MovieChat Forums > Beastly (2011) Discussion > definitely not a FLOP!

definitely not a FLOP!

posted 13 years ago by rajak1
22 replies | jump to latest

I know, the "haters" (especially the Alex Pettyfer haters) will hate to read this!

Fueled by young girls, Beastly is a much-needed boost for CBS Films, although the film will need good legs. A retelling of the classic fairy tale Beauty and the Beast, the film stars Vanessa Hudgens and Alex Pettyfer. More than 73% of Beastly's audience was female, while 36% were between the ages of 12 and 17.

Beastly drew a B+ CinemaScore, the highest of any of the new films.

source:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152398/board/edit/179327906

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KinksRock 13 years ago

Two thumbs down on Ebert's new show. Terrible review on NPR. It may make some money from the pre-teen crowd (and creepy middle-aged female fan crowd), but this smells like a flop to me. That's two flops in one month for Pettyfer. At what point do fangirls start to abandon this guy?

Hey, you dang woodchucks! Stop chucking my wood!

[–] domenici7 13 years ago

As anyone read the New York Times review? I seem to recall a 3 out of 5.

[–] verucasalt23-1 13 years ago

Out of 4.

[–] verucasalt23-1 13 years ago

Out of 4.

[–] rajak1 13 years ago

It may make some money from the pre-teen crowd (and creepy middle-aged female fan crowd)

How stupid is this? This movie is MADE for the pre-teen crowd and the creepy middle-aged female fan crowd, and if the movie attract this target audience, it is dumb to call it a flop!
In the end, only the turnover of this movie is important, and if this movie will reach the break-even turnover, it IS a success and all the so important reviews are just for the litter-bin.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] soujiro707 13 years ago

ya... because that demographic is known for their great taste in movies.

[–] verucasalt23-1 13 years ago

I'm sorry. So teen girls are stupid, and there should be no movies to appeal to them? Wouldn't children, who have less education, be even dumber? So no movies for them either, I suppose. So who's smart enough to rate a movie? Middle aged men? And what do they like? Action adventure? Will Ferell scewball comedies? Which, as we all know, are the pinnacle of sophistication. Let's make only those. Or we could just make Jane Eyre-type movies, which are definitely going to keep the studios in business.

How about it, soujiro, what kind of movies do meet with your approval? And what's your age/gender/race? We'll just put you in charge because I'm sure you know everything.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] soujiro707 13 years ago

There are crappy movies made for every demographic. Its not that hard to make a movie that will appeal to teenage girls that isn't bad like this one. The people making these movies realize how little effort they have to put forth since teenage girls are forgiving of most flaws. Most teenagers aren't looking for anything deep in their movies though so they eat up cliches and jokes that have been recycled to death with a jumbo sized spoon. As long as they get their schmaltzy romance/eye candy fix they are happy. I guess the same can be said for teenage boys and explosions/violence. I think its fine to enjoy that kind of throwaway entertainment but it also irritates me when I see so much laziness in almost every aspect of a movie. There isn't enough originality in Hollywood but there are still some filmmakers making children's movies that don't require your child to undergo a lobotomy. If the movie can be fun for the kid without boring the parent out of their mind that's a plus.

[–] rajak1 13 years ago

just check this:

http://www.allyoucanread.com/top-10-teen-magazines/

Oh wonder! No "Reader´s Digest" under the top 10!

The movie industrie, like the newspaper industry, just delivers what´s demanded!

What do you think, how would a middle-aged critic rate the "American Cheerleader Magazine"?

[–] Lady_Misfit 13 years ago

I have to agree with soujiro707. It's one thing to have a defined target audience. It's another to take advantage of them by creating a lazy, poorly written, and otherwise worthless movie that packs little if any moral punch. It's a disgraceful and ill-conceived take on a classic fable. BEASTLY is eye candy for a preteen demographic with lackluster performances and completely unbelievable plot line scenarios. For those who are convinced that it's the movie for them, please read my full review and heed my warning before spending your money on tickets and the gas to get there.
http://lostinreviews.com/2011/03/beastly/

Rachael
Staff Writer
LostInReviews.com
http://twitter.com/rachael_c_e

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HentaiGuy42 13 years ago

Well, it made 9.8 million dollars on opening weekend. The production budget was around 17 million, which means the cost including P&A was at least 25.5 million (although it was most likely more).

As of right now it could go either way, if this week's box office returns are kind the movie may be a financial success. However, it isn't out of the woods yet, and it is still easily possible for it to be a domestic flop.

[–] verucasalt23-1 13 years ago

Except it's also opening in a ton of foreign markets. If it makes back its nut in the US, it will be profitable.

[–] HentaiGuy42 13 years ago

Worldwide: $27,328,306

I think that qualifies as a financial failure, perhaps not as big as predicted, but still a weak showing.

[–] info-2727 13 years ago

It has already made a profit and is doing exceedingly well. It pre-sold some markets for what it cost to make the film so what it has made in north america is ALL profit AND it hasn't even opened in europe. It is actually a highly successful film.

[–] verucasalt23-1 13 years ago

The real question -- good enough for a sequel? I read on the author's blog she's done a companion novel, about Kendra, that's coming out next year sometime. No details yet, though.

[–] Miss-marleyFabulous 12 years ago

It was a fabulous movie.

[–] norman-dostal 8 years ago

Nope. It didn't do well. Double the production budget to get cost that includes marketing. It cost about 30 million and only made 27 (hint- flop)

[–] norman-dostal 8 years ago

Oops! Made 43 million so made about ten million. Still not great.