This could very well put it as the worst wide opening for a film of all-time. I really don't understand why IFC decided to give this a wide release. Not only did they barely advertise it, but the material is too dark for a mainstream audience and the reviews weren't that good either (I wasn't crazy about it either). Either way, there's a good chance it will be gone from most theaters by next week.
shareI have clue why they gave it a wide release. There have been worse though - Transylmania several years ago (which made even less sense as a wide release).
This will definitely be one of the worst openings for a wide release though.
I think having jack black on board should of been a huge red flag that this wasn't going to go anywhere special
Humankind cannot bear very much reality
I was thinking about seeing it because I like Jack Black, but I've decided to wait to rent it. Out of curiosity, what's so dark about it (use spoiler tags, I don't mind)? I can certainly handle dark movies, I was just curious because I thought it was a comedy.
shareI'll tell you if you want, but I'd recommend you just wait to watch it because the twist is probably the best moment in the movie and I feel like the impact will be taken away if I spoil it because you really don't see it coming. I would say wait to rent it. There are some great things in it, but I felt like it needed a better director and script for it to fully take off.
shareWell said!
share dan (jack) is the class loser who has no friends, he's hired on the schools reunion commity cause nobody else wanted the job and dan creates the groups facebook page and keeps the password to himself there by hijacking the group and ensureing he doesn't kicked out of the group. which any person in their right mind would have kicked dan out and made a new page and knotifying everyone of what happened.
any way so establishing the fact jack has no friends he slings a web of lies and goes to L.A. parties with oliver (james) and ends up accidently in a coked out drunkin lapse of judgement has graphic sex with olivier. full on kissing and doggy style. james is the butch jack is the bitch. and dan becomes obsessed with and jealous of oliver becouse of all the attention he gets as the cool guy in the class and becouse of how insecure oliver is there was no talking out of the accidental sex that happened. so a web of lies turned into obession and jelousy when oliver agrees to retern to town and everyone wants to hang out with him leave dan where he was still a loser jerk who tells lies to make himself look cooler.
the film goes from being a comedy to being a drama and back. the laughs arn't that funny and situations are so cringe worthy they pull you out of the film not to like it.
I was shocked this got a wide release. The reviews out of Sundance did not make this movie seem like a contender at at all even though it was competition. There was some buzz about the one "scene" but it was not on any one's best of Sundance list, nor did the reviews help. Jack Black hasn't been a star for a long time and people are super annoyed whenever they see him, although I thought he was great in Bernie. This with little/no advertisement at all. What was IFC thinking? Same with Fox Searchlight about True Story and Lionsgate with Child 44. Must have money to burn. Should have been a limited release with VOD and call it a day.
shareI can understand with True Story and Child 44 got wide releases because they star some major actors and the plots are certainly accessible to a mainstream audiences. The main reason those films bombed was because both studios did an extremely poor job marketing them. Throw in the fact that they also did not get good reviews (Child 44 got straight up awful ones). I remember that Relativity cut back Child 44's release to moderate like a week beforehand and Fox Searchlight decided to give True Story a wide at the last minute as well.
The D Train on the other hand had no business receiving a wide release. The main reason being that this kind of film that's too dark and weird for it to appeal to a mainstream audience. It also didn't even get great reviews at Sundance which makes it all the more strange they decided to give it such a wide release. Jack Black and James Marsden are both good actors, but neither one of them have enough of a fanbase at the moment to bring in an audience. This should have honestly just been released on VOD/Very Limited where the niche audience for something like this can discover it.
I think True Story could have done decent business at the box office if it was marketed well. Even though the reviews were mixed, Franco and Hill are two very good actors who also have a lot of fans among mainstream moviegoing audiences. They should have given it a proper marketing campaign and released it in the fall when other crime dramas (Prisoners, etc.) have done well.
Unless it was an amazing movie with serious Oscar buzz, Child 44 in my opinion was not going to do well from the start. A 2 1/2 hour historical drama about a serial child killer in Soviet Russia is a very tough sell to mainstream audiences. I like Tom Hardy, but I don't think his name would have brought a lot of people in because he hasn't had a lot of large roles in mainstream films (movies like The Drop and Locke were more limited releases) besides playing Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. Now that's about to change very soon obviously with the release of Mad Max: Fury Road, but still.
I really do think that bad marketing is probably the biggest reason why some movies disappoint or bomb at the box office. The smaller studios like Lionsgate (with the exception of the Hunger Games and Divergent movies) and Relativity really don't tend to market their movies well if you ask me. The bigger studios tend to do a better job, but still a lot of trailers released these days look rather generic and bland, and some of them tend to show the whole movie in the trailer. Another thing they sometimes do is market sequels as looking almost identical to the original rather than carrying the story in an interesting new direction, which isn't a great strategy either: many people will be hesitant to pay theater prices for something that looks like an exact clone of the original, just with a "2" at the end of the title.
Child 44 has known actors, but none of them have opened a non-franchise movie. Lionsgate knew for a while they had a bomb on its hands, and chose to cut their losses with lack of promotion, which would not likely move the needle on such a dark movie they knew would be poorly received.
True Story had okay reviews coming out of Sundance, so they had a clue back in January that it was not going to be a big sell. Franco has been in some big movies, but he has not had much success at the box office lately and his other many, many, many recent projects have been getting bad reviews and no box office. Hill never opened a film on his own.
Both of those movies were conceived as Oscar bait that ultimately failed.
Maybe the distributors had to release it in the theatres... part of the contract.
shareIf I was the CEO or president of the distribution company, I would fire whoever made such a ridiculous deal. It was clear from Sundance reviews alone that this movie was not Oscar bait or was going to be mainstream, especially with these reviews. People buzzing about one scene does not make a good movie or a hit.
shareGuys. I worked on this film IT COST NOTHING! IT HAS ALREADY made its money back! actors worked for nothing and we made like Tier one working rate (lowest you can make on a union film!) Its in the black!
shareGood for you! I just saw it and I did like it, overall. Perhaps things felt a little too pat in the end, but it was very nuanced in how it approached male sexuality, which I can't say for most American films out there. And I did think all the actors did an excellent job.
shareI don't get it, how can it be in the black already??? Doesn't it cost a lot of money to distribute a movie in 1000 screens? Please explain, thanks.
shareI'd like to know, too. What was the production budget? How many shooting days? How much is 'Tier one working rate'? How many were on the crew? The actors were literally paid nothing?
The movie made $450,000 on the weekend -- a terrible average of $450 a theater.
The movie needed more advertisement. I did not see one commercial or trailer in theaters. I will go see it today. It is a disappointment that it flopped so badly. maybe it can do well on video. the subject matter may have played a part in it, but brokeback got buzz and made a lot of money.
shareThe only trailer I saw for it was before While We're Young. I did see commercials for it on T.V the week of release, but that's way too late in the game to start advertising a film.
shareIFC paid $3 million for the pic, so there is no way they are in the black. There were TV ads in my city, but I live in a top 10 city. Still, all that cost money. So does a wide distribution even if the movie was made on a shoe string budget. Some one has to take a loss.
sharekamikam the movie is still in the theaters. plus they could sell cable rights and i just got back from seeing it and i was the only person in the movie theater. maybe because it was the 9:50 showing on a school and work night. that was kinda sad. it really was not a bad movie. Their was not even that much sex if any. i don't understand why people are avoiding this movie. It has been 10 years since Brokeback and no major male love, or whatever you call it, movie has been at the movies since. shame. we need to support these movies.
shareThis
Was not
A gay
Movie
Just looked at the weekend numbers on BOM -- it was yanked from 847 theaters and made $15,800. $97 per theater. Total gross of $661,000. I feel bad for IFC, but not Mr Black.