You know I used to do this all the time with Rob’s films, but I realised with The Rover and I think maybe talking to David that box office isn’t really a reflection of anything.  Sure Hollywood loves movies that make money, but at the end of the day, I love movies that I love and as a cinema goer I don’t really care if a film makes $3,000 or $300 million.  And there are actors and directors out there who agree with me.  Point of fact is that in reality I actually steer away from the $300 million movies because they often never provide me with quality storytelling or acting.  And we know Rob chooses the movies he wants to make and I understand that some want Rob in more mainstream roles so they can see him at their local cinemas who often bypass his latest roles, but I just want to see him in whatever he chooses to make because imagine if Rob was the actor that did just do mainstream – we may never have seen his portrayal as Rey in The Rover, instead we’d be watching him in crap films like Neighbors|Bad Neighbours (and yes I saw it only because I was a captive audience on a flight to LA last September and I endured it during the 14 hour flight).  Food for thought.

Anyway I know there are loads of you that are interested in figures so here it goes:

Indiewire:

“Not doing quite so well (though it was released day-and-date on VOD) was “Maps To The Stars,” which Focus Features sent out to 66 theaters after an Oscar qualifying release in late 2014 (which did result in a Golden Globe nomination for Julianne Moore, but not much else). The result was an underwhelming $139,000 for a $2,106 per-theater-average.”

Deadline:

“It opened in 66 theaters grossing $139K for a tepid $2,106 per-theater average, decidedly lower than Cronenberg’s last film, Cosmopolis. Entertainment One bowed that film, which also featured Pattinson, in three theaters in 2012. It had a decent opening gross of $70,339 and $23,446 PTA before clumping to a $763,556 domestic cume.

Before that, Cronenberg’s films typically had solid debuts and decent to good grosses. Sony Classics opened A Dangerous Method in 2011, grossing nearly $168K ($41,988 average). It went on to cume more than $5.7M. Eastern Promises opened in 2007 to a $547K weekend gross and $36,472 PTA before accumulating $17.26M. The 2005 drama A History Of Violence grossed nearly $516K its opening weekend for a $36,856 PTA and cumed $31.5M.”

 

So the Australian figures came out today and according to UrbanCine, The Rover has slipped to no. 17 as at 30 June 2014 and is still only on 32 screens, which means nothing because it could play once a day on those screens as I’ve evidenced at my local cinema at a time that is impossible for anyone working full time to go and see.  Anyway it’s total box office is $425,554. And I know people think I’m going to spin it positively, but I can honestly tell you if you check out the top 10 films at the Aussie Box Office, the only one I might consider seeing is “Two Faces of January” but even then I found the storyline to be too cliched when I saw the preview during The Rover.  I’m not lying, I won’t even bother watching the top 9 films even on DVD zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

For US Box Office Mojo has an estimated box office as at 29 June 2014 at USD980,000 – it’s in about 608 cinemas during its wider release, although I’m no expert on the US box office and those cinema numbers may not be accurate.

Interesting.  Still there’s no denying the critical acclaim all are receiving.  No denying that at all.

Yeah yeah it’s me again with an update on what’s happening in the world of The Rover Box Office.  Last night the Thursday figures came out for Australia.  According to UrbanCine it’s currently $377,169.  And not making excuses, but how is the general public supposed to go and see this film when my current cinema has released it for one screening per day – in the middle of the day – do they think fanboys are unemployed?

 

The overall comments I’m seeing is that The Rover has failed in the US wider release.  I personally think that just because the movie hasn’t made big bucks doesn’t mean it’s a failure.  It certainly has been a turning point for Rob’s career.  The reviews of the film certainly haven’t failed in bringing more credibility to Rob and his acting ability, nor are they damning for Guy or David.  So I guess it depends on what you term a success.

In the US, Animal Kingdom was released in August 2010.  It ran for 31 weeks.  Admittedly it didn’t have wide release, but it did obviously have slow burn.  It’s final box office was USD1,044,039 – is that also a failure?  Because last time I checked it’s lauded as a success is it not?  It garnered an Academy Award nomination for Jackie Weaver so I’d say yes to my previous question.  The people who appreciate this type of arthouse film will go and see it.  I think it’s a little too early to call it a “failure”.

According to IndieWire:

“”The Rover.” A24 wasn’t so lucky with David Michod’s “The Rover.” After a decent debut on 5 screens last weekend, the film was aggressively pushed to 599 screens, and failed to do much business. It grossed just $500,000 for a weak $835 average, not exactly promising in terms of pushing it much past its current $590,453 total.

“David Michod made an excellent film that received very strong reviews for its unique filmmaking and wonderful performances from Guy Pearce and Robert Pattinson,” A24 said. “Unfortunately we were unable to find a broader audience this weekend, but have no doubt that the film will gain fans as we continue to push it out in the weeks and months ahead.”

As I’ve mentioned this is a limited release – my local cinema has gone from 6 sessions to 3 and if I can’t get to the 10.30 am or 4.30 pm session 9.00 pm is my only other option. Kind of limiting really. And I know the US is encouraging people to see it 10 times, but I would have much rather taken 10 new people to watch it but 9.00 pm at night is a little limiting for some j/s

Better coordinate some peeps for the weekend then