Box Office Guru Wrapup: Avatar Continues Its Run In 2010

Summary

Over the first weekend of 2010, moviegoers still had their minds on the year 2154 as James Cameron's futuristic 3D adventure Avatar easily remained number one for a third consecutive frame breaking records and smashing the $1 billion global box office milestone in the process. With no new releases, the top ten was filled with the same movies as some dropped harder than others while a small handful enjoyed sales boosts thanks to Friday being a holiday for New Year's Day. The Top 20 grossed a scorching $220M kicking off the new decade on the right note. Back to Article

Comments

Sinister Minister

larry mcmichael

@Cutler,

I appreciate you admitting you were wrong about the b.o. I'm very suprised.

@Gordo,

I, once again, have no idea what you're talking about. Please don't do drugs.

Jan 4 - 07:51 AM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

No...****.

Jan 4 - 08:13 AM

DKUK

Derrick Wong

I respect your opinion ****

Jan 4 - 08:14 AM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

LOL

Jan 4 - 08:27 AM

DKUK

Derrick Wong

I respect your opinion ****

Jan 4 - 08:14 AM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

LOL

Jan 4 - 08:27 AM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

LOL

Jan 4 - 08:27 AM

Gimy

Gimy Moo

its a shame dark knight wasn't in 3d...i think that has some to do w/ avatar's $. even if a movie sucks, i'd see it in 3d if its available. imax is diff though. its a pretty good movie no doubt but having to pay double for the 3d is helping it big time. unfortunately nothing in the movie really warrants the 3d feature. and the cgi, especially the avatars...is really poor. good cgi is when you can't tell its computer generated. when you can, its bad. simple as that. it's odd because the Halo-esque looking vehicles were done very well and some parts are excellent, yet others look like a George Lucas film.

the hatred for avatar is so strong(much like Transformers) because haters have a preconceived notion because all you lovers out there deemed it legendary and god's gift to the theater...before anything was released, seen, even trailers. its an excellent movie theater movie(big screen, surround sound)...but doesn't live up to the hype.

saw Sherlock Holmes as well. very good flick, hopefully it'll succeed and we can see a franchise grow out of it. Law and Downey had pretty good chemistry throughout.

Jan 4 - 08:33 AM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

"and the cgi, especially the avatars...is really poor. good cgi is when you can't tell its computer generated. when you can, its bad. simple as that. it's odd because the Halo-esque looking vehicles were done very well and some parts are excellent, yet others look like a George Lucas film."

I agree with your core point, that the value of CGI is directly proportional to how real it looks; the same goes for any type of special effect; the less obvious it is that it's an effect, the better it is. But it's important to differentiate between whether an effect looks fake because it was done poorly, or because it's a representation of something so otherworldly that your brain knows it's fake. It can be extraordinarily difficult to separate the two factors. The Halo-esque vehicles look more real because they COULD be real. They look very similar to vehicles that exist in real life, that we have seen with our own eyes, or at least in video footage, so it's easier for our brains to accept them as real. It's the same reason the trees look so great and that no one seems to have a problem with how they look; they're similar enough to trees that exist on earth that our brains are easily fooled. But most of the alien species in the movie are so outlandish looking, so different from anything we ever see in real life, that no matter how well the effects for them are done, they still won't look completely real, because our brains cannot accept them as such. It's the same problem the Hulk movies face; no matter how much work and money is put into creating a computer-generated Hulk character, your brain will never be convinced it is not an effect, because a gigantic green man is too cartoonish an entity for your brain to ever take seriously. It's just one of those things that will ALWAYS look like it's fake.

My point is, when judging whether a special effect looks real or not, one must consider whether the thing the effect is simulating would look any more real if it truly existed.

As I watched the movie, I felt that the human environments and technology, the forest flora, and the Na'vi close-ups looked practically real, and the dog creatures, the ikran, the horses, the rhino-sharks, the large predator creature, and the full-body shots of the Na'vi were clearly effects. But I wouldn't say the effects for the latter were any worse, in terms of quality, than the former; they were just less convincing because they were so alien looking that it was impossible for me to accept them as any more than an effect.

Jan 4 - 01:54 PM

Jason C Wilkerson

Jason Wilkerson

gimy: Who pays double for 3D charges for a movie? Here's, in Green Bay, it's $4.50 extra. A regular ticket is $8, a 3D ticket is $12.50.

Jan 4 - 06:45 PM

thad s.

thad stevens

what's wrong with people like you who honestly seem to think that only YOUR opinions count? it's really sad.

Jan 4 - 08:58 AM

Stepping Razor

Stepping Razor

Thad S. you are aware that what you say also applies to you, yes?

You're expressing your view that people should just loosen up and enjoy a movie. You criticize others who, to paraphrase, act as if only their views count, and yet you seem to be wanting everyone to change their standards for enjoyment to yours.

My standards of enjoyment of a movie are likely different than yours. I express my views, but I don't beat up others because they don't agree with me. I personally prefer smarter movies than the average fare, and that lends to my sense of enjoyment.

Others, in contrast, may like very simple movies, and not care for good acting, good storylines, but care more for action, quick-cut editing and lots of CGI, and that's their prerogative.

Jan 4 - 03:34 PM

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

But does it have to be an either/or proposition?

I enjoy rich, complex story telling as well as dense plotting, top notch acting and dramatic dialogue. I also enjoy lobster and brandy.

But sometimes I enjoy pure cinema...which can be purely visceral. Just as I sometimes enjoy a Big Mac and a Coke.

One does not have to choose between just one or the other...so why make the argument that you can't?

I mean really, the only films you like are densely plotted?

You don't like Star Wars?

Jan 4 - 05:56 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

"Others, in contrast, may like very simple movies, and not care for good acting, good storylines, but care more for action, quick-cut editing and lots of CGI, and that's their prerogative."

...and some may like both smart movies and simple movies, or a combination of both. Of course I realize you didn't say one had to like one or the other exclusively, but the implication is there. One can enjoy simple movies and still care about good acting and storylines, it's a question of whether or not one can tolerate weaknesses in some areas in order to enjoy other aspects which are more effective. I love action movies; I'd certainly prefer if they were well acted and have engaging stories in addition to good action, but if either of those two areas are lacking it does not necessarily preclude me from liking the movie at all; if the action is effective enough, I can tolerate some shoddy acting or a simplistic story.

Off on a bit of a tangent (but still pertaining to mykalrose's comment), does anyone really like quick-cut editing? I do like action and impressive visual effects, but the quick-cut thing has always bothered me. I sometimes wonder if anyone actually likes it or if it just happened to be featured in a few movies that were successful and so more and more directors started using it, incorrectly believing that audiences actually appreciated it.


Jan 4 - 07:42 PM

T45Red

Mitchell Nash

ColinTheCimmerian

I can appreciate the quick-cut editing so long as I can still see what's happening and going on in the fight. I appreciate it when it's done correctly and makes you somewhat feel the high octane adrenaline of the situation, or almost puts you in the situation, but I also highly dislike it when it's done excessively and when it's not done right.

The Bourne Ultimatum was the best example that I remember seeing, although that was almost borderline too much [they won an Oscar for best editing by the way]. I 'almost' couldn't tell what was happened during the fight scenes and that's not because I'm a lazy viewer. I'm pretty good at picking up on what's going on when I watch a movie I enjoy [which I why I didn't really like the action in Transformers 1 or 2 since I didn't care enough to try to keep up lol].

Quantum of Solace tried replicating this and I don't think they did a good job of it. I felt that even though there was more action in QoS then in Casino Royale that Casino Royale's action was far superior.

That's just my two cents.

Jan 4 - 07:50 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

Good to know T45Red, I figured there had to be some people who liked it, guess it's just not my thing. I haven't seen Bourne Ultimatum, but I did see Supremacy and didn't care for the quick cut editing or shaky cam there at all (which is a large part of why I didn't see the third one, actually). I assume you think it was done better in the third one? I may check it out sometime.

I'm sure the technique can be used effectively sometimes, but I think it's really easy to abuse and use incorrectly, which is probably why I don't care for it; more often than not it doesn't seem to work all that well, in my opinion.

Jan 4 - 08:31 PM

thad s.

thad stevens

no, you are wrong and being very simplistic to boot. i don't mind if other people don't enjoy avatar. i have nothing invested in the movie and honestly don't imagine that any one movie can be all things to all people. but when i say i enjoyed it, why on earth would someone feel compelled to explain to me that i am somehow wrong for having enjoyed it? that's the thing i find inexplicable: the near obsessive desire of some people here to insist that anybody who likes avatar is wrong for doing so. understand? that's what a lot of people here keep doing over and over. i have never in my entire life told someone who likes a movie that i didn't like that they were wrong or dumb for doing so.

Jan 4 - 09:15 PM

thad s.

thad stevens

there are a lot of people whose sense of well-being is predicated on how much smarter they are than the rest of us dummies. they will always find one thing or another to use as a vehicle for their desperate need to establish superiority over the rest of the population. right now it's avatar, in a few months it'll be something else.

Jan 4 - 09:10 AM

dj Mark

Mark Marquis

"I'm angry about Avatar because I felt deceived. I thought the trailer looked really stupid but I kept hearing the hype and reading the good reviews so I figured that it would be a good movie."

Fair enough. But at some point you should try to get over it. You aren't going to convince anyone here that they SHOULDN'T have enjoyed the movie as much as they did. I am all for stating your opinion, which you've done, but at some point you have to let it go.

I didn't like Transformers 2, and I will state that fact often, but I won't argue the fact because it's futile to convince someone who DID enjoy it that their experience was invalid.

I have stated more than once that I didn't like The Hangover. But I also realize that my viewpoint does not agree with most people who saw it, and with most critics. Do I think I'm wrong not to have enjoyed it? Absolutely not. But I'll be damned if I try to argue with others who had a blast watching it.

Jan 4 - 11:16 AM

DKUK

Derrick Wong

True, people will have their own ideas about a moive, their own interpretations, their own opinions; and we all know that opinions are difficult to change. So all this bearating cos one person loves a movie, whilst another hates it does seem a bit strange.

I didn't like the movie, but at the moment, I can't quite put my finger on why other than, for me, the lack of any memorable moments. Also agree with you on The Hangover, liked it but didn't love it and didn't think it was hilarious as some people have mentioned.

Anyway, I'll keep refreshing Box Office Mojo to keep a heads up on the BO of Avatar. It'll come closet to Titanic, I think, just my thoughts, my opinion...hope nobody calls me a **** because I think it. LOL ;o)

Jan 4 - 05:09 PM

dj Mark

Mark Marquis

"hope nobody calls me a **** because I think it. LOL ;o)"

I certainly won't. I'm disappointed FOR YOU because I know you were looking forward to it and your disappointment seems genuine rather than a rant or some kind of vendetta against the film.

Jan 4 - 05:41 PM

DKUK

Derrick Wong

You're right, I was so looking forward to it, so maybe in my own mind I had built up the expectation and as I have said previously, there were no stand out moments for me in this movie. Well, I will watch it again soemtime and see what I think of it after another viewing or two.

And I hope we don't have to wait another decade for JC to launch another BO monster.

Jan 4 - 08:52 PM

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

What format did you see it in?

Jan 4 - 06:02 PM

Cutler to the rescue

Ted kruts

Big brother Alvin came out on wednesday so it had a couple day head start

Jan 4 - 11:25 AM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

"and the cgi, especially the avatars...is really poor. good cgi is when you can't tell its computer generated. when you can, its bad. simple as that. it's odd because the Halo-esque looking vehicles were done very well and some parts are excellent, yet others look like a George Lucas film."

I agree with your core point, that the value of CGI is directly proportional to how real it looks; the same goes for any type of special effect; the less obvious it is that it's an effect, the better it is. But it's important to differentiate between whether an effect looks fake because it was done poorly, or because it's a representation of something so otherworldly that your brain knows it's fake. It can be extraordinarily difficult to separate the two factors. The Halo-esque vehicles look more real because they COULD be real. They look very similar to vehicles that exist in real life, that we have seen with our own eyes, or at least in video footage, so it's easier for our brains to accept them as real. It's the same reason the trees look so great and that no one seems to have a problem with how they look; they're similar enough to trees that exist on earth that our brains are easily fooled. But most of the alien species in the movie are so outlandish looking, so different from anything we ever see in real life, that no matter how well the effects for them are done, they still won't look completely real, because our brains cannot accept them as such. It's the same problem the Hulk movies face; no matter how much work and money is put into creating a computer-generated Hulk character, your brain will never be convinced it is not an effect, because a gigantic green man is too cartoonish an entity for your brain to ever take seriously. It's just one of those things that will ALWAYS look like it's fake.

My point is, when judging whether a special effect looks real or not, one must consider whether the thing the effect is simulating would look any more real if it truly existed.

As I watched the movie, I felt that the human environments and technology, the forest flora, and the Na'vi close-ups looked practically real, and the dog creatures, the ikran, the horses, the rhino-sharks, the large predator creature, and the full-body shots of the Na'vi were clearly effects. But I wouldn't say the effects for the latter were any worse, in terms of quality, than the former; they were just less convincing because they were so alien looking that it was impossible for me to accept them as any more than an effect.

Jan 4 - 01:54 PM

Andrew W.

Andrew Whitefield

I can't imagine how there could be an Avatar 2. But if anyone knows how to do a sequel it's James Cameron. Just look at Aliens and Terminator 2 for an example of one-upping and out doing their respective predecessors.

Jan 4 - 02:10 PM

ProducerPaul

Paul Barrett

Tim-A,

I will have to respectfully disagree with you to a certain extent. Acting I will give you, although I didn't find the acting particularly atrocious, but that's a fairly subjective call. The plot was the plot, and was probably what it needed to be in order to be a successful movie. Not the greatest plot in the world, but I didn't have a particular problem with it. But it really amazes me that you think cinematography was sacrificed. There were some truly beautiful shots in the film, with great lighting, texture, and depth. Now whether it can truly be called cinematography because a lot of it was done in the computer, I don't know, but I certainly don't think there was any sacrifice made for the look of the film. But that's just my opinion, and the opinion of a couple of DP's I know.

Jan 4 - 02:25 PM

Tim-A

Tim Sentz

I'll agree that the plot needed to be minimal. There's absolutely no way this film would be as popular if it had an extremely intricate plot, because its not meant to flex the mind, but to visually stimulate instead.

As far as cinematography, I'm sorry, but I don't count CGI landscapes as cinematography. Those are computer generated backgrounds that will be chalked more to special effects than actual cinematography. It's one art over the other, and unfortunately, for me, the more CGI I see, the less I like it. It's a talented area of expertise, but film has become over-saturated with CGI in the last decade.

I can appreciate Avatar, but I'm certainly not falling out of my seat because of how amazing it was. It's technically superior to anything before it as far as visuals. It just fails on other levels for me. As far as its entry in Cameron's canon, I prefer "Aliens."

Jan 4 - 05:15 PM

DKUK

Derrick Wong

There's a debate in China about some of the 'cinematography', more specifically the inspiration behind the Hallelujah Mountains.

http://english.cri.cn/6666/2009/12/31/1261s539184.htm

Jan 4 - 09:02 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

Austin K: I think this is an excellent point, and Cameron's tendency to use simple, realistic dialogue in his scripts is one of the reasons I really like him as a writer. I can appreciate the appeal of witty or poetic dialogue; there is a reason why audiences respond favourably to characters created by the likes of Tarantino and Shakespeare. Those two men have very little in common, but they are both renowned for writing interesting dialogue.

But I see Cameron and Tarantino as being on opposite sides of the scale when it comes to writing. Tarantino loves to infuse cool factor into his characters; he wants them to be larger-than-life; they are the most important and interesting thing about his movies. Cameron does the opposite; in general (True Lies would be a major exception, but it had a very different tone from his other films) his main characters are pretty normal people who speak in pretty normal ways. Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor from The Terminator, Ripley and Hicks from Aliens, Bud Brigman from The Abyss... none of them had particularly dynamic personalities, and I think that was done on purpose. Cameron uses the story, the events that unfold on screen, to create his cool factor, and uses his relatively unexciting characters to ground his movies in some sort of reality. Some people find that style of writing boring, and I can understand that. I've known people who cite the Hudson character from Aliens as evidence of Cameron's poor writing ability, how he just keeps repeating 'game over, man', which is boring and can get annoying. I can understand the complaint, but don't agree. Hudson was panicking, so it made sense for him to keep repeating the same thing over and over. If he'd made some sort of witty speech instead, it wouldn't feel as real. Despite the fact Hudson's dialogue wasn't particularly clever, it made sense and was an effective means of conveying his panic, which gave gravity to the situation.

The thing is, some people prefer dynamic dialogue, and some people don't. I don't particularly care for Tarantino, at least not as much as most people do, because I feel like he puts too much emphasis on cool factor and style and shock factor. But I can understand why some people love him (and do I think he's very talented, just not necessarily my cup-of-tea). What some call boring and cliched, I call realistic. What some call cool and quotable, I call gratuitous. It's a matter of preference.

Jan 4 - 02:28 PM

BLaCKWoLF

BLaCKWoLF .

@ Colin - I cannot believe there are some people who actually complained about Hudson in Aliens. I thought Bill Paxton was great in that movie and I enjoyed his portrayal of a man who had lost his nerve after what he had seen happen to his friends and fellow marines.

Jan 4 - 03:03 PM

Jason C Wilkerson

Jason Wilkerson

Colin The Cimmerian: Amen to that! I completely agree, but what it really boils down to is the fact that Cameron puts regular people in extraordinary situations. Their dialogue is nothing special because they, in essence, are nothing special. They're everyday Joe's who are thrown into situations where their actions have to be extraordinary. They are the type of people who, if you ran into them walking the street, you wouldn't think twice about them. Having been in the military (as I've said before) I know a lot of people who would say a lot of the same things that Jake says if thrown into his situations.

Jan 4 - 06:53 PM

BLaCKWoLF

BLaCKWoLF .

@ Colin - I cannot believe there are some people who actually complained about Hudson in Aliens. I thought Bill Paxton was great in that movie and I enjoyed his portrayal of a man who had lost his nerve after what he had seen happen to his friends and fellow marines.

Jan 4 - 03:03 PM

Stepping Razor

Stepping Razor

Thad S. you are aware that what you say also applies to you, yes?

You're expressing your view that people should just loosen up and enjoy a movie. You criticize others who, to paraphrase, act as if only their views count, and yet you seem to be wanting everyone to change their standards for enjoyment to yours.

My standards of enjoyment of a movie are likely different than yours. I express my views, but I don't beat up others because they don't agree with me. I personally prefer smarter movies than the average fare, and that lends to my sense of enjoyment.

Others, in contrast, may like very simple movies, and not care for good acting, good storylines, but care more for action, quick-cut editing and lots of CGI, and that's their prerogative.

Jan 4 - 03:34 PM

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

But does it have to be an either/or proposition?

I enjoy rich, complex story telling as well as dense plotting, top notch acting and dramatic dialogue. I also enjoy lobster and brandy.

But sometimes I enjoy pure cinema...which can be purely visceral. Just as I sometimes enjoy a Big Mac and a Coke.

One does not have to choose between just one or the other...so why make the argument that you can't?

I mean really, the only films you like are densely plotted?

You don't like Star Wars?

Jan 4 - 05:56 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

"Others, in contrast, may like very simple movies, and not care for good acting, good storylines, but care more for action, quick-cut editing and lots of CGI, and that's their prerogative."

...and some may like both smart movies and simple movies, or a combination of both. Of course I realize you didn't say one had to like one or the other exclusively, but the implication is there. One can enjoy simple movies and still care about good acting and storylines, it's a question of whether or not one can tolerate weaknesses in some areas in order to enjoy other aspects which are more effective. I love action movies; I'd certainly prefer if they were well acted and have engaging stories in addition to good action, but if either of those two areas are lacking it does not necessarily preclude me from liking the movie at all; if the action is effective enough, I can tolerate some shoddy acting or a simplistic story.

Off on a bit of a tangent (but still pertaining to mykalrose's comment), does anyone really like quick-cut editing? I do like action and impressive visual effects, but the quick-cut thing has always bothered me. I sometimes wonder if anyone actually likes it or if it just happened to be featured in a few movies that were successful and so more and more directors started using it, incorrectly believing that audiences actually appreciated it.


Jan 4 - 07:42 PM

T45Red

Mitchell Nash

ColinTheCimmerian

I can appreciate the quick-cut editing so long as I can still see what's happening and going on in the fight. I appreciate it when it's done correctly and makes you somewhat feel the high octane adrenaline of the situation, or almost puts you in the situation, but I also highly dislike it when it's done excessively and when it's not done right.

The Bourne Ultimatum was the best example that I remember seeing, although that was almost borderline too much [they won an Oscar for best editing by the way]. I 'almost' couldn't tell what was happened during the fight scenes and that's not because I'm a lazy viewer. I'm pretty good at picking up on what's going on when I watch a movie I enjoy [which I why I didn't really like the action in Transformers 1 or 2 since I didn't care enough to try to keep up lol].

Quantum of Solace tried replicating this and I don't think they did a good job of it. I felt that even though there was more action in QoS then in Casino Royale that Casino Royale's action was far superior.

That's just my two cents.

Jan 4 - 07:50 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

Good to know T45Red, I figured there had to be some people who liked it, guess it's just not my thing. I haven't seen Bourne Ultimatum, but I did see Supremacy and didn't care for the quick cut editing or shaky cam there at all (which is a large part of why I didn't see the third one, actually). I assume you think it was done better in the third one? I may check it out sometime.

I'm sure the technique can be used effectively sometimes, but I think it's really easy to abuse and use incorrectly, which is probably why I don't care for it; more often than not it doesn't seem to work all that well, in my opinion.

Jan 4 - 08:31 PM

thad s.

thad stevens

no, you are wrong and being very simplistic to boot. i don't mind if other people don't enjoy avatar. i have nothing invested in the movie and honestly don't imagine that any one movie can be all things to all people. but when i say i enjoyed it, why on earth would someone feel compelled to explain to me that i am somehow wrong for having enjoyed it? that's the thing i find inexplicable: the near obsessive desire of some people here to insist that anybody who likes avatar is wrong for doing so. understand? that's what a lot of people here keep doing over and over. i have never in my entire life told someone who likes a movie that i didn't like that they were wrong or dumb for doing so.

Jan 4 - 09:15 PM

Sparkle Motion

Glenn Wilks

I still don't think it'll beat Titanic.

Jan 4 - 03:46 PM

Cutler to the rescue

Ted kruts

Andrew, Aliens did not one-up or out do Alien. Alien is by far a better movie

Jan 4 - 03:57 PM

Jason C Wilkerson

Jason Wilkerson

Cutler: Your opinion is that Aliens did not one up Alien, but it's hard to compare the two. Alien is a horror movie, Aliens is an action movie. They might contain the same characters, live in the same universe but Aliens is not a remake of Alien, nor is it trying to be. You can't really compare the two movies.

Jan 4 - 06:55 PM

Big Freeze

Frank Fischer

I saw Avatar - it was aight. Cool effects, hot alien chicks, and the dude from Dodgeball were straight. The dialogue, the acting, and the cliched characters were lame.

Overall - it was worth the 10 bucks solely for the 3D effects. DO NOT SEE THIS FILM UNLESS IT'S IN 3D!

Jan 4 - 04:17 PM

ProducerPaul

Paul Barrett

mykalroze,

Is there any reason a person can't enjoy both types of movies?

Cutler,

I don't agree that Alien was necessarily a "better" movie. It was a better horror movie, and Aliens was a better action more. I happened to like Aliens more, but my partner prefers Alien. I think they're both great movies, just different, and they both do the Alien franchise proud.

Jan 4 - 05:04 PM

DKUK

Derrick Wong

True, people will have their own ideas about a moive, their own interpretations, their own opinions; and we all know that opinions are difficult to change. So all this bearating cos one person loves a movie, whilst another hates it does seem a bit strange.

I didn't like the movie, but at the moment, I can't quite put my finger on why other than, for me, the lack of any memorable moments. Also agree with you on The Hangover, liked it but didn't love it and didn't think it was hilarious as some people have mentioned.

Anyway, I'll keep refreshing Box Office Mojo to keep a heads up on the BO of Avatar. It'll come closet to Titanic, I think, just my thoughts, my opinion...hope nobody calls me a **** because I think it. LOL ;o)

Jan 4 - 05:09 PM

dj Mark

Mark Marquis

"hope nobody calls me a **** because I think it. LOL ;o)"

I certainly won't. I'm disappointed FOR YOU because I know you were looking forward to it and your disappointment seems genuine rather than a rant or some kind of vendetta against the film.

Jan 4 - 05:41 PM

DKUK

Derrick Wong

You're right, I was so looking forward to it, so maybe in my own mind I had built up the expectation and as I have said previously, there were no stand out moments for me in this movie. Well, I will watch it again soemtime and see what I think of it after another viewing or two.

And I hope we don't have to wait another decade for JC to launch another BO monster.

Jan 4 - 08:52 PM

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

What format did you see it in?

Jan 4 - 06:02 PM

What's Hot On RT

Cosplay Gallery
Cosplay Gallery

See over 250 Comic-Con Costumes!

Critics Consensus
Critics Consensus

Hercules Is Mighty Fun

Historical TV Shows
Historical TV Shows

40 TV depictions of past eras

Weekly Ketchup
Weekly Ketchup

Idris Elba joins King Arthur

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile