Posts by Rachel Hall29

Sean Bailey75 said:If we can get back to the main topic here, I happened to stumble upon a movie called Nightfall on YouTube. Honestly, I didn't see it in theaters, nor had I even heard a peep about it before. What's the deal with this one? What kind of flick is it actually?

"Halo: Nightfall" isn't even a movie—it's a series consisting of five half-hour episodes based on an Xbox game. I haven't sat through it myself, but from what I've read, the reviews have been absolutely brutal.

Austin Rodriguez5 said:A few years back, I happened to stumble upon this documentary while flipping through the channels on an American network, and it completely hooked me. The documentary was absolutely phenomenal. If I recall correctly, it even picked up an Oscar.

Yeah, "Man on Wire" took home the Oscar for Best Documentary back in 2009.

Rebecca Peterson3 said:Casey Cox2, you've got a point there—'Citizen X' really is a perfect fit.

A serial killer, Russia, naked boys, train stations, locomotives... those references are certainly just "passing mentions," aren't they? 🍿

It’s a bit like having a protagonist who is an Iranian mobster and deciding to name him Khomeini... quite pathetic and rather low-brow, really.

The killer shares a name with Andrew, just like how Ted Bundy did, and both of them were running their operations around the Rostov area. In both the book and real life, the police basically scapegoated some dim-witted kid just to make themselves look efficient. It’s classic. One of the investigators actually ended up breaking all the official protocols and "rules of the service" just to hunt down the actual culprit.

What a coincidence.

briskhound2 said:Honestly, that specific year is huge in the book, but in the movie? It’s totally irrelevant. And that’s basically the whole issue here... all those subtle nuances from the novel that made it such a massive bestseller were just stripped away. You lose the impact of Stalin's death, the way those intelligence agencies actually functioned, the shift in power... they even tossed out the most important part of the hunt for the serial killer—the fact that he’s actually Lav Demidov’s brother. By simplifying everything like this, they turned it into this bland, textbook-perfect production that lacks any real soul. There’s no critique of the old Soviet system—it could have been set anywhere at this point—and it fails as a psychological thriller because the killer's motives and the actual chase are reduced to a few uninspiring scenes. It makes sense why the movie bombed. It doesn't offer anything fresh, and everything else about it is just... banal and monotonous.

I thought the book was decent enough (though, for the record, I always felt it leaned a bit too heavy on the melodrama at times) until the plotline involving his brother started falling apart toward the end. Once that happens, the whole thing goes off the rails. Instead of a gripping story about Ted Bundy, the ending just feels incredibly cheap.
The movie, however, completely trashed even the good parts of the book. Honestly, as soon as I saw how the characters spoke in the trailer, I knew this wasn't going to be any good. Unfortunately, the film ended up being even worse than my low expectations.

You have to give that duo credit for one thing: sheer, unadulterated consistency. I mean, every single movie they put out is absolute garbage, but hey, at least they stick to their guns and keep churning out the same brand of nonsense. I’m practically counting down the days until their next "masterpiece," *Who The Fuck Took my Daughter*, which is supposedly their take on *Taken*. Not.

Looks pretty damn shitty, honestly, just like everyone expected.

Kate Martin9 said:Is it actually possible for a movie to flop that hard? I was planning on catching it at AMC Theatres, but I just couldn't make the timing work. Now I'm just sitting here impatiently waiting for a decent torrent to pop up online.

Honestly, it’s one of the biggest disasters we’ve seen lately. To even break even, they needed to pull in over $100 million, but instead, they barely scraped together $3 million at the box office. 🤦
I have a feeling any sequels they had in the works are officially dead in the water.

Elizabeth Myers2 said:he knocked me up 🙂

Anyway, the old man is 86 years old.☕

cosmiclynx57 said:Look, I wouldn't ask him anything. I'm not even a fan.

Well, you could at least ask him if he can lend you a hundred bucks.

Alexander, seriously... who on earth gave you a name like that?

Frank Moore4 said:You clearly don't get sarcasm or how to take a joke, do you, Alexander Howard79? 🤣

Just kidding. People in science don't really have a sense of humor.
Kind of like those generals I've run into before.

Frank Moore4 said:They're already filming a series about "Steve Jobs" called Silicon Valley. 😬

Look, Silicon Valley has been running for almost two seasons now, and let me tell you, it has absolutely nothing to do with Steve Jobs.

briskhound2 said:Honestly, yeah, those numbers are pretty pathetic. When you're dropping $100 million on a sequel, anyone with half a brain would realize that kind of return just isn't worth the investment. I mean, even much bigger franchises have tanked because they couldn't pull numbers like that.

Look, if you spend $70 million and manage to flip it for $90 or $100 million, that’s actually a decent win. The problem isn't the profit margin itself; the problem is that you were dreaming of hitting a $300 million payday and realized you completely misread the room.

Maybe they can try the Google formula again, but this time without the massive competition they faced with White House Down (which, let's be real, performed way worse). If they can somehow get New York City to break even, I wouldn't be surprised if the next installment tries to be some kind of "Washington Has Fallen" style epic, especially since China has become such a massive driver for the box office.

briskhound2 said:So, you're telling me that the $100 million this movie pulled in isn't actually profit, yet they’re already greenlighting a sequel... why exactly? Just to lose money all over again? Look, I get it—it feels pretty gross when a total bottom-of-the-barrel project suddenly becomes a massive hit. But honestly, folks, if the movie hadn't turned a profit, they wouldn't be throwing more cash at a second installment. It’s just basic math.

Of course they wouldn't make a sequel if the first one flopped, but we aren't talking about massive blockbuster numbers here. Making $20-30 million on a flick like this is actually a decent result.

You want to know what the real money-makers are lately? Low-budget horror movies. They cost next to nothing to produce, they have a die-hard fanbase, so it's not a huge disaster if they tank, but if they land well, the profit margins are insane. For example:
Warner Bros. - budget 20, gross box office 318 mil.$
Annabelle - budget 6.5 mil - gross b.o. 255 mil.
Ouija - budget 5 mil. - gross b.o. 103 mil.

briskhound2 said:So you're telling me 140 million went into just one movie? Like, just covering production costs? That would mean Marvel needs to pull in something like 3 billion just to see a tiny bit of profit. If the budget was 70 million—and I think I read somewhere they dumped another 2 or 3 million into marketing—then we're looking at a minimum of 80 million total. Even if we say it made 70 million back, once you factor in the DVD and Blu-ray sales, which added another 34 million, the movie basically cleared a hundred million no matter how you slice it. Which, honestly, isn't a bad haul.

Look, when you look at what a movie pulls in at the US box office, the studio usually only sees about 50-55%. When it comes to worldwide distribution—meaning everything outside the US and Canada—the studio's cut drops to somewhere between 35-55%, depending on the territory. It’s a tough pill for producers to swallow, but theater owners aren't running charities here; they take a massive bite out of the pie. As a rule of thumb, if a movie costs 50 million to make, it needs to hit at least 100 million just to break even. So, in the most optimistic scenario, Google's profit was probably sitting around 20 million.
Marvel isn't exactly the best comparison to use here because the first installment had a 220 million budget and pulled in 1.5 billion worldwide—which means they cleared over a billion in pure profit—and the sequel is likely headed for the same success.
Of course, you also have to account for the money from DVDs, Blu-rays, VOD, and TV licensing, though physical media sales are shrinking fast. Nowadays, it's mostly animated films and massive blockbusters that still make real bank from those formats.

briskhound2 said:Look, if a movie pulls in $90 million after a $70 million budget, you call that a success any day of the week. Sure, it’s not exactly a Marvel style hit, but it still cleared the hurdle.

I feel like we go in circles on this here, but people just won't stop confusing gross revenue with actual profit. Amazon likely walked away with maybe twenty mil in net profit from the worldwide distribution—which, let's be honest, is pretty underwhelming for a flick that cost $70 million to make.

briskhound2 said:Here we go again—another sequel, specifically from that one genre that makes serious cinephiles want to tear their hair out while complaining that Hollywood just churns out mindless garbage.

Critics were practically tripping over themselves to tear this thing apart, but apparently, the general audience didn't care; they were too busy enjoying the over-the-top action. Because of that, the movie supposedly cleared its budget and became some massive global smash hit.

...and they couldn't be more wrong.

If we're talking actual box office numbers, that's just not how it went down. It’s not like Olympus Has Fallen was some massive triumph or a runaway success in every corner of the country. At the end of the day, it broke even and made a little bit of profit, but calling it a "hit" is a huge stretch.

R. Scott produces at least a dozen projects every single year, and let’s be honest, half of them are absolute garbage, so you really shouldn't read too much into his involvement.
My real anxiety, though, is what he’s going to do to "The Martian." The old man looks like he’s been coasting on fumes for ages.

Casey Cox2 said: - imdb

The cast for this political thriller adaptation of Tom Rob Smith's book is stacked—we're talking Tom Hardy, Joel Kinnaman, Vincent Cassel, Gary Oldman, Paddy Considine, Noomi Rapace, and Jason Clarke.

Daniel Espinosa is directing this whole thing, set back in the 1950s in the Soviet Union, with Richard Price handling the script and Ridley Scott stepping in as co-producer.

Hardy plays Demidov, a Soviet military policeman who ends up with a massive target on his back once he starts digging into a string of child murders.

Cassel is also set to star in Ariela Kleiman's debut project, "Partisan."

Filming for "Child 44" is actually happening right now, so expect to see it hit theaters sometime next year.

It’s supposed to hit AMC Theatres in just a few days. The book it’s based on is actually a pretty solid thriller—a massive global bestseller and the first installment in a trilogy. To make things even more promising, you’ve got Ridley Scott producing, and a powerhouse cast featuring Tom Hardy, who’s basically the hottest thing in Hollywood right now, alongside Gary Oldman, Vincent Cassel, and Noomi Rapace. There was all this hype that this wouldn't just be a great standalone movie, but the launchpad for a huge franchise, especially since there were plans to adapt the other two books in the Lav Demidov series: "The Secret Speech" and "Agent 6." But honestly? This thing is shaping up to be one of the biggest flops we've seen in recent memory. They dropped $50 million on the budget, and so far, it has barely scraped together $1 million at the box office. Even recent disasters like Mortdecai and Blackhat look like minor hiccups compared to how badly Child 44 is tanking. Even the trailer doesn't look half bad, but I can't get past that unbearable, heavy accent everyone uses in the film. It's just grating.

Peter Reyes33 said:I used to pick up Paramount Pictures back in the day, too. If I remember correctly, the whole reason they folded was because advertisers bailed—they were totally offended by some piece TF ran about internet piracy and how people actually do it. It was such a stupid move, honestly, because if my memory serves, that article didn't even provide any actual instructions... it wasn't like a "how-to" guide or anything practical.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that it looks like the magazine is on its last legs over in England, too. Ever since they stopped printing here in the States, I’ve found myself popping onto their website every now and then, but lately, it feels like they don't even have enough cash to maintain their own domain—which used to be totalfilm.com—since they got swallowed up by that bigger site, GamesRadar. It makes me wonder if they even bother making physical copies anymore...

They’re still publishing, just like Empire. I actually picked up a copy of Paramount Pictures—the April(!) 2015 issue—just today.