a pro script reader ponders movies, reading, writing and the occasional personal flashback

Friday, February 08, 2008

Weekend Box Office #70

A couple of wide releases this weekend, which will likely finish 1-2, despite the fact that both got pretty bad reviews in today's LA Times.

FOOL'S GOLD (3125 theaters). Apparently it's a pale version of "Romancing the Stone", but the romance-adventure stuff will pull in guys and girls. $20.7 million.

WELCOME HOME ROSCOE JENKINS (2385 theaters). Unenthusiastic critical response so far, but since when has that mattered for a Martin Larence movie? $19.6 million.

VINCE VAUGHN'S WILD WEST COMEDY SHOW (962 theaters). This is supposed to be a solid documentary/stand-up film, but with four unknown comics, it's hard to imagine it doing all that much. $2.9 million.

Opening in only 28 screens is IN BRUGES, which is supposed to be amusing.


At 8:40 AM, Blogger Emily Blake said...

The Creative Screenwriting screening of In Bruges last weekend filled up in like three seconds.

I think I might go see it this weekend.

At 11:37 AM, Blogger Matt said...

I cringe when I watch the previews for Fools Gold and the Martin Lawrence movie (nothing new there). So of course they'll do well.

At 12:29 PM, Blogger Allen said...

saw bruges at that creative screenwriting thing. the crowd ate it up. I thought it was funny and entertaining, but a little violent.

At 5:33 PM, Blogger E.C. Henry said...

Saw the trailer for "In Bruges" while seeing "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood," thought it totally sucked. Supriced to hear fellow bloggers saying nice things about it, and the Seattle Times gave it a good review too. Still, I'm gunna skip it.

Reuniting the dynamite pairing of Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson in a new romantic comedy (they were BRILLIANT together in "How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days") LOOKS like a slam dunk. Unfortuantely, STORY still matters, and on that front "Fools Gold" looks like fits the bill of the 1st hald of its name. Will see it when it's out on video. WIll only see in theatre if conviced it's a must see by someone I respect. We'll see...

Based on the trailer I saw for "Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins," I thought the show would be hillarious, but the Seattle Times review burried it.

Does anyone else view "Vince Vaughn's Wild West Show" with trepidation? The TV series "Senfeld" was BRILLIANT, but Jerry Sinfeld's, "The Comic" (or some shit title like that) was a bomb. In my mind's eye, Vince Vaughn's show IS Jerry Sinfeld's movie three years later.

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

At 9:58 PM, Blogger Patrick J. Rodio said...

EC - You kill me with every word you tipe. Love ya, buddy.

I actually thought the trailer looked pretty smart, and they've got a helluva cast. Colin is supposed to be quite good in it, and Fiennes looks like he's having fun.

My guesses:
Roscoe - 23 million
Fool - 18 million
Wild West - 2 million

And Hannah will likely do another 18-20.

At 1:51 AM, Blogger Matt said...

The word "brilliant" being used in the same sentence as "How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days" sends shivers down my spine.

At 10:04 AM, Blogger E.C. Henry said...


"How To Loose a Guy in 10 Days" IS a brilliant film on multiple levels: witty dialog, GREAT support buddys both masculine and feminine, GREAT performances by both romantic leads, oddball premice executed with diverse scenes plotted well to toggle inbetween drama, comedy, and romance fluidly. Think you can pen a better romantic comedy that "How To Loose a Guy in 10 Days", Matt? Well, if you could, hot shot, I'd pay to see it.

Matt, your negative comment regaurding me just commenting on "How To Loose a Guy in 10 Days" makes me think you don't like romantic comedies in general. Which is understandible; a lot of guys get sqeemish when comes to intamacy in romantic, boy-girl context. Your bend is probably geared towards a different genre.


Entertaining you is what it's all about, isn't it? This performing monkey is glad to be of service!

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

At 10:53 AM, Blogger Matt said...


Couldn't disagree with you more, but I hope you weren't taking it as a personal attack. I just hated that movie. Hated it. And no, I like a lot of romantic comedies, although there haven't been many in the last few years that I've liked. For example, I love When Harry Met Sally, Annie Hall, Sleepless in Seattle. I even think You've got Mail is pretty fun. Name some more recent examples and I'll tell you if I like them.

As for me writing a better romantic comedy, we'll see. It would have to come to me naturally, but if it did, I could do better than that nonsense of a movie. Although maybe the script was good before the Hollywood machine got around to "fixing" it.

By the way, I write in all genres. Just haven't hit the old RC at this time.

At 2:56 PM, Anonymous Frank Bullitt said...

That was a remarkable satire of somebody actually attempting to defend How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, which was of course one of the single worst romantic comedies released during the past ten years. You have to be extremely knowledgeable in that genre to pretend to express that sort of opinion in such a detailed way.

In Bruges is fantastic, easily the surprise of the season.

At 3:42 PM, Blogger Matt said...


I forgot one other thing. Even if I oculdn't do better than Lose a Guy, I still have the right to label it a bag of s--t. Could you write a better gangster script than In Bruges? Somehow I doubt it, as the writer of that film is an award winning playwright.

At 3:56 PM, Blogger Patrick J. Rodio said...

Man, it's getting tense in here.

Regardless, the fucking strike is over! Yay!

At 4:21 PM, Blogger Scott the Reader said...

Hopefully it's over. But nothing is official yet. No vote has been taken by the WGA members yet (right now, it's about 4:20 PM Saturday, west coast time).

I think they'll push it through and get it done, but apparently there are still some concerns about it.

I guess we'll know in the next few days.

I'd weigh in on How To Lose a Guy In 10 Days, but I didn't see it. Because life is too short.

At 5:26 PM, Blogger E.C. Henry said...


"How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days" is New York movie, given your background I'm supriced to hear you have yet to see it.

IF you do rent the "How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days" check out the extras section where producer Christine Peters is featured. Where she she go the initial idea, for what late became a movie is mind blowing. Producers can be creative too!

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

At 8:51 PM, Blogger Patrick J. Rodio said...

They'll vote and push it through tonight and be at work on Monday.
They don't want this going on any longer.

Also, EC - It's "surprised."

Plus, why all the "How To Lose A Guy" chatter? It's a barely passable, very typical rom-com. Once you know the premise it writes itself.

"Brilliant?" No. I mean, it's an ok date flick, and if you want to see a formula romantic comedy, by all means. But it's nothing at all new, and made $$ a few years ago because Matt & Kate Hudson had some chemstry.

Actually, I just re-read the post: EC originally wrote that Kate & Matt were brilliant, not the movie, but then defended it as brilliant. Regardless, if you liked it that's totally fine, but brilliant in any respect it ain't.

Not to pick on EC (oh well) but you mentioned that you saw the trailer for In Bruges, heard all of the bloggers raving about it, plus a great review in your local rag, and then go on to say it looks like it looks like it sucks.
If it's not your cup of tea, just say that.

Here's what fellow bloggers know of your opinions:

There Will Be Blood - a "Lemon"
In Bruges - "Sucks"
How To Lose A Guy - "Brilliant."

At 12:18 AM, Blogger Emily Blake said...

Matt - lookit, we agree.

And you in this argument was me in the Lions for Lambs debate. Not personal, just honest.

At 3:05 AM, Blogger Matt said...



But we agree a lot. I probably just don't comment when I agree with you.


At 6:23 AM, Blogger E.C. Henry said...


I can't believe you wrote, "Once you know the premise (for "How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days") it writes itself." Then later, "But it's nothing at all new, and made $$ a few years ago because Matt & Kate Hudson had some chemstry."

Dude, you like totally disrepected the writers for that script in saying those things.

First of all, no two writers are ever going to write the same thing given the same high concept.

Second even if you like the chemistry between two characters in any story realize it took a writer to set that chemistry up to work in the first place.

In order for you to gain some respect for how hard it is to write a good romantic comedy, and a construct that works, I suggest you read Billy Mernit's book, "Writing the Romantic Comedy." In it Billy has a WHOLE SECTION dedicated to character chemistry, in which the he explains how it's the writers job to facilitate the lead's chemistry in a romantic comedy -- casting can't make up for a bad script.

Ending on a happy note, I am pleased to read that your charting my likes and disslikes. Warm fuzzy to you!

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

At 10:55 AM, Blogger Matt said...


I think what you're not quite getting is that none of us believe How to LOSE a Guy is any good. So why would we pay great respect to the screenwriters? It was a cookie cutter premise, poorly executed.

For me, it was painful to sit through. The girl I was with at the time also hated it, but we saw it at the dollar theater, so we didn't want to harm ourselves too badly afterward.

At 12:53 PM, Anonymous Frank Bullitt said...

How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days is an unfunny, contrived, overlong piece of hackery without a single creditable or believable moment in its entire 115 minutes. It's also not a real New York movie, since most of it was shot on the cheap up in Toronto. I also think it's safe to say that any romantic comedy made in the twenty-first century featuring a lead character who works in advertising can automatically be discounted as creatively bankrupt.

Of course, I assume we're not talking about a movie that really is called "How to Loose a Guy". Kids need to be taught the joys of correct spelling.

At 3:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Michael Clayton sucked, though.

At 8:54 PM, Blogger Patrick J. Rodio said...

EC - Please don't suggest that I read anything. I went to film school, made several films (features & shorts), have written dozens of scripts. Now I'm certainly no expert, but I do know a thing or two about his writing thing.

Also, FYI - First script I ever had optioned - A romantic comedy.

Now, that doesn't make me anything, but my whole point was that the ONLY thing that got people in the theater when that came out was Matt & Kate, NOT the WRITING. They have been plenty of movies with GREAT writing but had actors with ZERO chemistry.

If you think a movie was poorly written, why not bash the writers? They wrote it!

Also, you said "casting can't make up for a bad script." It happens every day, buddy.

At 6:20 PM, Blogger E.C. Henry said...


Thanks for the added information about yourself. I had no idea you've had scripts you've written optioned before. A romantic comedy no less, I'm impressed

Congratulations, step aside Steve Largent, Patrick Rodio is my new hero!

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

At 9:51 PM, Blogger Patrick J. Rodio said...

EC - I guess I'm just questioning your use of the word. They are plenty of great romantic comedies, I'd say My Best Friend's Wedding, 4 Weddings & A Funeral, Harry/Sally, Just Friends. To me, they are at least a little less formulaic, or, at least you can't tell you're being spoon fed.


Post a Comment

<< Home