Best of the Rest: The Top 3 Movie Draculas

A naive person might speculate that all the world needs is a single Count Dracula movie, but this is clearly not the case. People flock to almost every new vampire movie that is released, and who can blame them?  The concept brings to mind many different ways that the story could be portrayed, and curiosity as what the next Dracula will look like.

Unfortunately though, some Dracula’s are the kind of bad you don’t want to watch; but others fotunately are the viciously evil kind of bad that audiences want to watch over and over again.  Today we’re honoring three of the most deliciously vile cinematic Dracula’s to hit the big screen. 

Beware those who read further, for all the powers of good cannot protect you from the might fangs of. . .  “The Top 3 Movie Draculas!”

#1.  Christopher Lee – Horror of Dracula (1958)

 What's the Movie?

Horror of Dracula is a horror remake from the 50’s starring Peter Cushing, Michael Gough and, of course, Christopher Lee.  The movie is not as well remembered as it probably should be.  It’s not the best Vampire movie ever, but it’s especially notable for Christopher Lee’s performance, as well as its landmark status in the history of violence in film.

Why is Christopher Lee a Great Dracula?

Christopher Lee was born to play Dracula, and if that wasn’t obvious to you before watching “Horror” then it definitely will be afterwards.  He plays the role British (unlike the other two on this list, who both go for the Transylvanian accent,) and it adds some credibility to the performance.  More than anything though Lee is just a huge presence on screen with a deep smooth voice that could kill a charging bear; He’s pretty much awesome all around in Horror of Dracula.

#2.  Gary Oldman – Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

What's the Movie?

Bram Stoker’s Dracula is another movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola that isn’t as good as you would think it would be.  It was released in the early 90’s and stars Keanu Reeves, Winona Rider and Gary Oldman, among others (the film has a fantastic cast.)  It is by far the most graphic mainstream vampire movie to date (and possibly the best to boot,) as it captures the scary sensual side of Bram Stokers novel along with the violent aspects.

Why is Gary Oldman a Great Dracula?

One of the more original portrayals of the character in the last few years, Gary Oldman's Dracula is at the same time pulled directly from the pages of the book and made its own entity.  His performance in all of the forms that Coppula invents for him is an impressive feat on its own, but the emotion that he brings to the table gives it an extra punch!

#3.  Bella Lugosi – Dracula (1931)

 What's the Movie?

The echoes of this pop phenomenon still resound in the public conscious, and it’s little wonder why.  This Dracula film may not be quite as good as its predecessor, Nosferatu, but it’s arguably much more iconic.  Nowadays the old Universal monsters come off a little bit silly, but actually watching the 1930’s Dracula gives one an idea of what it was like when people took these monsters seriously.

 Why is Bella Lugosi a Great Dracula?

Bella Lugosi may not have been the original cinematic Dracula, but his performance in the 1931 motion picture, Dracula, shaped the character as we know him today; he is what people think about when they think about Dracula.  All of the best, most memorable, Dracula’s that have risen to the screen have been influenced to some extent by his performance.  Why?  Because Dracula just wouldn’t be the same if he wasn’t a little bit like Bella Lugosi.

Thanks for reading! If you think you might be living next to a vampire or nosferatu you can follow us on social media or email me at atchleyosaurus@gmail.com.  Check back this weekend for more fun movie blogs!

Theatrical Reviews: John Wick

John Wick is not a great movie, it’s not even a particularly good movie; but I think It’s the movie we needed right now.  This year’s action movie roster has been dominated by CGI-fests, comic book adaptations and mediocre Luc Besson productions.  It is refreshing to go to the cinema and watch an action movie with a small budget, little CGI and some great energy.  Does that mean I don’t like the big budget action movies?  Not at all; But it’s fun to change the pace, and John Wick is a solid enough action movie to stand on its own.

This is also the sort of movie that its star, Keanu Reeves, needed.  Last years 47 Ronin was an abysmal train wreck of a movie; But John Wick reminds us how good Reeves can be when he’s given the right material.  He really struts his stuff in this noir-ish action flick, and when it’s time for his character to emote, his acting produces some legitimately chilling scenes.  I buy him as a cool hit man with nothing to lose; roles like this really suit him.

The action sequences and cinematography are all phenomenally fun.  More then anything the choreography of the gun-foo type action sequences make the movie.  The very original feeling and style of the whole thing, from the close quarters gun fights to the blue color pallet, make the movie look and feel all the more slick and cool.

Unfortunately though, the movie really falters in its plot.  There is the implication of a very intricate, very unique, criminal underworld in the John Wick universe, but it’s never really explained and can become confusing at times.  A particular problem that the plot never addresses is Willem Defoe’s character who acts like more of a plot device then an actual character. 

That said many other movies kill their momentum and their emotional connection to their audience with boring over explanation and exposition.  I’ll take a slightly befuddling plot to the boring exposition fest of The 47 Ronin any day of the week.  This movie could have easily been a clunky mess, but the end result sacrifices clarity for energy, and in the case of an action movie like this, that’s probably a good thing.

So is it exceptional?  No.  But I would argue that it’s at the very least exceptional within the context of modern commercial cinema.  If somebody showed me this movie on DVD without telling me what it was, I probably would have thought it had come out more than a decade ago.  It’s over use of digital color fixing and its stylized gun battles are action trends from 2002 not 2014.  While other action movies nowadays either try to ride current trends (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,) or are overly nostalgic for baby-boomer action flicks (the entire Expendables franchise.)  John Wick on the other hand feels like it’s doing it’s own special thing, and I would say it’s a must see for fans of action, Keanu Reeves or retired hit men who are getting back in the game for one last job.

Thanks for reading.  If you want to take down the entire Russian mob to avenge your dog, you can follow us on social media or email me a atchleyosaurus@gmail.com.  Check back for more fun movie stuff!

Behind the Effects: Davy Jones

Complaining about CGI, and reminiscing about the days were puppets and stop motion were used has become kind of an internet cliché.  Yet it’s one that Behind the Effects is usually more then happy to partake in; because CGI is seriously overused.

But even I have to recognized good work when I see it, and CGI artists are constantly coming up with new cool ways to implement their art into the film medium.  As computer animation evolves I will probably have fewer things to complain about; just watch movies like Avatar or any of the modern Super-Hero movies and you’ll see stuff that was unthinkably mind blowing just a few years ago.  I can hate on CGI all I want, but the medium is truly spectacular.

Take for instance the subject of today’s article, Davy Jones.  This animated squid-faced pirate villain is composed of some of the coolest most minds blowing CGI created for film, and the process is more interesting then you probably think it is.  It all started on the set itself.

That picture above might look familiar to anyone who has seen Pirates of the Caribbean 3, but with one essential change:  There’s an older English gentleman in bizarre face paint standing were Davy Jones is supposed to be.

Well that English gentleman is Bill Nighy, the acting talent behind our tentacle faced friend.  Every Davy Jones sequence filmed for “Pirates 2” and “Pirates 3” was filmed with Nighy standing in the place were Jones would eventually be doing his dialogue live on camera and interacting with the other actors.  Here’s a few before and after pictures to give you an idea of what I’m talking about.

Once the film was done shooting it was ILM’s time to shine.  The weird face paint and clothing that Nighy is wearing in those production photos might make it look like they were setting him up fore motion capture, but that is not the case.  The stuff is there just to make him stand out more so they could use him as an animation example and reference back to his performance when animating Jones’ movements.  If you look you’ll notice that Jones doesn’t even have nighy’s face;  Jones’ face is a unique one created by the artists, using Nighy’s only as a reference for movement.

The actual animation process itself is mind blowing and I don’t pretend to understand any of the actual computer stuff.  here are some stills of the process so you can get a feel for it.

So basically Bill Nighy walked on set every day looking like Jack Skellington, and was transformed into a incredibly realistic squid pirate with a different face in post.  And all without the use of any facial tracking technology, just talented animators.  If that’s not some impressive CGI work, then I don’t know what is!

Thanks for reading!  If you fear death you should join our crew by looking us up on social media or emailing me at atchleyosaurus@gmail.com.  Don't forget to check back later this weekend for a new movie review or two!

Theatrical Reviews: Fury

World War 2 has been beaten to death by Hollywood, and it’s no wonder why.  Old people love the heck out of WW2.  You can hardly turn on the History channel without seeing a documentary on the subject, and at least one big movie set in the time and place comes out every year.  The war on Hitler is definitely making its money back.

Fury is the latest in the WW2 series, but it’s a lot less patronizing and silly then a lot of other historical fiction movies set in the time period.  It’s less of a war epic or a character piece and more of a “slice of life” with very little in the way of grandiosity or theatricality.  This can be a tad frustrating at times, but Ayer and his actors do and grand job with the material; the result being an above average war thriller that will thrill war-junkies and more cerebral viewers alike.

There may not be anything as memorable or breathtaking as the beach sequences from Saving Private Ryan in Fury, but I’m not sure the two are as comparable as they seem to be on face.  A lot of war movies are massive message movies or fast paced survival pieces, and while Fury may have elements of both, it’s above all about the effects a war can have on the emotions actions and minds of those who partake.

The plot meanders throughout various set pieces and action scenes with little in the way of a goal or end point, but that’s the way it’s supposed to be.  Fury is not about fighting Germans, it’s about a group of men; their relationships, prejudices and problems.  The antagonist of this film is not the Nahtzee’s but the protagonists themselves.  They’re all fallible human beings whose flaws have become all the more prominent by process of war.  They’re examples of the psychological transformation one has to go through in order to deal with a situation as horrifying as war.

The film looks great, and the action sequences are properly gory, but one of the best reasons to see this film is the acting.  There is not a par performance in the lot; every actor gives it his all.  Lerman and LaBeouf put on two of the more surprising performances, but every actor here is at the top of their game.  In order for this story to work director David Ayer must have known that primo acting was required, so he got some of the best and made them do great.  If this movie tastes Oscar, It’ll probably be in the acting category.

Over all Fury is a really good war drama with some great acting and a smart plot.  Some of the typical he-man macho crap gets in, but I think that’s somewhat unavoidable in a commercial movie like this.  If you like war films, then you’ll love Fury.  If you can tolerate war movies; here you’ll find one that’s better than most.  

Thanks for reading!  If you want to get trapped in the horrifying vortex that is war, feel free to email me at atchleyosaurus@gmail.com or follow us on social media.  Check back for more movie magic!

Best of the Rest: 3 Halloween Movies for Kids and Parents Alike

Halloween can be tuff for kids and parents alike.  For many the Halloween season is heavily connected to the creepier side of Hollywood, but it might be difficult for parents to find movies that fit with the spirit of the season, but that don’t have the gore and blood that comes with it.

So what is one to do when your six year old wants to sit down and watch Saw 3 on Halloween night?  The following three movies might make better, more family friendly alternatives.

#3.  The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad

 The Movie

Disney’s estranged yet beloved animated double feature may not be the best thing to ever come out of the company, but it’s surprisingly unique.

It features two short-ish animated Disney-fied renditions of classic literature stories, The Wind in the Willows and The Legend of Sleepy hollow one after the other with little connection between the two.  The Wind in the Willows is more of a comic, surprisingly British, romp.  Its twin, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow is a less silly, but still quite funny ghost story.  The two make an interesting couple to say the least; they’re both quite entertaining for children and parents alike.

How is it Great for a Family Halloween?

The first segment, The Wind in the Willows, isn’t very Halloween-ish at all; but the “Sleepy Hollow” is another story all together.  The film concludes in a fun fall dance, ghost stories and a final, inconclusive, attack by the headless horseman.  “Sleepy Hollow,” is just creepy enough to get kids in the ghoulish Halloween spirit, but it’s still loony and toony enough so that only the most skittish kids will have anything but a good time. 

The adults in the meantime can enjoy the brilliant Disney animation, clever humor and the singing and narrating talents of Bing Crosby.  It’s really a scary fun time for the whole family.

#2.  It’s the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown

The Movie

It’s the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown is a classic Halloween special from way back in the day that features the characters from the Charles Schultz comic, Peanuts, and their adventures on a particularly eventful Halloween night.  The characters go trick or treating, bobbing for apples and have low risk internal conflicts and philosophical musings to go along with them.

How is it Great for a Family Halloween?

There is a good reason that these Peanuts specials have survived all these years in the popular consciousness; They’re incredibly clever, smart and entertaining.  Charles Schultz sense of humor shines through in the medium.  My entire family growing up would watch It’s the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown every Halloween growing up, and we still quote it sometimes at family gatherings.  The funny antics of Snoopy and Lucy will get the kids smiling, and the clever writing and humor will get parents hooked as well.  The animation and voice acting might be pretty lame, but the story itself is a feel-good Halloween romp.

#1.  The Nightmare Before Christmas

The Movie

The Nightmare Before Christmas is a detailed gothic stop-motion animated film infested by the fiendish inhabitants of Halloween Town.  These characters are meant to prepare Halloween for the children of the world each year, but that changes when one Halloween Town resident decides that he would rather prepare Christmas instead.

How is it Great for a Family Halloween?

The Nightmare Before Christmas has plenty of dark humor and creepy characters, but it’s all instilled with a sense of child like innocence that I think kids really connect to.  Much like our first entry it’s spooky enough to scare, but not frightening enough to disturb.  The music and silliness all aid the films fun Halloween tone so that it can be palatable to kids, teens and adults alike.  Don’t let the Hot Topic shirts fool you; This movie isn’t just for moody teenagers.  At heart it’s a family film.

Thanks for reading! If you want to watch Saw with your six year old, or if you just want to know more about movies follow us on social media.  Check back this weekend for more movie fun!

Theatrical Reviews: Dracula Untold

Dracula Untold is not nearly as bad as everyone says it is, but it’s also a lot worse then it should have been.  The “untold” potential that this take on Dracula has will probably destroy its chances at long term success, and that’s a real shame.  It really isn’t a terrible movie, it’s just not ambitious enough for its own good.

I can’t really blame the critics for getting annoyed.  “Untold” begins with an exposition flashback and a series of corny expositional family scenes, none of which work even a little bit.  The first few minutes could potentially give the viewer a very bad impression.

The beginning flashback is filled a silly narration and some doofy-stylish action, neither of which add anything to the movie whatsoever.  Modern fantasy films often use lame expositional crap like this to tell their story more quickly, and it rarely ever works (I would even argue the The Lord of the Rings could be better without that opening narration.)  “show don’t tell,” is one of the most important rules in filmmaking;  and that rules legitimacy become obvious when you see a narrated expositional sequence like this one kill a movies momentum before it even starts.

And what does the film follow this up with?  A crummy series of scenes involving Vlad, the pre-vampire Dracula, interacting with his family in the most cliché way possible.  It’s hard to view these early scenes without thinking about hundreds of other bad films that have started the exact same way, I, Frankenstein is a solid example.  Super-hero origin stories are able to create exposition and fuel the first act without lame stuff like this, so why can’t fantasy movies?  Productions often fall into this first-act trap, especially studio productions.  Dracula Untold is just another victim of the process.

These problems are glaring and frustrating, and it takes almost the whole rest of the film to make up for them;  but it definitely does. 

Instead of painting Dracula as a cool anti-hero, or a misunderstood villain.  The writers have decided to make Dracula a tragic hero, the sort that the Greeks once wrote about. The movie slowly moves to be darker, and sucks less and less as it progresses.  While I wouldn’t call this a character study, it definitely moves in that direction.  It’s surprising how thoughtfully the story is told, especially during the final act.

The Action sequences mostly work as well, and the acting isn’t half bad either.  Luke Evens plays a solid Dracula.  His dark and brooding is top notch and, though his kind and relatable could use a little work, he carries this film to its finishing.  Without the energy that the actors and production team put into this script, the whole thing would be dead in the water tragedy or no tragedy.

For a movie as epic and dark as this, Dracula Untold is just too silly to really make it any better than “ok.”  With a few rewrites, recasts and a longer run time this could easily have been an exciting Batman Begins-Esq adventure, but instead it’s a bit of a disappointment.  it's is probably worth the price of admission, but only if you’ve already seen higher-quality movies like Gone Girl and The Box Trolls.  Check it out if you like vampires, Luke Evans or choreographed sword battles.

Thanks for reading!  If you have any questions or just want to be transformed into a servant of the undead email me at atchleyosaurus@gmail.com.  Check back during the week for more fun-tastic halloween movie shenanigans!

Behind the Effects: "The Thing" Eating Arms

 

The Thing is a 1982 horror/thriller from legendary director John Carpenter.  The film is famous for it’s acting, cinematography and special effects, and you can probably guess which one of those three we’ll be talking about today (this isn’t “Behind the Cinematography" after all.)

Most notable amongst the effects sequences are those featuring “The Thing” to which the films title refers; which usually contain a person going through a grizzly, disturbing and unabashedly surreal transformation into a monstrous alien “thing.”  If you haven’t seen the film, I suggest you watch the below sequence to know what I’m talking about. But be warned: It’s pretty gruesome, and contains one particularly naughty word about two and a half minutes in.

The first thing that one might say after watching the above sequence is, “agh, oh gosh! What Is that?”  But after you calm down you might wonder, “How did they do that stuff?”  Well. . . I’ve got a few answers for you, so fill your knowledge whole with some bizarre techniques used in John Carpenter’s The Thing!

Firstly, when Charles Hallahan’s torso opens up and eats the doc’s arms, you may notice that the scene is cut right down the middle.  First we see this. . .

Then one jump cut later we see this. . .

The difference between the two shots is that the first one features the Doc, played by Richard Dysart, giving Hallahan normal fake medical attention, while the second features a hydraulic replicant of Hallahan’s chest and an amputee with gelatin attached to his arms.  That’s right, they hired someone (who’s name I couldn’t find) who had lost his arms from the upper elbow down in an industrial accident, to play Dysart’s double.  The man was rigged with a very detailed Richard Dysart mask and given arms made of Jell-O, plastic tubing (to pump fake blood through,) and fake bone. In the above picture the only thing that's "Real" is Charles Hallahan's head.

The animatronic chest-mouth of doom utilized powerful hydraulics in order to operate, so nothing else was needed in order to make the arms fall off.  All they did was have the mouth close, and that was more then enough to smash through gelatin and plastic.  Once the ends were severed, they pumped blood through the plastic tubes in the arms while the nameless amputee ran around pretending to be in pain.  The result is actually pretty gruesome.

For the hydraulic chest itself, they had Hallahan sit around the effects studio without his shirt on for an akward amount of time, so that they could then make an exact rubber model of it. So when it was time to shoot the sequence they hid Hallahan’s actual body inside the operating table so that only his head and arms were viewable, and laid the fake body and the hydraulics on top.  in the scene, Hallahan’s arms are always his real arms, and his head is his real head (up to the point were it oozes of, grow legs and walks across the floor.)  Only his chest is fake for the majority of the scene.

The rubber chest was places on top of the surprising simple hydraulic clamp, which is about as technically complex as a trash compactor.  This way when the jaws opened the first time, the chest would rip open with it, creating a realer, more convincing, effect.

There’s a lot of cool stuff I haven’t touched on in just the scene I had you watch, not to mention the rest of the film. What I've covered here really only amounts to about twenty seconds of screen-time; I didn't even get to the infamous spider-head.  Unfortunately, to mention all the precise techniques used for this movie would be to write a large book.  However, I may return to this subject again in the next few weeks to give you more juicy details on the magnificent effects displayed here.  In the meantime I hope this inspires you to watch John Carpenter’s 1982 horror classic again, and to have your mind boggled by a heart wrenching plot, as well as mind boggling special effects!

Thanks for reading!  If you have a specific scene from a specific movie  you want to know more about, send me an email at atchleyosaurus@gmail.com.  With a little luck I might end up writing a whole Behind the Effects just for you!  Come back in the next few weeks for more articles, reviews and other fun “things.”

Theatrical Reviews: Gone Girl

I’m a sucker for atmospheric mind bending crime-dramas, and we’ve had quite a few good ones in the last few years, and  David Fincher’s Gone Girl, the newest entry into said genre, may not be quite as good as Prisoners or Side Effects (honestly I can’t decide), but it’s a whole lot of sadistic satiric cynical fun, and stands on it’s own two feet as a straight up great crime thriller.

I have not read the reportedly fantastic novel that this film was based upon, but I feel sorry for anyone who has because their missing out.  Gone Girl has so many fantastic twists turns and mind blowing reveals that it just wouldn’t be the same if you already knew what was going to happen.  It’s doesn’t only have one genuinely surprising twist, It has several (the biggest of which is revealed not half way through the film.)

David Fincher knows how to keep an audience entranced, and Gone Girl is a good example of the director’s skills.  The movie propulses itself with an even pace that never grows monotonous and its tone is surprisingly light, but no less impact full.  The movie actually has some considerable satiric content but it never pulls from the films darker more sinister world.

Gone Girl is like Side Effects mixed with The King of Comedy, with the atmosphere and labyrinthine plot of “Effects” mixed with the media satire of “Comedy.”  I don’t make those comparisons lightly either, since those are two of my favorite movies and are directed by two of my favorite directors.

If there is a major falling point, and I’m not sure there is, it’s that Gone Girl is just a little bit too much fun for its own good.  It doesn’t quite have the emotional impact that one would expect from a heavy thriller like this.  There are definitely some upsides to making the film a bit lighter, but I have a tad bit of trouble taking bits of it seriously.

The acting is okay; definitely not great, but not bad either.  The leads, Rosamund Pike and Ben Affleck, both do a good job in their respective roles.  The movies best acting comes from the oddest places.  The side actors, especially Carrie Coon and Neil Patrick Harris, put on some of the more memorable performances in the film. 

But of course. . . Gone Girl is still a great movie despite its little flaws.  They only keep a great movie from being a really great movie; and that’s a minor offense.  I think we can call this the official kicking off of the Awards season.  It’s a movie worth seeing, worth seeing in the theaters and worth talking about afterwards.  After months and months of mindlessness, we box office watchers can finally put our thinking caps on.  There is no doubt that Gone Girl is the movie to see this October.

As always, thanks for reading! If you want to uncover the dark mystery behind your missing wife I suggest following Atchley-O-Saurus on social media or email me at atchleyosaurusmovies@gmail.com.  have a great weekend and check back this weekend for some more movie-tastic fun!

Best of the Rest: The 3 Biggest Hit Films of September 2014

September is a terrible month for movie fans and non-movie fans alike.  People just don't see that many movies in September, so the movie studios more often then not use the month as a testing ground (read: dumping ground) for movies that they aren't very confident about.  These movies often stink, or are so bland that they might as well have stunk.

This September was no different.  It says something about a cinematic month when a movie that came out the month before (namely Guardians of the Galaxy) is one of the top five most watched movies of the four-week period.  While there weren't any epic movie bombs this month, there wasn't anything that really captured the imagine much either, at least not in main-stream cinemas.

To make it all worse, this past September was not only a low grossing month for movies, as is expected, It was the worst month at the box office we've seen in over half a decade (the last month to gross this low was also a September by the way, another testament to how awful September is.)

Yet in almost every month there are a few winners (financially,) and while they aren't much to look at, this months winners have racked up some decent numbers.  Two of them are even getting sequels, so it's about time we shot ourselves up with some movie knowledge and checked out what movies didn't do too terrible at the domestic box office in September of 2014 (ranking by highest weekend opening, because these movies are still fairly early in their theatrical runs.)

#3.  No Good Deed

 

What is It?

A horror / thriller home invasion flick directed by Sam Miller and starring Idris Elba and Taraji P. Wilson.

How Much $$$ Has It Made?

The film opened to about 24 million, which may not seem huge.  But No Good Deed was a September release with no huge star (Idris Elba well liked, but he's not a big name star,) an unown director and a modest 13 million dollar budget.  It got double it's money back in only three days, and it has gotten four times back in the mean time.  If that isn't a success, I don't know what is.

But is it Any Good?

I, unfortunately, have yet to check No Good Deed out; but the reviews are not positive.  The film has a current Rotten Tomato rating of 11% and a 5.9 rating on IMDB.  Critics have called it "Violent, Crass and Insulting," (Joe Neumaier) "a gruelingly unpleasant slog" (Drew Taylor,) and apparently they think it "has been done a thousand times better in scores of Lifetime productions" (Josh Kupecki.)  So ya. . . I think it might be a good choice to avoid this one.

#2.  The Maze Runner

 

What is it?

A YA (young adult) novel adaptation about a group of boys who wake up inside a mysterious maze and without any reccolection of how thy got into it.  The film was directed by Wes Ball and stars Dylan O'Brien and that dumb kid from "We Are the Millers."

How Much $$$ Has it Made?

YA book adaptations seem to go either mega cash cow (like Twilight or Divergent) or megabomb (like The Host or Vampire Academy,) but The Maze Runner is kind of in the middle.  It made 30 million on it's opening weekend, so it covered it's production costs, and it's also made an additional 30 million domestic in the mean time, so definitely not a failure here. 

And if that's not enough, The Maze Runner has made over one-hundred million dollars in foreign markets.  I'm not sure why people over seas want to see an adaptation of an American book for school children, but for whatever reason the film is blowing up in Asia.  20th Century Fox already has a sequel in the works as a result; The film has succeeded financially on multiple levels.

But is it Any Good?

It was "meh."  I didn't like it that much, but other critics liked it, so I guess it varies.  The film has a moderate 62% on Rotten Tomatoes and a strong 7.5 on IMDB.  Critics have called it "OK," (Bill Goodykoontz) "Insulting," (Roger Moore) and "Compelling" (Bill Zwecker.)  So I guess that you should watch the trailer and decide for yourself if it's worth seeing.

#1.  The Equalizer

 

What is it?

A television adaptation of a television show that you're probably too young to know about.  But it doesn't matter because it stars Denzel Washington shooting people and is directed by that guy who directed "Training Day."  Also I think Hit-Girl from "Kick-Ass" is a prostitute or something.

How much $$$ Has it Made?

It opened to 45 million on it's first weekend (less than a week ago,) and has made it's production budget of 55 million back in the mean time.  A movie like this isn't going to make it's production budget back in the first weekend, but will it do a couple of times in the coming weeks? Probably, and even if it doesn't, 45 million is a huge figure for a pre-thanksgiving release; enough so that Columbia is already throwing a sequel together.

But is it Any Good?

This is another one I haven't gotten a chance to see yet.  And the reviews are mixed.  Rotten tomatoes has it firmly at 60% and IMDB has it at 7.6. Some Critics really like it, and others think it's "Stone Dumb" (Joshua Rothkopf.)  I'd check it out if the trailer looks good to you (it looks awesome to me,) but I wouldn't go in expecting a masterpiece.

Thanks for reading! If you're one of the few that actually care about September box office grosses then you should follow me on social media or email me at atchleyosaurus@gmail.com.  It's been a pleasure writing for you!