<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Box Office Notes Aug 10 &#8211; 12</title>
	<atom:link href="http://themovieblog.com/2007/08/box-office-notes-aug-10-12/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://themovieblog.com/2007/08/box-office-notes-aug-10-12</link>
	<description>The Official Home of Correct Movie Opinions</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:43:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: GODFATHER</title>
		<link>http://themovieblog.com/2007/08/box-office-notes-aug-10-12#comment-51877</link>
		<dc:creator>GODFATHER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:57:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themovieblog.com/?p=4961#comment-51877</guid>
		<description>I actually saw Stardust on Sunday not having any idea what it was, who was in it, nor having heard of it before that day. But you know what? I actually came out of it having enjoyed the couple hours spent in this make believe land. It was well worth the price of admission, and even a recommendation or two.

As for Rush Hour 3, I doubt it&#039;ll hit 100 Mil.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually saw Stardust on Sunday not having any idea what it was, who was in it, nor having heard of it before that day. But you know what? I actually came out of it having enjoyed the couple hours spent in this make believe land. It was well worth the price of admission, and even a recommendation or two.</p>
<p>As for Rush Hour 3, I doubt it&#8217;ll hit 100 Mil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Campea</title>
		<link>http://themovieblog.com/2007/08/box-office-notes-aug-10-12#comment-51876</link>
		<dc:creator>John Campea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:12:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themovieblog.com/?p=4961#comment-51876</guid>
		<description>Hey Kurt,

Ha!  Actually... i wasn&#039;t talking about you... but I DO remember that conversation we had too.   :)

And yes... he did make a great movie with the Transformers.  And The Rock.  but dude makes some awful shite too no doubt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Kurt,</p>
<p>Ha!  Actually&#8230; i wasn&#8217;t talking about you&#8230; but I DO remember that conversation we had too.   :)</p>
<p>And yes&#8230; he did make a great movie with the Transformers.  And The Rock.  but dude makes some awful shite too no doubt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kurt</title>
		<link>http://themovieblog.com/2007/08/box-office-notes-aug-10-12#comment-51875</link>
		<dc:creator>Kurt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themovieblog.com/?p=4961#comment-51875</guid>
		<description>&quot;4) Transformers passed the $300 million domestically mark, and the $600 million world wide mark this weekend. Not bad for a film that some people insisted to me &quot;will barely crawl over the $100 million point&quot;. (You know who you are). :)&quot;

That would be me.  I&#039;m still reeling from how wrong I was on that one.  It was the SFX, not the story - I read a quote somewhere about Bay in general that sums the high awareness of Transformers up, and ties in with your comments on stardust.  &quot;Michael Bay makes great trailers but not good movies&quot; or something to that effect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;4) Transformers passed the $300 million domestically mark, and the $600 million world wide mark this weekend. Not bad for a film that some people insisted to me &#8220;will barely crawl over the $100 million point&#8221;. (You know who you are). :)&#8221;</p>
<p>That would be me.  I&#8217;m still reeling from how wrong I was on that one.  It was the SFX, not the story &#8211; I read a quote somewhere about Bay in general that sums the high awareness of Transformers up, and ties in with your comments on stardust.  &#8220;Michael Bay makes great trailers but not good movies&#8221; or something to that effect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darren j Seeley</title>
		<link>http://themovieblog.com/2007/08/box-office-notes-aug-10-12#comment-51874</link>
		<dc:creator>Darren j Seeley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:42:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themovieblog.com/?p=4961#comment-51874</guid>
		<description>Since I had no interest in &#039;Rush Hour&#039;, and a close relative of mine who saw &#039;Stardust&#039; didn&#039;t think I would like it /get into it (note: if it was wasn&#039;t a close relative they&#039;d be off the Christmas List, but then again, these are the same relatives who tried to push a full frame &#039;Armegeddon&#039; a number of Xmas years ago, even though they &quot;forgot&quot; I hated the film...and to give me a 1:33 version to boot...eck)

So I went to ...Skinwalkers.

Now, I was going in with less that huge anticipation. But I was curious. As a lover of film, I wanted to see how bad a film can be butchered. I also needed to get off some closed up agnst, eager for a rant...but I also was interested in seeing some work by Stan Winston studios as well. I also like Rhona Mitra. In addition, It has been a long time since I seen B horror cheese on a big screen that isn&#039;t a remake.

To be fair, Gio...it was supposed to be a R, and apparently what the filmmakers promise and what the studio decides to postpone and re-cut are two different things. It was the studio that cut it down to a PG-13 and running time, and it shows. There were some interesting ideas, but the hacked up editing made the film appear more dumb that it should be. I for one didn&#039;t have a problem with the pistol packing gramma. I did, however, have a problem with the notion that if folks can turn into a bunch of man-eating Lon Chaney/Buffy-ish werewolves at night, why bother riding into a near deserted small town with a bunch of guns during the day?

No to little advertising, no advance critic screening, history of reschedules and studio interference.



I dunno...is the second week of August the new Hollywood graveyard?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since I had no interest in &#8216;Rush Hour&#8217;, and a close relative of mine who saw &#8216;Stardust&#8217; didn&#8217;t think I would like it /get into it (note: if it was wasn&#8217;t a close relative they&#8217;d be off the Christmas List, but then again, these are the same relatives who tried to push a full frame &#8216;Armegeddon&#8217; a number of Xmas years ago, even though they &#8220;forgot&#8221; I hated the film&#8230;and to give me a 1:33 version to boot&#8230;eck)</p>
<p>So I went to &#8230;Skinwalkers.</p>
<p>Now, I was going in with less that huge anticipation. But I was curious. As a lover of film, I wanted to see how bad a film can be butchered. I also needed to get off some closed up agnst, eager for a rant&#8230;but I also was interested in seeing some work by Stan Winston studios as well. I also like Rhona Mitra. In addition, It has been a long time since I seen B horror cheese on a big screen that isn&#8217;t a remake.</p>
<p>To be fair, Gio&#8230;it was supposed to be a R, and apparently what the filmmakers promise and what the studio decides to postpone and re-cut are two different things. It was the studio that cut it down to a PG-13 and running time, and it shows. There were some interesting ideas, but the hacked up editing made the film appear more dumb that it should be. I for one didn&#8217;t have a problem with the pistol packing gramma. I did, however, have a problem with the notion that if folks can turn into a bunch of man-eating Lon Chaney/Buffy-ish werewolves at night, why bother riding into a near deserted small town with a bunch of guns during the day?</p>
<p>No to little advertising, no advance critic screening, history of reschedules and studio interference.</p>
<p>I dunno&#8230;is the second week of August the new Hollywood graveyard?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ethan</title>
		<link>http://themovieblog.com/2007/08/box-office-notes-aug-10-12#comment-51873</link>
		<dc:creator>Ethan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:27:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themovieblog.com/?p=4961#comment-51873</guid>
		<description>I saw Rush Hour 3 last night and..man...wow.  Just unfunny and like you said undeserving of 1st in the box office.  It was predictable tht so many people saw it though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw Rush Hour 3 last night and..man&#8230;wow.  Just unfunny and like you said undeserving of 1st in the box office.  It was predictable tht so many people saw it though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kristina</title>
		<link>http://themovieblog.com/2007/08/box-office-notes-aug-10-12#comment-51872</link>
		<dc:creator>Kristina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themovieblog.com/?p=4961#comment-51872</guid>
		<description>I didn&#039;t even know Skinwalkers came out.  I&#039;ve never seen any commercials or trailers for it.  How the hell does a horror flick get a PG rating?  That&#039;s hilarious! 

And good for Transformers.  I hope the sequel is better(i.e. MORE SCREENTIME FOR ROBOTS)but I had a good time with it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I didn&#8217;t even know Skinwalkers came out.  I&#8217;ve never seen any commercials or trailers for it.  How the hell does a horror flick get a PG rating?  That&#8217;s hilarious! </p>
<p>And good for Transformers.  I hope the sequel is better(i.e. MORE SCREENTIME FOR ROBOTS)but I had a good time with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: melbye</title>
		<link>http://themovieblog.com/2007/08/box-office-notes-aug-10-12#comment-51871</link>
		<dc:creator>melbye</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:29:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themovieblog.com/?p=4961#comment-51871</guid>
		<description>Whoever said TF would struggle to get too 100 million should be taken out and shot for stupidity and ignorance</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whoever said TF would struggle to get too 100 million should be taken out and shot for stupidity and ignorance</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KMAN</title>
		<link>http://themovieblog.com/2007/08/box-office-notes-aug-10-12#comment-51870</link>
		<dc:creator>KMAN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:34:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themovieblog.com/?p=4961#comment-51870</guid>
		<description>I hope rush hour makes a tidy profit as i&#039;d like to see another one..... yes i really would :).. and ill probably to impaled for this tucker doesnt really work that much but when he does he&#039;s watchable depending on the role, jackie on the other hand he just the bee-knees and i got a lot of respect for the guy, so ya i hope this film does well</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope rush hour makes a tidy profit as i&#8217;d like to see another one&#8230;.. yes i really would :).. and ill probably to impaled for this tucker doesnt really work that much but when he does he&#8217;s watchable depending on the role, jackie on the other hand he just the bee-knees and i got a lot of respect for the guy, so ya i hope this film does well</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

