free counter with statistics Box Office Results August 2, 2009 | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

seth-rogen-01.jpg
You Hear the One About Rogen's Penis? Of Course You Have


The Weekend Box-Office Round-Up / Dustin Rowles

Box Office Round-Ups | August 2, 2009 | Comments (28)


Why is it that only guys like Seth Rogen like to talk about their penis incessantly? Eric Bana doesn’t refer to his penis all the time; I’ve never heard Ryan Reynolds or Nathan Fillion or Viggo Mortenson or Tom Hanks talk obsessively about their members. But Rogen can’t seem to stop; everything the man says seems to pertain to his dick.

Funny People fell flat over the weekend, pulling in only $23.5 million at the box office, which was more than $6 million behind Knocked Up’s opening weekend (and the latter had a lot more legs than Funny People seems to be displaying). It was another instance, like Bruno, where the numbers actually fell off from Friday to Saturday, which suggests poor word of mouth. That’s also the raw power of a Daniel Carlson review; he can single handedly destroy a movie’s box-office numbers. (I also liked Josh Tyler’s description of Funny People: It’s “Entourage” with cancer.). Two summers ago, it was Apatow’s world. Unfortunately, he lent his name to too many underwhelming projects and diluted the Apatow brand. But that wasn’t really the problem with Funny People, was it? The problem was: It was full of funny people, but they weren’t saying anything particularly funny. Unless you like to hear about Seth Rogen’s schlong. Seriously, the guy’s dick should’ve gotten top billing.

I miss bearded, portly, Jewfro Rogen.

It was a fairly modest weekend at the box-office overall. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince reclaimed second place, barely edging out G-Force, which held the top spot last week. Half-Blood Prince has now made $255 million ($659 million worldwide), and talk of it crossing the $1 billion mark worldwide has died down. G-Force added another $17 million to push it’s tally to $66 million, But with no formidable kiddie flicks due to arrive in theaters until Shorts on the 21st, it should eventually score $100 million, thus guaranteeing a sequel. Maybe they can do a crossover movie with Beverly Hills Chihuahua and the rodents can slowly gnaw themselves to death.

Speaking of kiddie flicks, Aliens in the Attic debuted at number five, with a tepid $7.8 million, which doesn’t speak well for Ashley Tisdale’s future career. Katherine Heigl’s The Ugly Truth, meanwhile, slipped over 50 percent, to gross another $13 million, pushing it’s total to $54 million. It should end up somewhere in the same vicinity as the $75 million of 27 Dresses. And with The Proposal approaching $150 million now, nothing looks to unseat it as the biggest romantic comedy in years. In fact, get this: Five million more dollars, and it will supplant Sex and the City for sixth biggest romantic comedy of all time.

Also of note: Nobody bothered with The Collector. It landed at number 11 in its opening weekend, scoring a measly $3.5 million, barely edging out (500) Days of Summer despite having five times more theaters (and the site was also number one all weekend on Google for “The Collector Review,” so I got to enjoy criticism from old and new readers alike!).

Now that it’s playing in 266 theaters, it’s more fair to compare (500) Days of Summer’s per theater averages with wider releases, and iwth $10,000 per screen, it had the best per theater average among the top 30 movies of the week. There were three other modest indie hits this week, too: Adam, The Cove and Thirst. Prisco will have reviews of all three over the next few days, starting today with Adam.

Overall, the summer box-office season — which began with so much promise (Star Trek and The Hangover) has now fallen behind last summer’s total take, though year over year, it’s now competing with The Dark Knight’s massive 2008. It’s hardly fair, and don’t expect G.I. Joe to reverse the trend.

And speaking of G.I. Joe, a few early reviews surfaced last week, and most of them have been positive. However, there is a caveat. Obviously, I don’t want to say that the movie blows before we judge it for ourselves, but do note that only a select few critics were invited to early screenings and it looks as though they were largely cherry-picked from review sites with a fanboy reputation (many of which had also given Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen positive reviews). It’s not to say that the reviews are not accurate, but you have to question the studio’s motives for selecting the critics they did. It also provides another reminder of why we don’t play the advanced screening game — there is a certain amount of politics involved. Plus, when you’re paying for a movie ticket yourself, I really feel like reviews are a little more honest than when they come from critics who not only get to see the movie for free, but are usually seated with more receptive audiences (people who received tickets from the studio, won them from radio shows, etc.) Devin Faraci, over on CHUD — who gave the movie a positive review — also noted, “People who didn’t get invited to early GI JOE screenings will likely give it bad reviews,” as though suggesting they might feel bitter for not having been invited. But wouldn’t the opposite reaction be in play, as well? Critics who were invited might have felt flattered by the selection, and that flattery might have worked itself into the review.

In either respect, I’m reminded again of why we don’t do advanced screenings.

Here are your top five movies for the weekend:

1. Funny People ($23.5 million)

2. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince ($17.7 million; $255 million)

3. G-Force ($17 million; $66 million)

4. The Ugly Truth ($13 million; $54 million)

5. Aliens in the Attic ($7.8 million)


Funny People Review | A Spot of Bother by Mark Haddon



Comments

11th? Ouch, a devastating blow to torture-porn's sack. Well played America.

Posted by: Shaun at August 3, 2009 12:06 AM

my mind wandered while reading that first paragraph.

there's uh, a certain scene in eastern promises i have to go watch.
2.38 times.
including clean-up.

Posted by: gp at August 3, 2009 12:07 AM

I maintain that Funny People was an awesome film. I was extremely impressed with it, and no one I've talked to offline was not a fan of it. I seriously don't get some of the criticism that people are leveling at this movie. I wonder if some critics even watched the whole movie. Not the people here, I trust Pajiba over most movie sites, but jeez.

Posted by: Christian H. at August 3, 2009 12:32 AM

I think a lot of people, including me, saw the trailers and some of the viral marketing which presented the movie as a straight-up comedy.
Had I not read the reviews and comments, I would have gone to see it expecting it be just that.
It was an underhanded way to lure people in to the theater; once they saw the movie, they were diappointed and pissed off that it wasn't the comedy they had been promised and gave the movie some very bad word of mouth.
I've not seen it (though I probably will) so I have nothing to say about it yet but, thanks to Pajiba, I will know what to expect.

Posted by: Spender at August 3, 2009 1:18 AM

I got to see (500) Days of Summer this weekend in a full theater. The movie was made even more delightful by being seated by a group of 60-year-old women who laughed hysterically the whole time. This movie is going places.

Posted by: kelsy at August 3, 2009 1:47 AM

Couldn't agree more, Christian. It was a damn good movie, but it's not a money-maker. I knew it would probably do well, but it won't upstage Knocked Up.

And before you go complaining about Seth Rogen. Go watch a Ben Stiller movie, after that, watch a series of films with Larry the Cable Guy, Dane Cook, Pauly Shore, and a double feature of Dan Fogler and post 2000 Eddie Murphy (excluding Shrek).

If you still complain about Rogen after that, have your head examined with an electric drill.

Posted by: George at August 3, 2009 2:44 AM

Other things being shit shouldn't be an excuse to accept other things sucking as well.

Posted by: John Darc at August 3, 2009 4:10 AM

About Funny People...

Sure, the viral campaign showed that it was comedic.. but it also had DEATH labeled all over it.

And no one can say that they were able to miss out on all the late night and day time press junk-it interviews. Judd and Seth were even on THE VIEW! At every interview, they made sure to say "THIS IS DRAMATIC AND FUNNY". I see the movie as a drama piece ... A serious issue happening to funny people...

Posted by: higglypiggly at August 3, 2009 4:30 AM

Because, obviously, Rogen has a short dick. If Michael Bay is swinging 2 inches of lumber, Rogen might be swinging 2.5. A guy with a normal dick doesn't bother thinking about it all the time. A guy with a big dick is always looking for an excuse to whip it out, but a dude with a short dick is obsessed by it. His need to compensate drives his every decision. I bet Dick Cheney jerks off with a pair of tweezers.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at August 3, 2009 7:07 AM

Kinda feel bad for those tweezers...

Posted by: slim at August 3, 2009 8:21 AM

I bet Dick Cheney jerks off with a pair of tweezers.

I hate to do this, I really do. But in the spirit of accuracy:

http://tinyurl.com/3wcj5

I'm very, very sorry.

Posted by: sansho1 at August 3, 2009 9:10 AM

God, that Collector thread just got funnier and funnier, and now I know why.

Posted by: Vermillion at August 3, 2009 9:22 AM

I just realized that the "comments" on the Collector review are pretty much the same for Tyler' Perry reviews.

if Tyler Perry ever makes a horror movie, this place is going to be gold-plated platinum.

Posted by: Vermillion at August 3, 2009 9:26 AM

if Tyler Perry ever makes a horror movie, this place is going to be gold-plated platinum.

Posted by: Vermillion at August 3, 2009 9:26 AM
_____________________

Title?
"Meet Madea's Honky Machete"

Posted by: Kballs at August 3, 2009 10:01 AM

I’ll tell ya something, I didn’t know anything about Judd Apatow until I looked up his resume. Wow! I’m surprised he’s not mentioned in the same sentence as Scorsese, or David Mamet, or Sydney Lumet. I mean the guy did “ The 40 Year Old Virgin” and “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story” for Christ sake. Hollywood is indeed a cruel mistress.

Posted by: Guess Who! at August 3, 2009 10:12 AM

Ack! my eyes! ...according to that incredulous image sent by sansho1, an 18" pipe wrench is more fitting (given the implied girth).

Posted by: slim at August 3, 2009 10:32 AM

The Apatow/Rogen fad is past its due date already, the next big Rogen bomb will be that Green Hornet bullshit.

I see him doing a crappy CBS sitcom in no less than 4 years.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at August 3, 2009 10:51 AM

4 years my ass, that motherfucker is trying to pitch some shit as we speak.

Posted by: Guess Who! at August 3, 2009 11:08 AM

Exhibit A:

"And speaking of G.I. Joe, a few early reviews surfaced last week, and most of them have been positive. However, there is a caveat. Obviously, I don’t want to say that the movie blows before we judge it for ourselves, but do note that only a select few critics were invited to early screenings and it looks as though they were largely cherry-picked from review sites with a fanboy reputation (many of which had also given Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen positive reviews). It’s not to say that the reviews are not accurate, but you have to question the studio’s motives for selecting the critics they did. It also provides another reminder of why we don’t play the advanced screening game — there is a certain amount of politics involved. Plus, when you’re paying for a movie ticket yourself, I really feel like reviews are a little more honest than when they come from critics who not only get to see the movie for free, but are usually seated with more receptive audiences (people who received tickets from the studio, won them from radio shows, etc.) Devin Faraci, over on CHUD — who gave the movie a positive review — also noted, “People who didn’t get invited to early GI JOE screenings will likely give it bad reviews,” as though suggesting they might feel bitter for not having been invited. But wouldn’t the opposite reaction be in play, as well? Critics who were invited might have felt flattered by the selection, and that flattery might have worked itself into the review.

In either respect, I’m reminded again of why we don’t do advanced screenings."


This, ladies and gentlemen, is a whole lot of waffle trying to cover the fact that (an admittedly) snarky site like Pajiba, after spending months and months trashing GI Joe before seeing it, has now discovered/come to the uncomfortable realization that maybe, just maybe, someone, somewhere counted a few too many chickens.

Turns out that it may not be so bad (in all honesty, though, it probably won't be great).

Just admit it. It's probably going to be nowhere near as bad as you "guaranteed" it would be. You may find you were *gasp* a little too snarky/bitchy this time...?

Posted by: boogs at August 3, 2009 11:57 AM

I see the movie as a drama piece ... A serious issue happening to funny people...

Posted by: higglypiggly at August 3, 2009 4:30 AM

That's pretty much what I said over on the Funny People thread. The problem is that it doesn't do a tremendous job of either: it takes itself seriously enough that the comedy simply serves as a foil, but the drama is fairly lightweight (verging on maudlin). It's like taking speed and xanax at the same time -- you just wind up kind of edgy and flat.

Posted by: Che Grovera at August 3, 2009 11:58 AM

Blow it out your ass "boogs" all I see is you making incorrect extrapolations.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at August 3, 2009 12:56 PM

So Boogs, having the director fired after what the studio labled as one of the worst screenings they're ever had, that's the mark of good movie? Even an ok movie? I don't think so.

If they've managed to polish that turd into something at least shiny enough to sate the temporary lust of fanboys, good for them. That doesn't mean the movie doesn't deserve all the acid worded venom that the internet has to offer.

Posted by: Stacynotstacey at August 3, 2009 1:31 PM

That was a very intelligent response B’Slim, why not just tell the guy to kiss your ass? You people here at pajiba are so insular.

Posted by: Guess Who! at August 3, 2009 1:31 PM

I've been coming to this site for years and I still don't get you Dustin. You had some similar comments about Bruno when its first trailer came out (something to the effect of "I GUESS dick jokes are funny"). Now Rogen has too many dick jokes for you. You do realize that every 3rd review you write is exactly the same and consists of jokes like "anus brain", "pube breath" and "Michael Bay has a mircoscopic penis"? You're lucky we haven't gotten sick of your brand of humor so don't try to make me feel bad for laughing at a fresh batch of dick jokes from Rogen and Jonah.

Posted by: Handel at August 3, 2009 1:51 PM

I wonder when actors and directors like Seth Rogen and Judd Apatow will learn about the law of diminishing returns?

When you make and or star in a movie that's similar to your last movie and your basically playing the same character people will stop going to see it.

Seth Rogen is following the same pattern of Ben Stiller, Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell, Jim Carrey and a host of others playing the same character over and over again.

Posted by: John W at August 3, 2009 3:09 PM

seth rogen is a visual disaster. he is bad looking, overweight and unkempt. worst of
all he is also untalented. he is a one trick
pony who doesn't have the ability to be any-
thing but an unsightly mess. apatow has been vastly overrated
( where dan finds depth and profound meaning in the losers that populate " the 40 year old virgin " and " knocked up " is a mystery) and
if he continues to cast rogen, this fad will quickly pass.

Posted by: snake at August 3, 2009 3:39 PM

"
Seth Rogen is following the same pattern of Ben Stiller, Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell, Jim Carrey and a host of others playing the same character over and over again.
Posted by: John W at August 3, 2009 3:09 PM"

I actually think that Seth played a different character than what he normally plays. He's usually playing a pot-smoking slacker who sits around and plays video games and has sex with girls (I touched on Pineapple Express, 40 year old virgin, and knocked up), and now with this movie, I think he does a good job of playing a starry-eyed idealistic 20-something trying to make it big. I've never seen him do a 'puppy-dog face' as much as I've seen him do it in this movie. He maybe referenced pot once, and he didn't have confidence with women in this role either. He played a much more emotive and reach-for-the-stars role than the previous where he sits around and waits for life to come to him.

Posted by: higglypiggly at August 4, 2009 12:39 PM

Hey, anyone ever stop to think about how the long suffering G.I. Joe fans feel? I knew Hollywood was gonna have an unlubricated knife party with my childhood's virgin ass, and I fully expect to cry and go out and get drunk after seeing this. Hopefully my subterranean expectations(and the flask of The Glenlivet I'll be needing to smuggle in) will make for a more enjoyable film experience.

But you know what, that needleprick di Bonaventura might have called it right that I'll be going to see the movie, but I won't be seeing if for him, Hollywood, or that dancing pantywaist marketing got to play that NASCAR-loving, professional rasslin' watching, icon of Midwestern dirt state White America pandering, Mighty Whitey Duke.

I'm not even seeing because I think it'll be good.

I'll be seeing it for my lifetime love of G.I. Joe, and for the hopes of more toys.


Posted by: AmbroseKalifornia at August 5, 2009 2:04 PM