The auditorium showing the film was small, may well have been the smallest at the theater. I do not know the director's name and don't care - this story, the feud between the director and everyone in Hollywood is pretty pathetic. These people, whoever they are, wll allow a movie to sink because they so hate the director. They will allow the film to sink, yet they would prop up Moore and Capitalism, or Lions and Lambs. Boondock will easily make more than Lions and Lambs, relative to theaters it plays in and time it runs for, yet it is showing in about 65 theaters nation wide!! That at least is an improvement over the first film which appeared in a whopping 5 theaters.
Why? because it seems everyone hates the director/writer Troy Duffy. He seriously pissed off everyone in Hollywood single-handedly. So to take it out on him, his film will not be released in 1000 screens. Nooooo, release Lions and Lambs with Tom Cruise and let all 12 people go and see it, but lock out Boondock Saints and you are being manly-men and standing up to an egotistical director. I am impressed. It takes a lot to make a stand. All the grit and guts, and the defiance you muster to show you will not let a director push you around.
The theater was packed at 10:40 pm on a Friday night. Packed.
The theater at 7:45 was packed - how do I know? Because the seats all around still had sodas in the arm rests and popcorn bags on the floor. The cleaning was minimal and rarely happens unless a theater is overly packed, especially on a Friday. The theater could hold 350, and I am sure 275 people were there. X $11 =. Take that number and multiply it by 2 and that number by 65. That would make at least $500,000 on the first day in all the theaters. Forget any other showings and forget some theaters being bigger - let's just average it.
The first Boondock Saints made a whopping $30,000 in its total release.
The second Boondock cost approximately $8 million to produce. Imagine 10% of your cost in the first day - 2 shows only. Now imagine if this movie had been released on 1 screen in every major city in the US. It would have made more than Lions and Lambs in one showing, more than many films touted as great Hollywood pictures. And why? Because the film has a following, who are loyal thus far, and when a film is as well engineered as The Saints, it is no wonder.
Hollywood - Spiting nose and face and cutting off, and all that jazz.
It was a good film. Realistic - not really. Guys don't jump through greenhouse glass roofs and start shooting like their bullets have magnets drawing them to the bad guys, yet these two seem to do just that when they begin shooting. So what.
Day After Tomorrow - Realistic?
Asteroid, Meteor, Armageddon, Rocknrolla? Snatch? 2012?
Lions for Lambs? Only realistic if you are a liberal on acid.
Couples Retreat? Realistic? Not quite.
Law Abiding Citizen? Yeah, come on, get real.
The Invention of Lying? Please.
The HANGOVER? Nope. Not even close.
Love Happens? So far off, it was love didn't happen. It opened in 1898 theaters. A movie so bad, so moronic ... 1898 theaters. It cost $19 million to make and has grossed a whopping $22 million.
As opposed to Boondock Saints #1: 5 theaters at $36,000 and $7 million in DVD sales. Cost for Boondock was $6 million. Now, imagine if it had been released in 500 theaters. Relative gross figures versus cost would have far outstripped LOVE didn't HAPPENS.
Lions for Lambs - $35 million production costs, raked in a whopping $16 million. Ooooooh I am really impressed, but even more impressive is the number of theaters - 2,215 theaters!!! It was in the theaters for over 2.5 months and ended its run in 4 theaters (just one less than Boondock had for its entirety). Boondock ran for days in five theaters.
No wonder Hollywood doesn't want Boondock to do well. Same for Mel Gibson's 'Passion' - it allows comparisons - the massive fiascos they produce versus films by individuals like Duffy, who may well be the single most egotistical man on earth - so bloody what. He just joined the ranks of the actors and actresses in Hollywood, and the multitude of singers who regard themselves as divine.
Get over the need for realism. If you want reality, wake up and look in the mirror. This film has so many issues with realism - but then, for that matter Tarantino films all lack a reality check, yet are not savaged by Hollywood the way this film has been. Enjoy the film for what it is, very good. Would I give it an A, B, C, or D ... not a D for sure. And it isn't just average - that would be Lions and Lambs. Is it a B or a B+ or an A- or an A? I would say somewhere between a very high B+ (maybe 89) up to an A (maybe about 94). Worth the money you now must waste at the theater to see much worse.
There will be a number 3, and we will see Hollywood take an interest.
film
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments