Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2013

ugh what? that a movie you do not like is successful? why would that matter?...I think it's great! our fabulous economy can use the action.

 

I've not seen "After Earth" yet, so I can't say if I thought it was good/bad/indifferent. Even if it's not good, I'd call "Elysium" the bigger disappointment given the expectations. It had well-regarded talent and a director coming off of a highly-liked, Oscar-nominated movie...

 

Not just gear heads. That was also a movie without 3D bringing more cash, making its success even more noticeable

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2013&p=.htm

 

No, what wasn't good for "the brand" was Cars 2. That was a wretched movie. Planes is pleasantly dumb, but is lacking the two-tiered humor that makes Pixar films work for both kids and adults. This was purely a kids film, and the kids really did seem to like it a lot. Planes won't register as a stain the way Cars 2 did. It's much more forgettable. You won't easily forget how bad Cars 2 is.

 

Nice interview with noted film critic Leonard Maltin and Hollywood producer Lynda Obst on what they thought was good and bad with the summer movies of 2013:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/showbiz/movies/summer-movies-mixed-season/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

 

I'm sure Hollywood made a ton of money this year, it just may not be as much as they'd like or in the ways they expected.

Not sure what the time span is between movie green light and when it hits theaters, but I imagine whatever's on the slate for 2014 may not reflect any lessons learned (if any) from this year or last. 2015 and 2016 may be interesting, not that I was terribly disappointed with 2013. (There was nothing I saw that I hated, and I see a bunch of indie type movies over tentpoles.)

 

I'll go on record right now that I sincerely doubt that the summer 2014 remake of Godzilla will make a dime.

 

didn't Maltin like trouble with the curve ,I still like him but every once in a while he's out of touch (Holy Grail)

 

History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.

 

Same production company as Pacific Rim, which probably doesn't bode that well. However, "Godzilla" is a an actual brand while Pacific Rim was not, that should help with promotion. Godzilla also has a fairly impressive cast which should help as well.

 

If Matt Broderick and Puffy are back, then I'm in!

 

James Wan continues to be on a roll...

Insidious 2 (budget = $5 million) pulled in $20 million on Friday and is projected to hit $40 million by the end of the weekend. Not surprisingly the critics hated it but word of mouth among genre fans is very positive. Wan's earlier film this summer "The Conjuring" (budget = $20 million) has made almost $260 million worldwide.

Wan has since been tapped to direct the next installment of the Fast & Furious cash-cow franchise.

 

Gaaaaaaaaa...

Mekkagodzilla was a funny movie, but I'm more a Mothra kinda guy.

I just watched Fast & Furious 5, and thought it was a mindless, stupid movie that was a lot of fun to watch. Brilliantly shot and edited, but the plot had so many holes in it, you could drive 50 cars through it (at high speed, dragging a 3-ton safe). I can see why it made $600 million dollars.

 

IIRC, this was number 6? We loved the ride and it was perfect for what it intended to do....fast and furious entertainment!

 

It'll get my coin on the DVD release....I enjoyed the first remake, much to the disdain of many.

 

A horrible, horrible, horrible movie. I just caught the last half-hour on cable a couple of weeks ago, and I was stunned to be reminded of just how bad it was. The good news is, at least it broke up the filmmaking partnership of director Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin.

 

I disagree my friend. But, you see it from a different perspective.

 

So did Roger Ebert...

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/godzilla-1998

And a whopping 25% rating on Rotten Tomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/godzilla/

The 1998 Godzilla technically made money, since it cost $130M and made $376M, but I think because of the huge ad budget, ultimately it was a big disappointment for Sony. I was stunned by how much of a ripoff it was of Alien, which was so heavy-handed as to defy belief. That's my biggest problem with Roland Emmerich's films: they steal from about a dozen other films, none worse than in Independence Day (which is high on my list of The Stupidest Movies Ever Made). Stuff like 2012 is just in another dimension in terms of believability...

 

OK, it is quite clear you are not a fan of Roland! I have no problems with his movies...they entertain...it's not high art...not supposed to be. I don't need a critic to tell me if I would want to or like to see a movie...just give me the synopsis thank you.

 

I think there's a way to make a mindless stupid movie that's entertaining, and then there's what Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay do, which generally I don't like. I think I mentioned earlier that Fast 5 is an example of a very stupid movie I saw recently, and I wound up (grudgingly) enjoying it because it was so well-shot and very well-edited. God almighty, it was a stupid movie. You can almost hear the intelligence being sucked out of the room whenever Dwayne Johnson and Vin Diesel are in a scene together; I think they may have a combined IQ of 50, tops (if the wind is blowing in their direction). But I don't dispute that the action sequences were phenomenal, and the scenery of Rio De Janeiro was spectacular.

 

I feel exactly the same way about Bay and Emmerich.

 

Although... I gotta say, I'm curious what Bay is doing with Transformers 4, which I believe is shooting right now with Mark Wahlberg. I'm sure he's painfully aware of Pacific Rim and similar films that have moved way, way past what he did with giant robots in the three previous films.

 

When you have the chance, watch this year's "Fast and Furious 6". Excellent production values and the action sequences are even more phenomenal.
Plot and acting wise, it's not that different but sometimes I need a "let's turn my brain off" kind of movie. Problem is: most are awfully shot and you can feel the cheapness all around. That "F&F 6" was lots of fun on the big screen

 

Geez - harsh! I don't know about Diesel, but I get the impression Johnson is a fairly bright guy. He's way more talented than I ever would've believed based on his start as a wrestler - though he's typecast as an action star, I think he's really good with comedy.

Diesel does little for me - though he was good in "Saving Private Ryan" - but I like Johnson's work...

 

I was going to say much the same thing. I thought Rock/DJ did a very good job with the role he had in "Be Cool" I think he's pretty sharp. People tend to come to certain conclusions on all Professional Wrestlers, but several of them are very sharp (but still may not be able to act)