Worst 5 Movies of the Summer

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Hmmm... Granted, I've yet to see the film for myself. But the reviews I read or which I saw letter grades assigned to for Public Enemies were quite favorable. And it has made decent money at the box office (it's closing in on $100M). So why is it #2 on this site's Worst 5 Movies of the Summer?      Bizarre.    But apparently there's no pleasing everyone.

I think that perhaps we might ignore whatever they'll have to say about the DS film...

[Mary]

Oh for heaven's sake.  I thought both Public Enemies and Terminator: Salvation were great!

[Bobubas]

Wow! That surprises me as well. I saw Public Enemy and really enojyed it, has did the 3 others who attend with me. I don't know if many people put a lot in to those reviews, especially if you have a star the caliber of Johnny Depp in the film.  I'd still go and see and Johnny Depp movie, regardless of the reviews.

[madscntst]

Public Enemies got a 70 on Metacritic:  "generally favorable reviews"

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/publicenemies

There were a few raves, though most seemed to think it was a very good, but not classic, film.  I was personally a little unsatisfied- I thought that the acting and the individual scenes were all great, but as a whole it seemed to lack some cohesion.  Also, it was a little difficult to remember all the supporting characters, and I got a lot more out of it on a 2nd (and 3rd  ) viewing.  But it was a quality film.  It hardly belongs in the same company as junk like Year One, which got a 34 on Metacritic:

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/yearone

Cathy

[Gerard]

I enjoyed Public Enemies, too, and I guess my only criticism was that it was, indeed, a bit too long which, at times, made the goings-on (as well as trying to remember, as madscntst points out, who the secondary characters were from scene to scene) a tad confusing.  I think if it had been "compacted" more, it would have moved from being a "good" film to a "great" film. 

I like to think of the irony as to how this cuts both ways in cinematics.  The editing of NoDS from its original "director's cut" to the shortened version (which wasn't the fault of DC and crew, but of the MGM big-wigs) made it confusing at times, while the lack of a few cuts in PE, turning it from a probably better shorter film to a longer one, made it equally confusing at times.

Gerard

[madscntst]

Interesting point, gerard.  I think that some movies succeed very well even if they're over 2 hours long, whereas others just seem to meander too much.  I don't know if PE was too long for me, per se, even though I think it was over 2 hours, but I felt the story arc could've been tightened up a bit.  I felt there *was* a story there, but I really didn't feel the progress of the story so much the first time.  There were a lot of extraneous characters that were put in, and then not really developed, so the question was should they really have added all that detail in the first place?  For instance, Channing Tatum was pretty much wasted as Pretty Boy Floyd, with barely any screen time, and that scene was not historically accurate:
[spoiler]Pretty Boy Floyd was not killed until *after* Dillinger.[/spoiler]  
But that scene led way to the scene in the jail cell where Dillinger meets Purvis, but
[spoiler]that scene wasn't historically accurate either, because Dillinger and Purvis never actually met! It was a great scene, and it was probably important to put the two main characters together for at least one scene, but I don't know if Pretty Boy Floyd had to have been mentioned.[/spoiler]

Faults aside, it was a great looking film with top notch acting, great sets, fantastic action scenes, beautiful costumes and an awesome soundtrack.  I think that it was just that some folks' expectations of a Depp/Bale/Cotillard/Mann film were too impossibly high.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

This week's issue of EW lists PE as one of the summer's losers. And favorable reviews aside, I now understand why - I had no idea that the film cost $80M to make. Factor in what the studio paid to promote it, and so far making slightly over $97M at the box office doesn't leave much, if any, profit for the studio...

Though there's a big difference between being a financial disappointment domestically (meaning only US as opposed to worldwide) and being one of the worst films of the summer. After all, "worst" films can be box office hits yet be bad films. It isn't at all a case that good films are all box office hits and all bad films are box office failures.

(Though I suspect that when worldwide box office is factored together (not to mention future DVD sales/rentals), PE won't be anything like a loser for the studio.)

[Gerard]

The studio spent $80 million and made $97 million, giving it a $17 million profit and by today's cinematic standards, that's considered a flop.  I know how I can help the studio to recoup its loss:  give me $18 million and then it can write the movie off as a loss and make back a huge chunk of dough from Uncle Sam.  Everyone will end up happy and richer.  And I'd be able to afford to attend the 2010 DS fest, and even fly out to LA First Class!  First round of drinks in the hotel bar will be on me!

Gerard

[Mysterious Benefactor]

$80M is only what it cost to actually make the movie. The studio would have spent more than that. Sometimes promotion alone costs more than $17M - especially with heavily promoted films - and PE was definitely heavily promoted.

[madscntst]

I used to hear of some formula being used as a rule of thumb- it might've been if the domestic made 1.5 of the cost or if worldwide made 2.5 of the cost... or something along those lines.  I think, though, that in the last year or two, with the economy the way it is, they've had to suck up a little.  Really, $97 million is nothing to sneeze at; however, the studios are gonna be looking pretty hard at that $80 million plus that it cost to make it.  A lot of that cost was for star salaries- Johnny doesn't come cheap, and I'm sure that Christian doesn't, either, and Cotillard is an Academy Award winner.  There was a huge cast, and the production crews rented vintage cars and went to many of the actual locations and recreated all the storefronts and streets to have a 1930's look.  But are studios going to keep being willing to spend that much for a film if it's barely making the same at the box office?  This is troubling, but in a way, maybe the film industry will stop going to such excess (I'm looking at you, James Cameron  )

Anyway, back to PE, I don't think it can be considered a hit by any means, but I don't think it was a financial flop, either.  They probably wished it had done a bit better.  If you look at IMDb's charts (scroll down a little on the Public Enemies page),

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=publicenemies.htm

you will see that the film is currently #19 for the year.  Even more interestingly, it is currently #3 among R rated films for the year (District 9 and Inglourious Basterds will probably surpass it, but still, it's close to the top).  It's much harder for an R rated film to be a huge box office hit.  So, I don't think it did that badly, even though I do wish it would've cleared $100 million.

Cathy

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Even more interestingly, it is currently #3 among R rated films for the year (District 9 and Inglourious Basterds will probably surpass it, but still, it's close to the top).  It's much harder for an R rated film to be a huge box office hit.

That's very true. Teens, a huge portion of the movie going public, aren't allowed in to see an R film without an adult - and how many teenagers want to go to the movies with an adult? Certainly not many of the ones I know.

So, I don't think it did that badly, even though I do wish it would've cleared $100 million.

It still may. It still places around #25-#30 each day - and so long as it's still making money, many theaters will continue to show it. Well, at least until the new crop of big fall/winter films come out.