I'd be so overjoyed if Kung-Fu Hustle could pull off a #1, but thanks to this getting significantly better reviews and hype then I anticipated I think Interpreter will nail it with about 22/70.

Let's see...

Great, great reviews, strong marketing, great stars, and a nice release date.

Opening: $20 million
Total: $70 million

Opening: $19.4
Total: $61.0

Seems pretty predictable to me.

Lets see,

$21.1M/75.3M

Like i said, the reviews werent "great,great" really over here in the UK:


Empire: 3 out of 5
News of the World : 3 out of 5
The Sun: 3 out of 5
Heat: 3 out of 5
Daily Telegraph said "The location outshines the plot. Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn lack chemistry in a disappointing thriller"
The Times 3 out of 5
The Guardian:
2 reviews:
1st review: 1 out of 5:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/C ... 22,00.html
2nd review:
"Too many layers of significant meaning have been added to a simple action movie"

So yeah....thats the only UK reviews available either online or that i read.

So pretty good reviews, but nothing great here.

Still, it's Number 1 with £1.5M.

After seeing the film, I really don´t think It´ll have amazing legs... Thought is was ok, but find hard that someone would think there is anything mind-blowing here. It´s a bit too slow, the character development doesn´t work, and the constant mourning and lack of humour makes it a tough sell for mainstream audiences... It is also a film about foreign politics and the main character is a foreign woman with a rather strong accent. It may not matter, but somehow I think a part of the US audience is going to have a hard time trying to identify with that...

I think It´ll do good but not great: $16/$51.

Count me in for a $25m+ opening if its at 3,000 theaters +
If not then it will be damn close to $25m.

Not only has it performed extremely well offshores; but this film has real appeal. Man on Fire did very well in a similar launch in 2004 and not only did it lack a similar starpower; but it also lacked a high concept, the highest band of prestiege and a superfamous director which The Interpreter has. The fact its set inside the UN ontop of all those factors could definately pull in some nontraditional audiences; older men and women.

I don't know why, i just have a gut instinct that The Interpreter could pull in supririsngly high results throughout its run; but late april is a tough time to launch a leggy film.

Even if reviewers hate it; audiences love the idea of being associated with this kind of "elite" project; they lap up the idea that they have been to see a prestiegous film - that alone will help its legs and word of mouth. Million Dollar Baby could have been pretty bad and a huge amount of people would have raved its praises, because, of course its an Eastwood film and everyone these days is an expert on the art of film-making and can relate to what Eastwood was trying to say

I think that it'll do well, but talk about seriously shooting down Man on Fire. I'd argue that Denzel is a bigger star as far as bringing in the crowds go then Penn and Kidman combined. You could argue his last movie dissapointed with only 60 million total, but then I'd point out that there last movies couldn't make more then Manchurian's opening day, even if they were smaller releases. And Man on Fire had a great concept in the ads, if not an entirely original one. I'm not trying to shoot down The Interpreter, I think it'll do great. However, the fact is that it will make at best slightly less then Man on Fire opening and total, and I believe that Man on Fire would make 20 million more if they shared the same rating.

Denzel Washington is in no way, shape or form in the same league of stardom as Nicole Kidman - he beats Sean Penn hands down for sure, but Kidman's on the highest paid female stratosphere. Shes got prestiege, shitloads of media coverage and lots of high paying films on her horizon. She pulled a very niche targeted horror film to near $100m, and dazled the world in Moulin Rouge. Now im no all out Kidman superfan; but ill be damned if she isnt catching up with Julia Roberts these days. Guys on this website need to start speaking to women more often! And stealing their gossip magazines [when your in the toilet] female stars always get more coverage than male ones. Denzel Washington may be a big action star; god knows hes picked enough similar roles to make him that. But i'd argue Miss Kidman has become a much bigger star and is one of the most eager self-promoters in recent years. She may hate doing interviews and whatnot, but damn she still does them to help push her latest films - and further her career.

Denzel attracts a younger audience than Sean Penn; but Nicole Kidman is a very widely appealing leady lady who people know is talented. You'd be surprised how quickly people attach themselves to something that fits in with their personalities; just as the sterotypical rich man listens to classical music; the middle classes will love a UN Thriller from director Pollack starring two oscar winning stars. The Interpreter. if not for the film, for the connotations attached.

Perhaps my perceptions are being skewed by the stars international profiles

here Man On Fire opened to £656,466
here The Interpreter opened to £1,589,829

But I'd argue Interpreter had a lot more going for it then Kidman. She's not the primary draw for the movie - the political thriller aspect is. Seriously though, look at these filmographies of the films they've made this decade:

Denzel Washington:
7/30/04 The Manchurian Candidate Par. $65,955,630 2,867 $20,018,620 2,867
4/21/04 Man on Fire Fox $77,911,774 2,986 $22,751,490 2,980
10/3/03 Out of Time MGM $41,088,845 3,076 $16,185,316 3,076
12/19/02 Antwone Fisher FoxS $21,078,145 1,021 $210,013 15
2/15/02 John Q. NL $71,756,802 2,505 $20,275,194 2,466
10/5/01 Training Day WB $76,631,907 2,712 $22,550,788 2,712
9/29/00 Remember the Titans BV $115,654,751 2,803 $20,905,831 1,865

The Manchurian Canidate did mediocre business, but that was from extreme competition. It ended up being a much better movie then almost anyone expected. Man on Fire was a big surprise hit, as was Training Day and John Q. Antwone Fisher got lost in the shuffle and barely got beyond limited release, but it still did better then all but four of Kidman's movies (Stepford Wives grossed more but cost 90 million). Out of Time was his only dissapointment and that was facing stiff competition and made by a studio well behind the times. And let's not forget Remember the Tians, which brought back many subsequent high school/college true stories to the screen, almost all of which have had great box office sucess.

Nicole Kidman:
10/29/04 Birth NL $5,095,038 550 $1,705,577 550
6/11/04 The Stepford Wives Par. $59,484,742 3,057 $21,406,781 3,057
3/26/04 Dogville Lions $1,535,286 70 $88,855 9
12/25/03 Cold Mountain Mira. $95,636,509 2,802 $14,574,213 2,163
10/31/03 The Human Stain Mira. $5,381,908 388 $1,034,195 160
12/27/02 The Hours Par. $41,675,994 1,010 $338,622 11
2/1/02 Birthday Girl Mira. $5,142,576 1,000 $2,370,809 1,000
8/10/01 The Others Mira. $96,522,687 2,843 $14,089,952 1,678
5/18/01 Moulin Rouge! Fox $57,386,607 2,283 $167,540 2

They've both one one Oscar each in the last five years, but in her entire career Nicole Kidman has only had one movie hit 100 million, and that was Batman Forever which had absolutely nothing to do with her. Sure, there's a strong argument that Kidman's movies have been much smaller by and large, but even those have almost universally done terrible business. Moulin Rouge!, The Others, The Hours, and Cold Mountain are the only movies that haven't bombed, (Human Stain cost 30 million, made 5; Stepford Wives cost 90 and made 60; Dogville cost 10, made 1.5; Birth cost 20, made 5; Birthday Girl cost 15, made 5). If she didn't get as much attention in the tabloids, I doubt she'd be considered a draw. Stepford Wives did better then expected as one of her wide releases, but that's only because everyone expected the next Gigli and it was only that critically. It still bombed hard. Cold Mountain just barely slid past it's huge budget, and that was thanks to the Civil War period piece setting and all the Oscar hype. The Others and Moulin Rouge are the only ones where I'd say she had much to do with, but she's clearly been on a downward spiral since.

Either way, I don't know how anyone could possibly say Kidman is a bigger draw then Washington, or even more reliable for a high quality film.

If you have Washington in a movie you can be 100% that it'll make a profit one way or another, from 00' to now most of his movies that went fairly wide have done atleast solid at the BO, and lets not even mention how much bankage his movies do with DVD Sales and Rentals ( both Manchurian and Man on Fire did over 50m in rentals, thats as good as big movies like I,Robot and Troy did )

He's just as big of a draw as Kidman.

Denzel Washington is a *much* bigger draw than Nicole Kidman. He's had nothing but hits for the past few years.

The man picks great roles. It's undeniable.

I personally think he makes movies MUCH better then they look on script, John Q and Man on Fire for example, Q would have been a dud if Washington wasnt so damn good, same goes for Man on Fire.

Yep. He basically made Man on Fire. It wouldn't have been great without him.

Its undeniable? Well consider me denying it. Theres just no way hes a bigger star; Nicole Kidman has a MUCH bigger international standing. Shes uberfamous across the globe; whilst Denzel...not so much. Sure hes well known; but hes certainly an All American Star.

I just have to disagree and leave it at that because I feel Nicole Kidman is a bigger star, her salaries already above $15m a movie; which is quite a big deal for an actress.

Denzel Washington has barely even bothered to try anything but Action Thrillers. Hes the king of that genre no doubt; but hes certainly not proven himself elsewhere; his only performance that ive personally noted him as being *great* in was Training Day; all the rest is pretty much the same tortured hero. Im not denying Denzel Washington is a big star; i just think that Nicole Kidman is a bigger one, in all sectors. The Others was a very centric picture, and was a very obscure one too; but it did amazingly well. Moulin Rouge was a smash hit worldwide and only was hampered in North America due to a very curious release pattern and time. Youll note that Kidman's "wide" projects almost always do excellently.

I feel female actresses are very undervalued on box office websites; unless they have a nice body and a cute smile, or are starring in the "film of the year" in which they give an "amazing" performance and everyone ever wants it to sweep the oscars. Seriously though; it seems that guys on box office websites tend to ignore the prominance of female stars in film, when infact female stars are outranking their male counterparts quite easily these days. There are a few big male stars who can pull in all sectors. But its the women who get the coverage, promote the films and so forth, its the women who appear in magazines.

I dont know how i can make myself any more unpopular in one post. This should do the trick though.

His only notable performance is in Training Day?

Go watch

Malcolm X
Glory
Devil in a Blue Dress
He Got Game
Hurricane
Philadelphia

Hell even in bad movies, he does a great job, he never gives less then 110% in a movie. Please tell me what Kidman performances make her so much better then Washington.

Eh I have no idea. There's so much competition this weekend, any of the 4 films could take it. (KR, KH, ALLL, TI)

Evidently you don't understand what im trying to make a point of here, im not disputing who the better actor is [my vote is firmly on Kidman there so theres not even a point of creating a debate] what the issue is is who the bigger star is; and Im siding with Kidman.
I think that the perception of celebrity & pulling power is distorted on these forums to suit the tastes in film, location [too much of the time people take Americas attitudes as a sampler for the global market and stature] and the fact that nearly everyone here is male. Ive said this before - but its women who decide who gets into the A list. Women also are more potent transmitters of Word of Mouth.

Opening- 18 mil
Total- 90 mil

What are you even talking about? You were the one that said Washington could only play one type of role and nothing else, how is that not talking about who the better actor is. :???: And I don't know specific data to argue about international grosses, but this thread is predicting The Interpreter's US gross, and I gave you straight 100% proof that he's a bigger star here then Nicole Kidman. All you've done is continuously named all these huge generalizations as if they were facts, and I have yet to see any evidence to back it up. Show me the international sums of there movies, then we'll talk. However your talks of how actresses are all bigger stars for whatever reason is completely asinine. There is not a single actress in the world that can bring in more people, domestically and interntationally, then Will Smith (or Tom Cruise for that matter). So where exactly are you getting this data? Basing it off of how much they get featured in tabloids, because Nicole Kidman is the epitome of a tabloid star - someone the media make out to be a huge actress, but in fact has trouble drawing any audience to a film she stars in.

16/56

I think Runaway Jury is a good comparaison. A PG-13 thriller with big names, and good reviews ( it is 70% fresh ). The only difference is that The Interpreter has a bigger director while Runaway Jury had a bigger writer ( John Grisham ). That movie made 12 m / 50 m . So I don't think The interpreter will be able to do more than 20 m opening weekend.

annoys me when people ignore half of what i say, focus on something and totally mis-interpret it; then pull obscure facts out of the bag as though they are defining factors; box office websites have this tendancy of only looking at data and handing it over as the bible in arguments; reguardless of any other factors. How exactly do you name a huge generalization? Dont you make a generalization, and if so where ? The suggestion that Denzel Washington dosen't stick to action thrillers is verging on fanboyism. Thats where the mans built his career, and you put words in my mouth by saying i said he couldn't do anything but action thrillers, i know you read my post so im confused as to why you actually did that.

Regardless of who pulls in who at the box office, "tabloid stars" as you so eliquently put it, matter. Tabloids sell; lots of people read them, and at the end of the day THEY form the perception in the public as to whos a star; not box office reciepts. Sure pulling power is a massive part of being a movie star; but so is appearing on magazine covers, selling products and being in the public eye. Nicole Kidmans a massive pusher of her projects, and her media profile outstrips Washington time and time again. . Just because you loved Denzel Washington in ActionthrillerX dosen't mean you should deny Nicole Kidman's star appeal. Show me another female star who can take a thriller set in old england to $100m on her own back; and then, as you put it, we "will talk"

Nicole Kidman will certainly be the primary BO draw for this movie - her supporting actor in The Interpreter, Sean Penn, is actually not an actor - he's an overactor! And - he's getting worse - just look at his over the top performances in Mystic River, 21 Grams and this year's Academy Awards show...

:yikes:

Opening: 21.1
Total: 72.5 (3.44)

Man on Fire-style B.O.

I'm not exactly sure how one could consider Sean Penn's performance in 21 Grams to be over-the-top, considering how subtle and low-key it was. But, then again, I don't think I've agreed with you on anything, ever. :wink:

I agree that he doesn't seem to have a sense of humor (Where art thou, Spicoli?), but I disagree majorly that he's not a good actor.