tangled Swans

No, not that BOB.

Box Office Blather. Let's call it "BOB".

One should probably discuss it weekly (and not on Wednesday? Shut it. I'm late.) if only to be more "in the world" and less hermetically sealed in one's own bubble, he said to himself while gazing at his navel in his 360º mirror.

In all seriousness this is a problem. I sometimes stare at box office charts and think "'The Warrior's Way'?  What the hell is that?" And, bear in mind, I think and write about movies 7 days a week so these blind spots can be problematic. And yet, when you live in a big city and you have options you don't always notice what's playing in thousands of theaters when you can obsess over something like Black Swan which is playing in just over a dozen. Thus one stays sealed in one's bubble.

Box Office Blather Bakers Dozen
("Bobbed!"...why do I need names for everything? It's a sickness)

1. Tangled (2nd week) $21.6 [cumulative: $96.5] -55%
2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt 1 (3rd week) $17 [cumulate: $244.5] -65 %
3. Burlesque (2nd week) $6.1 [cumulative: $26.9] -48%
4. Unstoppable (4th week) $5.9 [cumulative: $68.7] -47%
5. Love and Other Drugs (2nd week)  $5.6 [cumulative: $22.5] -42%
6. Megamind (5th week) $4.9 [cumulative: $136.6] -60%
7. Due Date (5th week) $4.1 [cumulative: $90.8] -42%
8. Faster (2nd week) $3.9 [cumulative: $18.2] -53%
9. The Warrior's Way DEBUT $3.0
10. The Next Three Days (3rd week)  $2.5 [cumulate: $18.3] -45%
11. Morning Glory (4th week) $1.6 [cumulative: $29] -54%
    
12. 127 Hours (5th week) $1.6 [cumulative: $6.6] -5%
13. Black Swan DEBUT $1.4

A few random or obnoxious observations about that chart [src] come after the jump




Let's start off by alienating all of you! Wheeeee. Back in 2001 and 2002 I was incensed with Hollywood for being so lame / literal when the first two Harry Potters emerged and they were like books on tape only the tape was film. Then, through sheer force of ---FULL STOP. We should save this for the "Year in Review, Cinematic Shame" section later in December.

About 127 Hours... should it or shouldn't it be doing better business? It's a matter of perspective I suppose. One of my friends shared this on Facebook and said I could share it here. It's just too amusing while also illustrating a box office obstacle to the movie.

My parents' review of 127 HOURS (they went with another couple): "We all really enjoyed the movie a lot. But we didn't see the one you wanted us to see. We got to the theater, and Rhonda didn't want to watch the arm-cutting, so we saw 'Morning Glory' instead. It was adorable."

lol.

I'm sad that Burlesque isn't a smash. Now, we'll never get the sequel Burlesque 2 that Joe Reid pitched like so...

Burlesque 2, where Cher and Xtina must deal with a rival burlesque club that moves in across the street, run by a wizened Madonna and her protégée Britney Spears.

I would pay a month's wages to see that movie.

Moving on... Black Swan's $77,000 per screen average is a feat (a record for Fox Searchlight) as is the #13 status when it's only on 18 screens. But it remains to be seen how well that ballet thriller will transfer once it widens. "Weird" movies don't tend to play all that well at the box office, no matter how brilliant they are. You could counter with Inception but how weird is that? It explains the weirdness to you to make sure you don't get confused and the dream imagery, for all its gargantuan f/x thrills, isn't surreal like actual dreams. I'm trying to think of a strange movie that did well at the box office and I'm coming up blank. Do bizarre movies -- even the thrilling ones -- ever make a splash at the box office? (Post 1970s I mean.) Think of the fervor for Mullholland Dr (2001) and remember: it only managed $7 million in the States. My friend who I was discussing this with thinks I'm underestimating the accessibility of Swan but agreed that there's still going to be a ceiling; maybe Precious sized grosses? Help me out in the comments. What do you think the ceiling is for the high/low mix of psychological ballet thriller and camp horror hallucinatory artistic metaphor? 

Argh! And there I go again with the bubble. 127 Hours and Black Swan are only 451 screens between them and that's immediately what I start talking about. Perhaps this will be a project for 2011. Go to more mainstream movies. Experiment. (Didn't Tim Brayton agree to review anything that opened at #1 at the box office. Or did I imagine that? Think of the things you'd have to review!) My point is this: My brother called last week wanting to talk about Skyline which opened on 2800 screens and Megamind which opened on nearly 4,000. I hadn't seen them. Total bummer because I don't talk to my brother enough and he called about movies, sniffle, my favorite topic.

Tangled has nearly equalled the entire The Princess and the Frog gross
in its first two weeks.

So outside the bubble... Tangled. Do you think Disney will attribute its success to that misleading obnoxious ad campaign positioning it as a Shrek-like affair or to the fact that it's a throwback to their late 80/early 90s musical princess heyday. Or will they attribute it to both and advertise all future movies as the opposite of the type of movie they actually are?
*

FYC: Leonardo Island

One of the smartest FYC moves I've seen in terms of a screener making full use of its identity as an Oscar campaign is for Shutter Island. The disc didn't come with the typical eyebrow raising desperation of "please nominate us for every category that exists!", but narrowed its focus. The cover only suggests Picture, Director & Actor.

In fact, one might say that the packaging squints so hard to focus that it grows a the great crease of a worry line right before your eyes. All the better to remind you of its identical twin that Leonardo DiCaprio has grown between his eyes over the years. That worry line serves him so well in this anguished performance.

But, there's more. As you open it up -- remember this is a Shutter Island ad -- it becomes an orgy of Leos. Brilliant move, that. By charting his growth as an acclaimed child actor to massive adult star, all the way from that critically acclaimed leading debut This Boy's Life (1993) to 2010's Inception (sneakily swallowing up the vote splitting competition, in order to better serve Shutter Island) it basically uses the visual language of FYC: Career Tribute Nomination.

Given that Shutter Island came out very early in the year and that the Best Actor category still looks to be in flux, this could actually work. Unlikely sure but not out of the realm of possibility.

And hasn't 2010 actually been quite a year for him. Isn't he having a year comparable to Sandra Bullock's in 2009? The comparison doesn't spring up naturally, exactly. Leo's big year didn't feel like a breakthrough year since he had no career valley to bounce back from. Nor did he really have something to prove in terms of acting prowess. But consider the strange popularity correlations between Sandy's 2009 and Leo's 2010. For this exercize we have to forget all about All About Steve (2009)  but who would object to doing so?

1. Big Beloved Headliner Star
2. First movie of year  that's right in star's wheelhouse (romantic comedy The Proposal | Scorsese drama Shutter Island) opens and becomes big domestic hit in the 100+ range.
3. Riskier followup opens just five months later (Sandra's The Blind Side | Leo's Inception) and becomes a massive blockbuster in the $250+ range.

Isn't that... odd? Box office and timing between releases is pure coincidence you could say as devil's advocate. But how's this for an eery detail: If you compare Sandra's twin blockbuster 2009 grosses with Leo's 2010 double your difference of (domestic) bank is a miniscule $182,000. Isn't that crazy?

I'm not suggesting that Leo will suddenly become the golden boy who wins a surprise Oscar in February or that his marriage will fall apart in scandal directly afterwards (he's not even married!) so the comparison is strained. Furthermore, nobody expected Sandy to become an Oscar winner (until the happening was under way) and everyone has expected that about King Leo from day one. But beloved massive careers do have unifying elements no matter who the stars are; the industry and the public root for said star to succeed ...and to eventually win the most coveted movie prize of them all.

FWIW, Leo's best performances imho.

1. What's Eating Gilbert Grape? (1993)
2. The Aviator (2004)
3. The Departed (2006)
4. This Boy's Life (1993) 
5. Romeo + Juliet (1996)
6. Catch Me If You Can (2002)
7. Shutter Island (2010)
8. Titanic (1997)
9. Revolutionary Road (2008)
10. (Everything else blends together qualitatively for me, as something like charismatic coasting at regular best and callow confidence at irregular worst. So I eagerly await a full top ten. He's only 36. Decades of movie triumphs presumably await.)
    *

Para Normal Activity.

What did you see over the weekend? Care to share?

The only movie I managed to catch, on a total whim, was the original Paranormal Activity on Instant Watch just as the new one was packing them in at the box office. Hey, I've never claimed to be current with horror. I am totally not that guy. So here I am talking about a year after its sell-by date! I'm not in the now. I am beyond time.

See, even when I do catch horror movies in the theater (rarely) I tend to wait until I feel like I have to see it (due to overwhelming acclaim or whatnot) and thus I get there at the tail end of the run when it's already "over."... like The Descent. I had the theater to myself for that one which is C-R-E-E-P-Y.

I am easily scared but despite a few really good jolts, a pleasingly low-fi approach and that super creepy repeat scene of the girlfriend standing by the bed for hours on end in the middle of the night, Paranormal didn't really get to me. I had no trouble sleeping afterwards. Maybe it was the now ancient and probably nostalgia-boosted memories of The Blair Witch Project (which I saw in a huge cavernous freezing cold theater late at night) that spoiled the experience by comparison or maybe it was the lack of a theatrical crowd to heighten the fear by proximity. But I also think I just had trouble suspending disbelief. People being scared and making stupid decisions in the middle of the woods feels plausible to me. I too would lose my mind. But in the suburbs? I would totally always be having people over or I would just not be hanging out around my house and I sure as hell wouldn't stay in the house when there are so many other options of places to be.

Were you part of the huge box office haul for Paranormal Activity 2? I was reading the box office reports and thinking oh here we go again. When is this genre going to slow down? Most genres are cyclical but horror has been going strong for an awful lot of years now. This bit in the report is annoying

The sequel to last year's ultra-low budget viral blockbuster opened to a surprisingly strong $41.5 million at theaters in the U.S. and Canada this weekend, demonstrating that fans are willing to come to a studio-produced quickie follow-up to an indie hit if it's done well.

Correct me if I'm wrong but when people actually pay tickets for a franchise movie on opening weekend -- totally normal behavior -- it has nothing to with "if it's done well." No one knows that it is. Opening weekend purchases are an act of faith, not a reward for quality.

Pet peeve. Had to get that out.

I understand that Paranormal Activity 2 takes place concurrently with this one? So it's neither a prequel nor a traditional sequel... so what's the word for that? We need a new word. "Equel"?
*