'Redacted' weekend take $25,628!

[chuckster]

... for November 16-18 according to boxofficemojo.com. Dismal take by any standards! Of course it opened at only 15 theaters in the USA (gosh, I wonder why). Hopefully Mark Cuban and the makers of the other anti-military films are getting the point -Americans are disgusted by this type of film. Basically what he has ended up making is a propaganda film for the enemy! Of course, it has not opened overseas yet. I guess if Mark Cuban wants to recover his investment his best hopes are when it plays in places like Tehran, the southern suburbs of Beirut, Caracus, Havanah etc.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Ok a movie makes $25,628 in it's opening weekend in 15 theaters.

Thats $1708.50 per theater.

Or at an average of 8 bucks 3208 people went and seen it.

Now considering it was only released with a limited theatrical release which most independent/art house and or movies going for Oscar nominations are generally released before major distribution in the New Year.

I'd say thats not to bad.

[I can't think of a name]

Ok a movie makes $25,628 in it's opening weekend in 15 theaters.

Thats $1708.50 per theater.

Or at an average of 8 bucks 3208 people went and seen it.

Now considering it was only released with a limited theatrical release which most independent/art house and or movies going for Oscar nominations are generally released before major distribution in the New Year.

I'd say thats not to bad.

They released in in the major markets in LA and NY. That is a horrible PTA (Per Screen Average). A lot of smaller films have done better.


Redacted is estimated to take in $1535 per theatre. For some perspective on just how bad that is, Margot At The Wedding also opened this weekend and is taking in over $42,000 per theatre. In its 4th weekend Bella is taking in $2500 per theatre with a total gross thus far of $5.1 million. Not bad for a $3 million anti-abrtion film with no stars.

[chuckster]

Now considering it was only released with a limited theatrical release which most independent/art house and or movies going for Oscar nominations are generally released before major distribution in the New Year.

I'd say thats not to bad.

Hey, if you call Redacted an 'artsy film', what is your idea of a classic, Saw IV?

[JKD]

Hey, if you call Redacted an 'artsy film', what is your idea of a classic, Saw IV?
Have you seen it?

I haven't. And I'll bet 99.9999% of the people condemning it haven't seen it either. Maybe it sucks maybe it's genius. Maybe it's somehwow "anti-American" maybe it's not. I won't know till I see it with my own eyes and form my own opinion. I'm not going to get all worked up about some movie because Bill O’Reilly, who hasn't seen it either, tells me to.

Box office numbers don't say much about the quality of a film either. Some of my favorite movies were flops but a cinematic lump of sh*t like, say, Armageddon made hundreds of millions.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Have you seen it?

I haven't. And I'll bet 99.9999% of the people condemning it haven't seen it either. Maybe it sucks maybe it's genius. Maybe it's somehwow "anti-American" maybe it's not. I won't know till I see it with my own eyes and form my own opinion. I'm not going to get all worked up about some movie because Bill O’Reilly, who hasn't seen it either, tells me to.

Box office numbers don't say much about the quality of a film either. Some of my favorite movies were flops but a cinematic lump of sh*t like, say, Armageddon made hundreds of millions.

You sir are a ****ing genius.

It's a simple fact. Some of the best movies have been box office bombs. Other have sucked more then a dog sucking his own balls yet make billions. Titanic cough.

[Undisputed4]

I always thought Mark Cuban was a good ole Pittsburgh guy who stood as a classic american. Then he supoorted this. To think I actually liked this guy.

[ronnieraygun]

I always thought Mark Cuban was a good ole Pittsburgh guy who stood as a classic american. Then he supoorted this. To think I actually liked this guy.

He's a loudmouth. He's a businessman. Business people try to make money. Will his investment pay off? Very likely. He's no dummy and can't be reduced to a stereotype.

[CMNot]

There's an article in Time regarding audiences and this latest crop of war films.

It's worth bearing in mind that entertainment wise, the better Vietnam movies for instance were made after the time and not contemporary to it.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

If the reviews on rottentomatoes or imdb are anything to go by, the movie sucks. If box office is anything to go by, the movie sucks. But I'm sure it provided a couple of years worth of business lunches and other tax breaks for De Palma, so what does he care? More importantly, it makes him the darling of the world he longs to be relevant within. Kudos to another American baby boomer who's relentless self-focus makes him come up far short of the generation before him.

[HR24]

De Palma hasn't done jacksh*t since The Untouchables and Carlito's Way. To me, this is his attempt to get back into the good graces of Hollywood.

[Riot5]

If I'm in the mood to see a military-themed film, I want something patriotic. This movie doesn't meet that requirement.

I think most Americans would agree with me.

[Abolith]

Ok a movie makes $25,628 in it's opening weekend in 15 theaters.

Thats $1708.50 per theater.

Or at an average of 8 bucks 3208 people went and seen it.

Now considering it w1708.5/8
as only released with a limited theatrical release which most independent/art house and or movies going for Oscar nominations are generally released before major distribution in the New Year.

I'd say thats not to bad.





average is more like $10 for a movie ticket, even at $8 per ticket.... and a take of about 1708.50, that is still less than 300 people per theater... or 100 per day with an average of 5 show times per day (opening weekend) thats about 20 people per showing.... thats beyond bad.... that is soo bad most theaters would drop it after that first three days. Showing that movie is costing theaters money.

[Nod]

I heard it was ONLY released in the Landmark cinemas the same cinemas which Mark Cuban owns.

Also check out www.boycottredacted.com

[Firetxmi]

Have you seen it?

I haven't. And I'll bet 99.9999% of the people condemning it haven't seen it either. Maybe it sucks maybe it's genius. Maybe it's somehwow "anti-American" maybe it's not. I won't know till I see it with my own eyes and form my own opinion. I'm not going to get all worked up about some movie because Bill O’Reilly, who hasn't seen it either, tells me to.

Box office numbers don't say much about the quality of a film either. Some of my favorite movies were flops but a cinematic lump of sh*t like, say, Armageddon made hundreds of millions.

So, to all those condemning it: Who has seen the movie?

[BloodyTalon]

So, to all those condemning it: Who has seen the movie?
A lot of people haven't seen Gigli either but they know that its a crappy movie. Critical and box office reception say a lot about the quality of a film. Now unless you want to claim that Gigli is a misunderstood classic, that's another story altogether.

Besides, Brian de Palma already made it clear what the content of the movie is:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=119408&highlight=Redacted

[HR24]

A lot of people haven't seen Gigli either but they know that its a crappy movie. Critical and box office reception say a lot about the quality of a film. Now unless you want to claim that Gigli is a misunderstood classic, that's another story altogether.


Well played, sir. Well played.

[Firetxmi]

A lot of people haven't seen Gigli either but they know that its a crappy movie. Critical and box office reception say a lot about the quality of a film. Now unless you want to claim that Gigli is a misunderstood classic, that's another story altogether.

Besides, Brian de Palma already made it clear what the content of the movie is:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=119408&highlight=Redacted

I have seen a lot of book covers and can also tell what is a crappy book and what isn't by my interpretation of the cover. I understand now. :roll:

[BloodyTalon]

I have seen a lot of book covers and can also tell what is a crappy book and what isn't by my interpretation of the cover. I understand now. :roll:
If you look at the book sleeve which explains that its about a transvestite midget with that that gets off by having retarded kids take a dump on his face, and then you read reviews from the NYT and a bunch of other sources about how horrible the book is, would you still read it?

[Firetxmi]

True, but if you look at the book sleeve which explains that its about a transvestite midget with that that gets off from having retarded kids take a dump on his face, and then you read reviews from the NYT and a bunch of other sources about how horrible the book is, would you still read it?

Hey I read a book in High School about a man who has *** with his own mother. It was an excellent book, but if I had just read the synopsis I probably would never have read it.

Sounds like if I were to use your theory on judging things I would miss out on a lot of good books, movies, food, etc. in this world.

But hey, go ahead slam a movie, book, etc that you have never seen/tried before. Its your loss in the grand scheme of things.

P.S. I hear Bill O'Reilly doesn't like steak!

[Firetxmi]

Bill, do movies corrupt absolutely, or do they not ?

Maybe you should actually read some of what you write Bill. In the above mentioned America Pop Culture Way article , you include the following:

"Finally, I went to see a movie called "American Gangster" over the weekend because of charges it glorified a drug dealer, played by Denzel Washington. "

Bill, you went to see a movie because you thought it glorified a drug dealer ??

Then you went on to say :

"But "American Gangster" did not glorify the dealer, although now for children, it is an excellent film, one that targets corruption, and demonstrates the evil of Mr. Washington's character.
Those kinds of movies, tough as they are, actually, help the United States, unlike films that actively spur anti-American hatred. All of us have a responsibility to speak out against that."

I want to make sure I understand something here Bill. Are you saying here that you were wrong about a movie you hadn't yet seen ,and you changed your mind after you saw it ?

What a concept. I'm glad you thought of it Bill.

-Mark Cuban

Link: http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/11/12/mark-cuban-bill-oreilly-is-just-a-wonderful-confused-guy


Part of a much larger, interesting, article written by Mark Cuban.

[BloodyTalon]

Hey I read a book in High School about a man who has *** with his own mother. It was an excellent book, but if I had just read the synopsis I probably would never have read it.

Sounds like if I were to use your theory on judging things I would miss out on a lot of good books, movies, food, etc. in this world.

But hey, go ahead slam a movie, book, etc that you have never seen/tried before. Its your loss in the grand scheme of things.

P.S. I hear Bill O'Reilly doesn't like steak!
Yes, I guess i'll have to miss out on true greatness that is Redacted and Gigli. Oh well, i think i'll manage.

Now here's a question for you; why do you automatically assume that Redacted isn't crappy? Because its anti-war? Because it has a big name director behind it? You have as much knowledge as i do about the film, which is the reviews, the box office, and Brian de Palma himself. And from the looks of things, he went out of his way to make an anti-war movie that portrays the army negatively and that he did a bad job doing so.

PS. Just because i disagree with you means i'm a bill o'reilly follower LOL AMIRITE? :roll:

[Firetxmi]

Now here's a question for you; why do you automatically assume that Redacted isn't crappy? Because its anti-war? Because it has a big name director behind it? You have as much knowledge as i do about the film, which is the reviews, the box office, and Brian de Palma himself. And from the looks of things, he went out of his way to make an anti-war movie that portrays the army negatively and that he did a bad job doing so.

Because I haven't seen it. I will reserve any/all judgment for if/when I see the movie.


PS. Just because i disagree with you means i'm a bill o'reilly follower LOL AMIRITE? :roll:

Comment wasn't directed at you in particular.


Word on the street is that Full Metal Jacket has some anti-war undertones in it. Bad movie?

[JKD]

Now here's a question for you; why do you automatically assume that Redacted isn't crappy?
Personally I don't. It very well may be crappy. But then again it may not. I'll know after I see it and have formed my own opinion.


Because its anti-war?
What war movies aren't anti-war?


Because it has a big name director behind it?
DePalma's made some amazing movies. He's also made some movies that I thought sucked. So again, I'll know after I see it.


You have as much knowledge as i do about the film, which is the reviews, the box office, and Brian de Palma himself. And from the looks of things, he went out of his way to make an anti-war movie that portrays the army negatively and that he did a bad job doing so.
Is Bad Lieutenant portraying all police in a bad light or just a few of it's characters? Is Backdraft anti-fireman? The arsonist turns out to be a fireman after all.

[chas]

You guys are not bashing the movie for being crappy or whatever: you want it to fail because its not pro-american.
Its the dramatization of a crime many people protested against. Against the crime? No: against the alleged criminals to even br tried be military justice.
If that's being patriotic....

[2Sheds_Jackson]

You guys are not bashing the movie for being crappy or whatever: you want it to fail because its not pro-american.

Those are not mutually exclusive positions. For myself - based on the director's own description of the movie, it's timing, it's intent, I find it appalling - and yes I hope it fails miserably. Judging by the fact that they can't get it into wide release, and the poor reviews it's received, my wishes seem to be coming true. So yep - I'm bashing it from both angles.

In a larger sense, it's really a kind of sad commentary on both De Palma's and the left's generational dyslexia - he's still playing it as if it was still the mid 70's, and making anti-war movies was still "risky" or cool. On the contrary - this is exactly the kind of tired, formulaic pablum that many directors of his generation cut their teeth on 30 years ago. One can connect all the dots even before the first act is over. Yawn. You want "risky" and avant-garde? Make an unabashedly pro-war movie. But that would never fly in Hollywood...which strangely enough still considers itself to have something to do with creativity and artistic integrity.

[muck]

What war movies aren't anti-war?
There are hardly any real anti-war movies in my opinion. All I have seen seemed to contain the message "War is bad, but I love it".

The Americans are just not familiar with playing the bad role in a movie. It is the same like it was with 'Letters from Iwo Jima'. That was a truly artistic movie, neglected or boycotted solely for patriotism.

[JKD]

...You want "risky" and avant-garde? Make an unabashedly pro-war movie...

That's probably true. But it leaves me wondering what an "unabashedly pro-war movie" would look like. I don't think I've ever seen one.

Soldier 1: Guys this is soooooo cool.
Soldier 2: Tell me about it. War is awwwesome!
Soldier 3: Man, I'm going to be sad when this kick ass war is over 'cause I'm having so much fun.
Soldier 4: War...it's fantastic.
Soldier 1: High five!

[I can't think of a name]

Thanks to the internet you do not need to see a movie to tell it sucks.

Horrible films used to have big opening weekends and then word of mouth would destroy them. The internet speeds up that process now with the few people who get to see it early can be heard around th world.

[JKD]

Thanks to the internet you do not need to see a movie to tell it sucks.

Horrible films used to have big opening weekends and then word of mouth would destroy them. The internet speeds up that process now with the few people who get to see it early can be heard around th world.

Also, thanks to dvd and things like itunes, movies no longer have to perform well in theaters to be profitable in the long run.

[I can't think of a name]

Also, thanks to dvd and things like itunes, movies no longer have to perform well in theaters to be profitable in the long run.

And Free copies for download take away from that.

[Palmach]

That's probably true. But it leaves me wondering what an "unabashedly pro-war movie" would look like. I don't think I've ever seen one.

I have. Russian movies about WWII tended to treat the characters of soldiers with a greatest dergee of respect and reference as well as depicting the just nature of the soviet involvment in the war.

Pro-war movie does not mean "pro-any war" or "pro-killing people". It can be pro-this-particular-war and pro-soldiers-who-are-carrying-out-their-duties-with-honor.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

That's probably true. But it leaves me wondering what an "unabashedly pro-war movie" would look like. I don't think I've ever seen one.

Soldier 1: Guys this is soooooo cool.
Soldier 2: Tell me about it. War is awwwesome!
Soldier 3: Man, I'm going to be sad when this kick ass war is over 'cause I'm having so much fun.
Soldier 4: War...it's fantastic.
Soldier 1: High five!

Well I think every war movie throws in a few characters like that, just so it can paint them as bad guys.

I'm not talking about pro-war in general (who or what could be pro-war in that sense?). I mean a movie that on balance supports the fact that we as a nation decided to go to war, that our citizens are honorably waging it, and that they deserve to be supported so they can win. Take your average WWII flick, and change the war. Guys who don't want to be there, but have a job to do, and who do it, and who don't devolve into monsters.

Yeah, that's every bit as political as what De Palma has created - but it's far more risky and certainly bucks the trend of just about every war movie of the last 35 years.

Seems that every post-Vietnam war movie falls back on leftist boilerplate. The same old thing, over and over - the war is started by evil men (somehow outside of our democratic process), for some nefarious ulterior motive, the government is evil and inept, the military is doing terrible illegal things to XYZ, and crushing our poor hero who was tricked into participating. It's all so easy - it never forces the viewer to think or do any self-examination. It's all some grand scam that our otherwise lovely nation is a victim of.

[Firetxmi]

I have. Russian movies about WWII tended to treat the characters of soldiers with a greatest dergee of respect and reference as well as depicting the just nature of the soviet involvment in the war.

Pro-war movie does not mean "pro-any war" or "pro-killing people". It can be pro-this-particular-war and pro-soldiers-who-are-carrying-out-their-duties-with-honor.

Also known as propaganda!

[BloodyTalon]

Also known as propaganda!
So according to your standards Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Stalingrad, etc. are propaganda...

[JKD]

Well I think every war movie throws in a few characters like that, just so it can paint them as bad guys.

I'm not talking about pro-war in general (who or what could be pro-war in that sense?). I mean a movie that on balance supports the fact that we as a nation decided to go to war, that our citizens are honorably waging it, and that they deserve to be supported so they can win. Take your average WWII flick, and change the war. Guys who don't want to be there, but have a job to do, and who do it, and who don't devolve into monsters.
Like it or not, unlike WWII, Iraq's an unpopular war just as Vietnam was. Still, We Were Soldiers and Hamburger Hill do a good job of showing the troops in the light you describe. Maybe someday we'll see similar Iraq War movies. And I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see more positive Afghanistan movies in the coming years.


Seems that every post-Vietnam war movie falls back on leftist boilerplate. The same old thing, over and over - the war is started by evil men (somehow outside of our democratic process), for some nefarious ulterior motive, the government is evil and inept, the military is doing terrible illegal things to XYZ, and crushing our poor hero who was tricked into participating. It's all so easy - it never forces the viewer to think or do any self-examination. It's all some grand scam that our otherwise lovely nation is a victim of.
The day Americans are not suspicious of authority I'll start thinking they're putting something in the water ;)

[Kilgor]

Im having a hard time thinking of any "pro-war" movies of the last 20-30 years.

[AOCBravo2004]

Wasn't this movie made before? I think it was called Casualties of War, hey another Brian de Palma film that portrays American GI's as rapists.

[Midav]

My post elsewhere:

This movie, directed by Brian De Palma and financed by Mark Cuban, is about the Mahmudiyah killings that took place in Iraq in 2006. Some US soldiers killed a family and raped a 14 year old girl before killing her as well. For all I care, those criminals, who no longer can be called US soldiers, should be hung by the neck until their lives are no more. There is no excuse for what they did.

However, their actions do not reflect on the entire United States Armed Forces. There will always be bad apples in any organization and focus should not be given to a very small minority.

Now, this movie which has hit the big screen, will be a good propaganda flick for those exact people around the globe that hate our guts as is. I know that because I lived overseas 20 years of my life and there are some very bad people out there that simply do not like us simply for where we were born. There is not an ounce in me that does not think this flick will get an American/Westerner killed and that makes me mad! I believe in freedom of speech. But, I also believe in common sense. In WW2, Mr. De Palma and Mr. Cuban would have been sent to prison for something like this. Then again, in those days there was a semblance of something I spoke about a few sentences ago.... common sense.

I will not waste money on this movie that focuses on one small bad event that happened against a much larger picture. Nor would I watch it if it were given to me for free along with a brand new car. The US military has mostly good people and as I said earlier, a small minority of bad people should not reflect on the people serving. Also, Mr De Palma and Mr. Cuban are acting very foolish for their beliefs.

You all have your own freedom of choice and if you want to see Redacted, so be it. I just hope more people share my beliefs.

[ViktorNavorski]

Director De Palma disturbed over Iraq film edit (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18464892.htm)

De Palma said he expected the images in "Redacted" to stir U.S. public debate about the conduct of American soldiers. Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi was gang-raped, killed and burned by U.S. troops in Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad, in March 2006. Her parents and another family member were also killed.

He said the film provided a realistic portrait of U.S. troops and how "the presentation of our troops has been whitewashed" by mainstream media.Quite a smearing he's doing with a broad brush...

[Chairborne_Ranger]

Umm... the same mainstream media that has been portraying the war in the same way that De Palma did???

This kind of thinking proves that De Palma is still living in the 70s and thinking that an anti-war film would be edgy and different.

[perdurabo]

aaah you put "," instead "." i thought that movie earned 26 bucks lol you yanks are weird to put a comma instead of period ;)

[Ordie]

I think the reason why it did so poorly as with most Iraq war movies, is that audiences want escape from the war and not to be reminded of it. Also the feelings are still raw and the war is still going on.

The last thing I want to do is spend money to watch a movie to make me feel more awful at the end of the night.

[muttbutt]

That and the fact it was piss poor film making and acting wise.

[Mastermind]

One of my son's is a sound man for the movie industry. He has even been in a few "bombs"...occassionally he acts as a stunt man. His take on movies like this is that they are often made for political gain in the industry and sometimes they are made as deliberate tax whacks....But, to make a loser (tax write off) and a political statement at the same time that discloses your mental parallelism with the big money people is kind of a major coup.

This one is a toss away...the movie to watch out for is the one this little gastrointestinal gas generator propigates.

[Litti]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5734551070026840153&q=redacted&total=674&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I think I found the movie from video.google.com

[ibstolidude]

I have seen a lot of book covers and can also tell what is a crappy book and what isn't by my interpretation of the cover. I understand now. :roll:

Ok then, I have a moose-poop pie for you to taste. What do you know, have you ever eaten moose-poop?

[mocking_loudly_died]

Alright I just watched it, pretty entertaining, loads of evil American cliches and sometimes unintentionally comical.

Although the political slant is horribly blatant, I did enjoy finally seeing a war movie without the homo epic string soundtrack and the high contrast photography that makes war extremely palatable for bedroom soldiers.

Is it going to change the World and stop me from masturbating in ten mins to a you****.com clip.... nope.... entertainment albeit lefty style, getting upset over it is a waste of your energy.

[Litti]

It wasn't really that annoying if you just look at it as a story about some soldiers who are literally out of their minds and commit some horrible acts.

But it does generalise and the whole decapitation scene made me grin. "This is for our sister and everyone you kill. See, we are just carrying out a justified revenge" sort of stuff which is a bit disappointing from the director.