Booksmart (2019 film)

From MSN...

"Annapurna's Booksmart, released through United Artists Releasing, will gross an estimated $3.7 million in its second opening weekend after earning an estimated $975,000 on Friday. That will be good for eighth place behind Pokemon: Detective Pikachu, which made $1.8 million on Friday to kick off its fourth weekend in theaters."

In eighth place, behind Pokemon: Detective Pikachu, which has been out for four weeks and is not a particularly good movie.

We'll see the real number's tomorrow.

 

Word on the street (and, by street, I mean, Doug Benson's podcast, "Doug Loves Movies") is that this movie might've been better as a Netflix movie, made for streaming, and the 'kids' woulda been all over it........maybe....

 

It probably would have done better with a staggered opening, rather than a big opening. But based on audience response from festivals they thought they had a real hit on their hands here.

I have no doubt that this will eventually be discovered by its audience.

 

Unfortunately I have to be the voice of dissent. I didn’t find it very funny at all. I’d even go as far to say that I didn’t go beyond a mild chuckle a single time. “Superbad”, to me, was eons funnier.

So does every dolt in high school in California REALLY get into a top 5% college?

 

If their parents bribe the right people, they do!

 

Recently retired and seeing 3-4 movies every week this year.

I'm tending to agree with you. Many movies in the theater are being made on budget's that are just too large.

It can be said, that we could not have done this or that, it we didn't have the big budget.

But, so what? A commercial movie is designed to make a profit.

Many good movies are made on very modest budget's. As you cut back on the budget for all the glamorous sets, costumes and effects, you are forced as a director to make a more compelling movie to make up for this.

I think that a lot of really great movies, would not have been so great, it they had bigger budgets and the director did not have to work as hard.

Movies and their budgets need to be a bit more modest, if these movies are ever going to make a profit.

Booksmart was made for 19M, maybe it should have been made for 9M?

I think it could have been, should have been.

 

Years ago, out film festival was sponsored by Blockbuster Video, back when Fort Lauderdale was their headquarters.

It was an excellent film festival and made the Guiness Book of World Records as being the longest film festival on record.

Lot's of excellent movies. But that is why we have "film festivals". Ours has their tagline "A vacation from ordinary film".

The reality is that film festival audiences do not represent the average movie going public, not even close.

Show a movie that might be on the fringe at a film festival and it is the darling of the festival.

Most of the time, festival favorites never make it into general release.

Show a movie like Booksmart at a film festival and you get ooh's and awe's.

Put the same movie into general release and it will bomb, almost every time.

We have had a few favorites that had limited success.

As an example, there was Cold Comfort Farm (1995), staring a then unknown in the U.S., Kate Beckinsale, but it was released as a TV movie.

Probably the biggest film festival movie we had that I can think of that gained a lot of national recognition was The Piano, back in 1993. It made 40M on a 7M budget.

That was 25-years ago, but you get what I mean. How many people saw The Piano in theater's?

 

Well the weekend numbers are almost in. Booksmart is now at $14.367M.

With a production cost of $19M, I think we can say that it's done. RIP Booksmart.

This evening's 7:45 PM showing advance reservations (from 1:00 PM).

 

people seem obsessed with boxoffice numbers for this film, wonder why. It was a directorial debut and reached critical acclaim, for that you dont need a boxoffice success. Olivia Wilde's name as a director has been noted by a lot of reviewers (and with that also film companies) as a name to watch to coming years. Also the cast Kaitlyn Dever, Beanie Feldstein and Billie Lourd have made their name with this film and will have no trouble finding new work. In that perspective this film has been a giant success, with a lot of new names putting their name out. That it didnt make its money back is then just a trivial sidenote.

 

I have commented, that I personally never judge a film by it's critical acclaim or how much money it brings into the box office.

Not to those who's money went out to finance the movie.

 

I think there is a whiff , no stench, no overpowering reek of film industry privilege about this film that annoys some people. By most accounts it’s really good but it does seem like a bunch of industry insiders cobbled it together with little to no struggle (and apparently on a very lavish budget).

 

Loved this movie. Hysterical and charming and zany all at once.

 

I just saw this movie, without reading much of this thread. I spent the whole time trying to figure out where I had seen the actress who played Gigi before. As soon as it was over, I looked it up in IMDb and was shocked to find out that was who this was. She was hysterical. Hope she does more comedy after this.

I was also not aware one of the leads was Jonah Hill's sister (although the resemblance is clear now that I know). She was great too.

 

I almost relish the lack of success....
makes me fell like I'm part of 'select few'; a little secret movie only a small handful of us know....
like the way I used to feel with all the obscure-o '80's music.

 

I've seen it twice, mostly to see Billie Lourd's performance.

"Don't judge me - it was my 5th choice. Harvard."

 

I honestly have no idea how a film is budgeted, or how it cost what it costs. I can only assume it was higher cost because it was filmed in and around Los Angeles, and presumably the cost could have been kept down by filming in Georgia or some other place and really abusing the tax incentives.

 

I read one (maybe two) articles about this well-reviewed film. It just feels like a very successful and fully connected Hollywood actress woke up one morning and decided on a whim to direct a movie. She called her agent and had a 5 minute chat. A day later a script turned up. She read it, liked it and phoned her agent to say yes to directing it. Next she phoned her old pal who was given billions by her father (she didn’t earn her money on merit). By the end of that one social/business phone call she had three or four times the budget a film like this would normally have. She then cast connected child actors (one of them was a regular on a successful sitcom) and the sister of a famous actor. A year later she was being showered in media attention and accolades that most films never receive.

Once you read that privileged backstory you can’t help but have a perverse satisfaction when you hear that the film underperformed.

There is an indie vibe to it. A film like this would normally get made for circa $3 million, get a few nice reviews, get seen at one or two obscure festivals and then disappear until ten people notice it on Netflix.

It’s not logical but I can understand why some people (including me, and I have zero stakes in this film) find it amusing that it underperformed. It’s satisfying to see privileged people not get exactly what they want. I’ve often said that if you can’t get Spielberg on the phone within 24 hours then you should never dream of working in the film industry. Everyone involved in this film can probably get Spielberg on the phone within 24 hours (or less).

See also: Lena Dunham

 

I have no idea whether or not your scenario is correct, but I doubt it is. I see a lot of films (my wife sees a ton more) and we weren't familiar with most of these young actors. But a desire for schadenfreude is not enough for me to write off every potential director.

 

Movies where you can tell the actors and makers think they're the cutest and wittiest people who ever lived, just by watching the trailer, is not necessarily for me but I would have to leave a real opinion for when I see the movie. Which I never will.

 

I have no idea whether or not that's the case. All I know is I saw it, I thought it was hilarious and I recommend it to others.

 

I do not give a toss if Olivia Wilde is connected or privileged. She did a great job directing this film, something anybody knowing anything about film recognizes studying the pool scene that flows into the argument scene.

Using the logic above, we should be thrilled Citizen Kane underperformed, knowing how privileged lil’ Orson was.

I’m not the slightest bit interested in letting some silly wealth resentment affect my aesthetic judgments of any art. I honestly find the notion ridiculous.

Shalom, y’all!

L. Bangs

 

Yeah, every word of this says much more about you than it does the movie. Sorry things haven't worked out the way you expected.

 

I know diddly-squat about filmaking, but I can recognize how well done that scene was. I was squirming in my seat, it made me so uncomfortable. And in the middle of what was otherwise a silly comedy.

I think the final scene was done pretty well too.

 

This "secret little movie" enjoyed plenty of press and a wide domestic release in mover than 2,500 screens.

Not exactly an "obscure" little movie. Not a well attended movie, but certainly not an obscure movie, by any means.

If you are seeking out obscure little movies, attend a few film festival's.

Had this movie taken this route, then it would have certainly qualified for the obscure status deserving of it.

 

No, I don't think so. The production values are flawless, they just spent stupid money making a film festival type movie on a lavish budget.

If they spent half the budget that they did, then the movie would only have to make twice the amount of money that it has made, to be considered successful.