Scott has an eye -- and it's a very good one -- for sieges of castles, charging horsemen, hand-to-hand combat, glistening swords arcing through the air and deadly arrows whistling toward helpless targets.
Wow, this sounds pretty good. I don't think it will make much money here in the US since Crowe is almost box office poison at this point over here. Maybe somthing like 60 million.
May 10 - 11:55 AM
Saying Crowe is box office poison is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. His only flop, way back in 2003 (Master and Commander, which made a huge amount in DVD sales), is overshadowed by the success of Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, and American Gangster (the highest grossing gangster movie of all time). Learn your facts before you open your mouth.
May 10 - 01:50 PM
Master and Commander was awesome. still pisses me off that no one watched it because it deserved a sequel. instead we get a Transformer series and GI Joe as well. the chipmunks even has a freakin series. not fair
May 10 - 02:01 PM
Seconded. M&C is one of my favorite "Historic" (word used loosely) movies of all time. Just watched it recently and was like: "where's the sequel?"I think Crowe is one of the best actors to ever grace the screen. It's amazing how different he is in every movie he stars in; everything from the way he walks to his posturing and speech patterns are unrecognizable from one film to the next.It's an absolute joy to watch him act.
May 10 - 04:58 PM
I keep reading that people liked this movie, but I don't get why. Maybe I should watch it again, but for me it was boring and had no verve.
May 11 - 09:41 PM
It was pretty good.
May 13 - 06:44 PM
I've seen it twice, it's still boring.
May 30 - 08:36 PM
I think "Cinderella Man" didn't do very well at the box office...or "State of Play" either...
May 10 - 05:29 PM
I also believe Body of Lies didn't fare as well... Body of Lies only made ($35 Million) State of Play only made ($33 million) and Cinderella Man only ($65 million.)
I don't think he shoulda said box-office poison...but I think I know where he was trying to go with in his statement. Seeing as this is a "blockbuster" type film, (or seen as an epic) Usually you cast a star with a bankable name. As of late,. Russel Crowe's films haven't been able to illicit more than $60 million dollars. Given that blockbusters usually see $100 million dollars, Crowe's not looking like a "bankable actor."
I think Russel Crowe is an excellent actor, but I might agree with this critic that he doesn't exactly get people racing to the theaters to see him. (and it's been proven)
May 10 - 05:37 PM
Lol, Cob Forbes did a study a few years ago and he was the biggest Box office dud in Hollywood:http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/08/07/1186252665338.html
May 10 - 05:43 PM
How is Crowe Box-Office poison? Let alone if Crowe is considered "Box-Office poison" & Robert Pattinson is considered "Box-Office gold" then what does that tell you about the American public? Yeah...that's what I thought.
Box-Office means jack**** in terms of a film's quality & value which is far more important. The only people who give a damn about Box-Office is studio executives but anyone else who cares & judges films by Box-Office are complete ignoramuses.
May 10 - 12:31 PM
I love Crowe and see everything he does but copy and paste this link my friend (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/08/07/1186252665338.html), I'm not making this up.
May 10 - 05:47 PM
God I can't wait to see this movie. Looks great!
May 10 - 01:58 PM
A Good Year.
May 10 - 04:35 PM
Dear god I hated that movie. Everyone involved should be ashamed.
May 10 - 04:48 PM
God you just totally spoke before researching Cob. Let me pile on, you're wrong about Master and Commander it is one of his most successful films in the US with 93 million domestic. Body of Lies opened in third place despite the fact DiCaprio's movies usually do well at the box office. Telegraph called it unequivocally "A Box Office Failure" (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/a-ruff-day-for-russell/story-e6frexc0-1111117740799), it couldn't even beat Beverly Hills Chihuaha in its debut week for crying out loud. Cinderella Man was categorized as a big box office disappointment (http://www.smh.com.au/news/Film/Crowes-box-office-beating/2005/06/06/1117910223497.html) (http://www.smh.com.au/news/dvd-reviews/cinderella-man/2006/01/30/1138469640406.html), State of Play was great but opened in 2nd and didn't even make 90 mil worldwide, 3:10 to Yuma made like 70 mil worldwide. Dude, just do some googling the guy's not a big draw in the US and he's not even that much of a draw elsewhere. A Good Year made like 7 million. American Gangster made 130mil but that was basically Denzel Washington's film. Also,http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/rusty-crowe-box-office-dud/story-e6freuy9-1111114126300According to that article, he placed last in a study of 22 actors based on salary versus box office returns and that was in 2007 before some of his recent less than stellar openings.I love the guy but his violence off the screen and hotel antics have turned a lot of people off to him. We'll see who's right, I'd love to be wrong. I say no way this makes 100 mil domestic. He's only been the main star in 2 movies that broke the 100 million dollar domestic barrier. And those were like 10 years and a bunch of embarrassing lack of self-control episodes ago.
May 10 - 05:45 PM
May 10 - 05:54 PM
it wont take much to top the 100 mill mark. Those movies you've mentioned arent really blockbuster material except maybe master and commander. Although M & C was kind of slow in sections so i could see why people were turned off. Robin hood is bankable, plus the director involved and also alot of people are going to see the commercials and think gladiator plus the favorable early reviews
May 10 - 07:27 PM
Taking a guy's career out of context is the fault of the research that you're doing. Despite the fact that it is in Forbes, they were doing a study at a time when Crowe was not doing the type of film he is famous for. You want a real depiction of his box office draw? Films of a historical nature. Gladiator 187 mill (457 mill worldwide). A Beautiful Mind 170 mill (313 mill worldwide). Master and Commander 93 mill (212 mill worldwide), American Gangster 130 mill (266 mill worldwide). Hmm... That doesn't sound like a guy with box office problems. It's true, he doesn't do well in romantic comedies or political thrillers, but this is his wheelhouse. He was the star of a film that is still in the top ten in rated R films all time. He just picked bad projects for a while.
May 10 - 07:33 PM
By the way, my prediction for this is between 120 and 200 million domestic. I'm leaning in the center around 150 million because it is PG-13.
May 10 - 07:36 PM
Im sorry man...but I feel you are wrong about this...
Russell Crowe is really not a bankable actor at all. You just proved it in your statement without even realizing it. The reason why Gladiator made so much money was the director involved. Ridley Scott has always been a bankable director.
The reason why American Gangster made so much money is because Denzel Washington was in it. (Who is a bankable star.) A beautiful mind made good money, because Ron Howard is usually a money-making director.
By Russell Crowe's latest installments (Cinderella Man, Body of Lies, State of Play) underperforming, it usually shows that the actor can't draw in the audience regardless of the genre he's in. The genre of films State of Play/ Body of Lies are in are usually box-office hits...but they wern't.
You could argue that Cinderella man wasn't box-office gold type genre, but then how would you explain the success of Million Dollar Baby which was a similar story/genre?? Answer is: Clint Eastwood is a bankable director.
This movie could be successful, because of Ridley Scott and the similarities to "Gladiator," but that could also be to its disadvantage. Audiences could be turned off to the fact that this looks very similar to Gladiator, because they don't wont to see the same type film again. I've already heard from many people who are skipping this film for that very reason.
Time will tell I guess.
May 10 - 10:20 PM
You have to no idea what you're talking about. Ron Howard is a bankable director, and he also directed Cinderella Man, so by you're logic that film should have made a lot of money as well, which it didn't. Who gives a flying rat's ass if an actor is bankable or not? Look at the quality of their work, which in the case of Crowe, is outstanding. Master and Commander, in my opinion, is one of the top 10 films of the last decade. Better than Gladiator (although not as successful).
May 11 - 11:38 AM
Dude... You are MISSING THE WHOLE POINT of what this discussion was about. NO ONE is arguing the quality of Russell Crowe's work... What people are arguing about is whether or not he brings in the money as an actor. The simple answer is, as of late, NO!
Also...if you actually read my response, i said Ron Howard is USUALLY a bankable director.
The point is that Russell Crowe is not an actor that gets people racing to the theater. He is, however, a very good actor. (Which I've stated numerous times.)
Sheesh! Actually read the arguments before you post. No one was discussing his quality, only the statement the critic made of him being "box office poison."
May 11 - 02:51 PM
From the previews, I wasn't really thinking this was going to be a good movie.Primarily because of the terrible delivery of the "Outlaaaaaaw" line.But initial reviews look promising.
May 10 - 08:06 PM
Are you guys honestly arguing about whether or not Russel Crowe's films are successful in the U.S.?
May 11 - 01:51 AM
The actual intent of the argument was about whether or not Russell Crowe was truly box office poison. (As stated in the review)
It's related to the review, so I don't see why it's so bad to be discussing the success of Russell Crowe's films....
May 11 - 10:30 AM
Not to belabor the point, but it wasn't the reviewer that said it. It was the first commenter. The reviewer had nothing to say about box office and actually thought it was going to do well overall. Just clarifying
May 12 - 06:36 AM
hahaha I guess I mixed the two on accident. Thanks for pointing that out!!! :) Still though...it was an interesting statement to be made.
May 12 - 10:47 AM