Along with After Earth, which opens Friday, the caper film Now You See Me represents the first of the summer flicks that is an original story. It’s not based on a comic book, a novel, a TV show, and it’s not a sequel! Pretty rare for a May release, I must say. By the way, I’ve already done my After Earth prediction on the blog and it can be found here:
Now You See Me comes from director Louis Leterrier, who made the Transporter pictures and 2008’s The Incredible Hulk. It’s about a team of magicians who also do bank heists. Now features a cast of several recognizable faces, including Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine… none of whom have a proven track record of opening a picture whatsoever.
The film is a rather curious choice for a late May release and a bit of a gamble from Summit Entertainment. It comes with a reported $70 million budget, which isn’t anywhere near Iron Man, Star Trek, or Fast&Furious levels – but it’s still not small potatoes. I actually think it looks like it could be a lot of fun and I dig the cast, but I’m not sure this will get audiences to the multiplex. It has the feel of a “wait until DVD” title and while it’s been decently marketed, nothing about this shouts Event Movie… you know, like pretty much everything else out right now.
As I see it, if Now You See Me grosses above $20 million – that should be considered a victory. I am more inclined to predict a low to mid teens opening. If it gets decent reviews, perhaps it’ll have legs in future weekends.
Now You See Me opening weekend prediction: $14.2 million
That’s all for now. Tomorrow, I’ll make my predictions for next weekend’s Top Five.
After Earth will go quite a ways towards answering this question at the box office over the weekend: how bankable is Will Smith anymore?
This is a very open question. The Fresh Prince has kept a relatively low-profile over the past few years. His only high-profile summer pic since 2008’s Hancock was last summer’s Men in Black 3. It earned $179 million domestically – not a bad number, but also the lowest of the trilogy. Smith had an incredible run from 1996 to 2008 where four of his films (Independence Day, Men in Black, I Am Legend, Hancock) earned over $200 million and seven others crossed the $100 million mark.
After Earth does not have the advantage of being a sequel or being based on a known property. The trailers, in my opinion, have been unimpressive. Earth features the actor costarring with his son, Jaden. The younger Smith had a giant hit of his own two years ago with the Karate Kid remake, produced by his dad. The story is based on Will’s original idea and is directed by M. Night Shyamalan. At one time, the fact that M. Night is behind the camera would have been a selling point for the studio. Those days have passed and I wrote an extensive post just yesterday focused on Shyamalan’s career:
So – let’s get to the prediction, shall we? As I see it, anything above a $50 million opening should be considered a nice surprise for all involved here. I just don’t see that happening and I’m not seeing enough in the marketing campaign to justify that prediction. A better question is whether After Earth reaches $40 million. And I’m not even sure of that.
There’s a big part of me that wants to project a low-30s opening here. However, I’m going to give Smith a little bit of credit here with his ability to open a science fiction picture. This is a tough one and I could see this falling anywhere between $30-$50 million. Neither extreme would shock me. I may regret this, but I will say:
After Earth opening weekend prediction: $39.1 million
That’s all for now. Check back tomorrow for my opening weekend projection for Now You See Me, which also debuts Friday. On Wednesday, I’ll predict next weekend’s top five, including projections for how Fast and Furious 6, The Hangover Part III, and Epic hold up in their sophomore frames.
**Update: my opening weekend prediction for Now You See Me can be found here:
Though most of its events take place just three decades ago, Behind the Candelabra often feels as much of a period piece as Jane Austen or William Shakespeare. For those in my generation, Liberace is known as an immensely influential piano player who also happened to be gay.
What may not be known to many in my age bracket is that the performer was ferociously protective of his public image. He was successful in lawsuits against publications that insinuated his sexuality was anything but straight. According to Lee (as his friends knew him), he just had never found the right girl.
Behind the Candelabra is based on a book by Scott Thorson, Liberace’s companion and lover from the late seventies to mid-eighties. He is played by Matt Damon in one of the most impressive performances of his career. Liberace is portrayed wonderfully by Michael Douglas. Like Damon, this is a career highlight of a role. Douglas is not only doing an impersonation (and a good one at that), he infuses the role with character traits that Lee himself probably wouldn’t approve of.
As the film portrays it, Liberace was a man who wanted to completely control everything around him. This included not just his public image, but also controlling every aspect of his life that public didn’t see… and that he dared not show them.
His relationship with Scott is a prime example. After Liberace takes him under his feathered wings, he eventually insists on Scott getting plastic surgery to make him in his own image. He also puts Scott on a weight loss program – “the California diet” that consists of taking lots and lots of pills. This is all administered by Lee’s plastic surgeon who definitely practices what he preaches to ridiculous levels. The doc is played in a humorous performance from Rob Lowe. His work on Liberace himself leaves the piano prodigy unable to close his own eyes.
Lee’s control of Scott comes to unravel their once promising, if always slightly off-kilter relationship. It’s never fully determined whether Liberace wanted to be more of a father figure to his younger companion or just another fling (albeit a long one) before he tosses Scott aside for a younger model.
The last chapters of the picture focus on the disintegration of their union, which includes Scott’s growing cocaine addiction. This may all be based on fact, but it can’t help but have a been there, seen that effect on the viewer.
Where Candelabra succeeds best is its sense of time and place. Steven Soderbergh is always adept at providing a visual feast and his visualization of Vegas in this era is a treat. The pic is also littered with solid supporting players, from Dan Aykroyd at Lee’s fiercely protective agent to Debbie Reynolds as Lee’s mother, whose relationship with her son was complicated, even if the screenplay doesn’t delve into it that much.
Behind the Candelabra works the most as an experience when exploring Liberace’s fear and demons with his own sexuality. His unwillingness to come out is portrayed as an obvious choice and something he would dare not do. The fact that this was happening just three decades ago shows us how things have changed. Here’s a man who went out of his way to control everything, except he couldn’t ultimately control his own identity. After after his death, his manager goes out of his way to push a story that Lee died of heart failure and not of the real cause of death, the AIDS virus.
The release of Candelabra may ultimately show that things haven’t changed as much as we might think, however. It’s got an A-list director and A-list stars, but still couldn’t strike a deal for theatrical distribution due to its subject matter. HBO snapped up the rights and will likely be rewarded for it with high viewership. Had Candelabra been released theatrically, I wouldn’t be surprised if both Douglas and Damon had received Oscar nominations. The Emmys and the Golden Globes will probably take notice.
Parts of Behind the Candelabra might feel familiar, but the performances and occasional boldness of the story make it worthwhile.
Moviegoers propelled the 2013 Memorial Day box office to record setting levels. The 2011 Memorial weekend was previously the biggest moneymaking frame when The Hangover Part II grossed a gargantuan $135 million. That record stands no more.
However, The Wolf Pack is not the primary reason why this time around. That honor belongs to Fast and Furious 6, which grossed a fantastic $120 million over the four-day frame. This comes in above my $106.8M projection. Clearly the goodwill from Fast Five (the franchise’s best reviewed and highest earning entry) and solid reviews for the sixth edition made this the must-see event of the weekend. The seventh Fast film is already slated to open next summer.
The news was not as good for the aforementioned Wolf Pack. The Hangover Part III opened to tepid reviews and received a “B” Cinemascore grade (for comparison, the second Hangover got an A-). It was starting to feel like audiences were souring on the franchise and this proved true. Part III grossed $51.2 million over the four-day frame and $63 million over the five-day frame (it opened Thursday, unlike the weekend’s other new entries). This is lower my projections of $60.3M and $77.4M over the four and five day, respectively. If a $63 million opening seems decent to you… well, not so much. Let me put it to you this way – that’s $72 million dollars lower than its predecessor’s opening gross just two years ago. Ouch.
Star Trek Into Darkness had an encouraging second weekend after a somewhat disappointing opening weekend. The JJ Abrams sequel earned $47 million over the holiday frame – above my $41M projection. A gross north of $200 million seems likely at this point.
The summer’s first animated feature Epic made a respectable $42.6 million, a tad below my $45.5M projection. It’s going to be a few weekends before Epic receives direct competition, so it should hold nicely for awhile.
Rounding out the top five is Iron Man 3 in its fourth weekend. It earned $24.4 million, slightly above my $21.7M estimate.
Tonight on the blog, I’ll make my projection for After Earth, Will Smith’s sci-fi flick opening this Friday. Tomorrow, my estimate for next weekend’s other opener, Now You See Me. Stay tuned!
In Savages, director Oliver Stone take a rare break from making films about politics and instead concentrates on a fairly straightforward drug crime flick. There’s no grand statements about the drug war (this isn’t Traffic), but there is one fascinating subtext. A corrupt DEA agent (John Travolta) explains at one point that eventually the U.S. is going to legalize pot and it got me thinking about how all the bloody mayhem involved in this picture probably wouldn’t happen if that occurred. However, that’s a discussion for another day and it’s not the primary focus here.
Savages centers on two independent marijuana dealers – one is short fused Afghanistan War vet Chon (Taylor Kitsch) and the other is Ben (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a Buddhist and more of a pacifist. Together, they make a fortune out of developing a potent product with highly elevated THC levels. Other than a successful business, they also share something else: Ophelia (known as O), played by Blake Lively, a beach babe who loves them both.
Naturally, Chon and Ben’s thriving company attracts the fascination of the Mexican drug cartels, who look to buy out the boys. When things don’t go as planned, O is kidnapped and thy must figure out a way to get her back.
We meet the disreputable cast of characters who make up the cartel. It’s headed by Elena (Salma Hayek), who inherited the business through her dead husband. She’s lost some of her children in brutal fashion as well and her daughter (who lives in the States) wants nothing to do with her. This is actually a fact that makes Elena proud. If you’ve been lucky enough to watch the documentary Cocaine Cowboys (if not, watch it immediately), you’ll notice that Elena’s character is very similar to Griselda Blanco, a real-life drug kingpin who was just recently assassinated. Elena is the best character in Savages – so much so that I wish the entire movie had been about her.
Elena’s enforcer Lado is played in a typically solid and slightly bizarre performance by Benicio Del Toro. He has a memorable scene with Travolta’s DEA agent that comes towards the end. Once again, the fine acting of Hayek, Del Toro, and Travolta and their dynamic could have been one unique picture.
Alas, Savages is more about Chon, Ben, and O. And therein lies the central flaw of the film… it’s central characters aren’t very special. Especially O. I will not blame Lively wholly for this, even though her performance is lackluster. It’s more that her character is written as nothing more than a dull pothead beach babe. Frankly, with her being the character in the most danger, it’s hard to really care much about what happens.
Savages is no doubt a stylish feast for the eyes. Stone is, of course, a heckuva director. And the secondary performances mentioned above are noteworthy. It’s the main troika of characters and their relationship that makes Savages a bit of a letdown, albeit a good looking one.
The trajectory of M. Night Shyamalan’s directorial career is at a bit of a low point right now and it’s held there for around seven years. The release of the Will and Jaden Smith sci-fi pic After Earth this Friday will either continue that trend or reverse it. We’ll have our answer soon, but today we’ll explore the history of this important filmmaker and how we’ve gotten to the point Shyamalan is currently at.
At the age of 22, he made his directorial debut with Praying with Anger, which was never released for wide distribution and played the festival circuit. Per usual, M. Night wrote the feature as well. Shyamalan cast himself as the star of the picture which focused on Indian culture (the director was born in the country, but grew up in Pennsylvania). Released in 1992, Anger managed to gross $1.4 million and was shot on an $800,000 budget.
The moderate success of his first picture led to 1998’s Wide Awake, a dramedy starring Denis Leary, Dana Delany, and Rosie O’Donnell. Awake began M. Night’s trend of setting films in his adopted home state. It received mixed reviews and never really got much of a theatrical release. Shot in 1995 on a $6 million budget and released three whole years later, it earned a tepid $282,000.
Based on his first two efforts, there was really no reason to believe Shyamalan would break out in the Hollywood scene in a major way. However, then 1999 came along and changed everything. This happened in the form of The Sixth Sense, released stateside on August 6, the director’s 29th birthday. Starring Bruce Willis and child actor Haley Joel Osment, The Sixth Sense became the most buzzed about summer 1999 title. The supernatural thriller about young Osment seeing dead people struck an unexpected chord with audiences and critics. It currently sits at 85% on Rotten Tomatoes.
An absolutely astonishing $293 million gross domestically and $672 million worldwide would be the result. 11 year-old Osment received an Oscar nomination, as did Toni Collette playing his mother. Willis was snubbed in my view for a Best Actor nomination. Most importantly, Sense earned a Best Picture nomination and nods for Shyamalan for his direction and original screenplay.
The Sixth Sense immediately vaulted Shyamalan into a superstar among directors. Even most blockbuster films don’t earn their director a ton of name recognition. This was not the case here. There were Hitchcock and Spielberg comparisons as critics and moviegoers marveled at the ingenious screenplay and, of course, the surprise ending was truly surprising. That ending assisted in getting audiences back for repeat viewings, which no doubt contributed to its gargantuan box office numbers.
The goodwill garnered by Sense would cause a breathless anticipation for Night’s follow-up, which hit multiplexes just fifteen months later. In November 2000 came Unbreakable, with Bruce Willis returning in the starring role and assisted by Samuel L. Jackson and Robin Wright Penn. As much as I love Bruce Willis, he’s never been a consistent box office draw when you examine his filmography. Shyamalan’s name propelled Unbreakable to a fantastic $30 million opening. However, the picture showed the first chink in the armor of Night’s invincibility. Audiences weren’t thrilled with it, at least not anywhere to the extent of Sixth Sense. While moviegoers were blown away with the “he’s been dead the whole time” shock value of that surprise ending, the revelation of Bruce’s character in Unbreakable being a superhero didn’t wow folks. Unbreakable would earn $95 million domestically – a far cry from its predecessor’s numbers. It would receive mixed reviews and is at 68% on the Tomato meter.
My take? I really dug Unbreakable. I found it to be a very clever superhero origin story and subsequent viewing have elevated my view of it. Like most first-time watchers, I found myself confused at the direction the film took in my theater experience. But I’ve grown to appreciate Unbreakable and consider it to be a worthwhile experience that once again features assured direction and a fine Willis performance.
Less than two years later, Night would be back in Sixth Sense territory with another audience and critical triumph. Arriving in the summer of 2002, Signs was maybe or maybe not an alien invasion flick as the trailers toyed with us in brilliant fashion. Starring Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix as farmers who notice strange crop dust patterns in their field, Signs was a suspenseful and seriously clever genre pic that delivered. When we find out that Signs is indeed an alien invasion pic via that birthday party in Mexico, it is film magic of the highest order. This is my favorite Shyamalan movie and one of 2002’s greatest titles. Signs would bring in a domestic gross of $227 million – less than Sixth Sense, but still terrific. It’s Tomato Meter is at 74%.
Two years later, the summer of 2004 would bring The Village, set in the 19th century and featuring creatures in the woods terrorizing a village. Or… is the movie about that? The Village would feature much of what we had come to expect from Night’s works, especially the surprise ending. However, it was The Village that also began to accentuate issues with his pictures: actors delivering their lines with zero emotion, dialogue that could be laughable at spots, and pacing that took a little too much time. The director’s name would allow The Village a $114 million domestic gross. Not bad, but nowhere near Sense or Signs levels. And audiences disliked it even more than Unbreakable. Critics weren’t wild about it either with a 43% Rotten Tomatoes total. I certainly found it to be the weakest of his mainstream features up to that point, but I thought it was OK overall. Still, The Village was the origin point of a downward spiral that has yet to reverse.
The summer of 2006 would end Night’s solid box office run and it would decimate his standing with critics as well. Lady in the Water, starring Paul Giamatti and Village costar Bryce Dallas Howard, landed with a thud. Focusing on an apartment complex maintenance man who finds a water nymph in the pool, Lady was simply bizarre. In many spots, it was badly written and featured truly laughable dialogue along the way. It tanked at the box office with only $42 million domestically, as well as an embarrassing 24% on Rotten Tomatoes. The excitement that Night had built with The Sixth Sense and Signs was gone and his name connected to a movie was no longer a selling point.
Night’s 2008 summer film The Happening starring Mark Wahlberg wouldn’t help the situation. While the picture, which is basically about plants turning people into homicidal maniacs, outdid Lady‘s gross with $64 million – audiences hated it on the same level. The critics were brutal and a 17% Tomato meter evidenced that. There are times watching The Happening where you’re totally cracking up unintentionally. Pretty sure that’s not what Shyamalan was going for. Wahlberg, a very talented actor, is also just awful in it. The combination of Lady in the Water and The Happening had severely soured Night’s reputation, less than a decade after The Sixth Sense made him one of the most famous directors on Earth.
Shyamalan would move away from scary and twisty thrillers with The Last Airbender, released in the summer of 2010. He would also move away from his screenplays being based on original material. Airbender was based on a Nickelodeon series and aimed squarely at a kid/young adult audience. Somewhat surprisingly, the picture grossed a rock solid $131 million domestically, Night’s highest earner statewide since Signs. It is worth noting that its American gross was less than its budget, which was a hefty $150 million. The movie would do little to improve Night’s reputation, however. Only 6% – yes six percent – of critics deemed it worthy of view on Rotten Tomatoes.
And that brings us to this weekend’s release of After Earth. This film is not based on Night’s original idea… it’s actually based on Will Smith’s idea that he brought to the director. Shyamalan did co-write the script for the sci-fi pic that comes with a $130 million budget. After Earth is notable in its advertising campaign. As it should, it focuses mainly on the fact that it’s a Will Smith sci-fi flick. The difference for Night this time around? Nowhere does it focus on him. At all. It’s almost as if the studio doesn’t want you to know he directed it… like it’s more of a hindrance than a selling point. It was less than a decade ago that the possibility of that would have been ludicrous.
Times have changed for Night, however. And the question that will be answered this Friday is whether After Earth continues the bad news for the director or reverses the audience and critical distaste for him.
Side Effects is not an easy movie to review without major spoilers, so my thoughts here on the picture will be fairly brief.
Steven Soderbergh is one of the most exciting and versatile directors of the last quarter century. He’s directed everything from sex, lies, and videotape to Out of Sight to Erin Brockovich to Traffic to Contagion to Magic Mike. And there’s that enormously successful Ocean’s 11-13 trilogy, too.
The director has said that Side Effects may be his last theatrical feature, but I doubt this will be the case. I hope not. Soderbergh is way too important to movies to stop making them. Hell, this Sunday, you can watch his HBO Liberace biopic Behind the Candelabra starring Michael Douglas and Matt Damon. It’s getting fantastic reviews by the way and don’t be surprised if I have a review of that posted quite soon.
The plot of Side Effects is pretty damn clever. The film begins as an expose of the pharmaceutical industry with a psychiatrist (Jude Law) treating a depressed patient (Rooney Mara) whose husband (Channing Tatum) has just been released from prison. And then it becomes something else entirely.
And… ladies and gentlemen, that’s about all I can reveal about the plot without ruining stuff. You’ll thank me later. Part of the joy of Side Effects is discovering the truly unexpected paths the film goes down. There are plot twists that are genuinely surprising. The movie shifts from one genre to the next with mostly successful results.
Rooney Mara and Jude Law anchor this twisty little picture with effective performances. Their doctor-patient relationship goes through a number of iterations in Scott Z. Burns’ screenplay and their interplay is always intriguing. Many reviews have compared Side Effects to the work of Hitchcock, especially the final half. I can see why, but saying more would spoil the fun.
Even though the Hitchcock comparison is fair, Side Effects doesn’t come close to reaching the level of the master’s greatest works. And it’s not in the upper echelon of Soderbergh’s cannon either, but it is sharply written, well-acted, and will keep you guessing for nearly its whole running length. The last few minutes or so get a tad predictable, but it’s a trip getting there.
In this week’s edition of Trailer Park, I take a look at three summer films with comedic elements.
We start with Don Jon, marking the directorial debut of actor Joseph Gordon Levitt. The actor has been on a roll recently with appearances in Chris Nolan’s Inception and The Dark Knight Rises, Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, and Rian Johnson’s inventive sci-fi thriller Looper. He’s certainly worked with some A-list directors so we’ll see if that translates to his directorial ability.
Don Jon looks promising. Levitt stars as a buff ladies man who also seems to have a bit of a porn addiction. The trailer shows him falling for Scarlett Johannson and also in a relationship with Julianne Moore. We even have Tony Danza playing his dad!
I didn’t know much about Don Jon before watching the trailer and the spot succeeded in its mission of making me more curious to see it. I’m also curious to see the movie within a movie that seems to be featured here with Channing Tatum and Anne Hathaway. And you gotta love that the trailer unexpectedly includes Mark Wahlberg… or rather, Marky Mark as Don Jon sings along to “Good Vibrations” in his car. That is until he comes to a stoplight and gets embarrassed. Been there, done that! Trailer Grade: B+
Next: The World’s End, reuniting the creative team behind 2004’s Shaun of the Dead and 2007’s Hot Fuzz. The story centers on a group of British dudes attempting to recreate a classic night from their youth. Their epic bar crawl seems to go seriously wrong with some supernatural happenings that aren’t specifically spelled out in the trailer. Director Edgar Wright and stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have covered this ground before and the trailer does look somewhat derivative of Shaun of the Dead, in particular. Still, these guys know how to do energetic and satisfying comedy and the trailer gives us enough to get pretty excited about. Trailer Grade: B
Last and least is the trailer for We’re the Millers starring Jennifer Aniston and Jason Sudeikis. It focuses on Aniston as a stripper and Sudeikis as a pot dealer who pose as a wholesome American family traveling to Mexico to pay back a drug dealer. There simply aren’t many laughs to be had in the trailer. The spot certainly wants to focus on Aniston being scantily clad with her stripper moves, but even that angle seems tired since the actress did the bad girl thing already in 2011’s Horrible Bosses, also with Sudeikis. Everything about this trailer screamed “wait until HBO or Showtime” for me. Trailer Grade: C
I’ll be back next week with fresh thoughts on new trailers!
Well, folks, we’ve arrived at my Top Five Box Office Predictions for one of the most confusing and wild weekends I can ever recall.
Why?
Well, we have two huge releases Fast and Furious 6 and The Hangover Part III opening opposite each other. And we have Fox’s animated Epic which may have a hefty debut as well. I wrote separate blog posts on all three major openings with my predictions:
We’ve got the second weekend of Star Trek Into Darkness, which debuted below expectations last weekend with $83.7 million. It was expected to make over $100 million. And we’ve still got Tony Stark and Gatsby out there. Can you say crowded marketplace?
I’ve extensively discussed what I think will happen in the posts above. Bottom line: I look for Vin Diesel, The Rock, and his Fast cohorts to dominate The Hangover‘s Wolf Pack. I expect Epic to have a solid debut.
And I look for Star Trek to lose about half its audience and continue its surprisingly unremarkable returns. Iron Man 3 should round out the top five. It’s worth noting that Hangover opens Thursday, while Fast and Epic debut Friday. My Top Five projections are my Friday-Monday (Memorial Day) predictions, but I’ve factored in my full five-day Hangover prediction. Got that? Yeah, it’s confusing.
MEMORIAL DAY 2013 BOX OFFICE PREDICTIONS
1. Fast&Furious 6
Predicted Gross: $106.8 million
2. The Hangover Part III
Predicted Gross: $60.3 million ($77.4 million projected five-day opening)
3. Epic
Predicted Gross: $45.5 million
4. Star Trek Into Darkness
Predicted Gross: $41 million
5. Iron Man 3
Predicted Gross: $21.7 million
I’ll be updating the Facebook page throughout the long weekend with results and Monday on the blog with final results. I will readily admit – this has been the toughest weekend since I started the blog to predict results. We’ll see what happens.
From 20th Century Fox this Memorial Day weekend comes Epic, a new animated feature that may benefit from being the only title in release marketing towards a kiddie audience.
It’s been two months since The Croods did robust business and that feature is now winding down. While we have two other huge debuts this weekend in Fast&Furious 6 and The Hangover Part III, those flicks are competing for the same audience. Epic is going after little ones and their parents.
Featuring a seriously eclectic voice cast that includes Amanda Seyfried, Colin Farrell, Josh Hutcherson, Christoph Waltz, Beyonce Knowles, Steven Tyler, Jason Sudeikis, and rapper Pitbull, Epic has the benefit of being the first animated feature out of the gate this summer. Oh, there will be plenty more: Monsters University, Despicable Me 2, Turbo, and Planes.
Two months ago, The Croods opened at $43.8 million on a three-day gross, albeit in a less crowded market. Frankly, anything below $40M for any high-profile animated flick is pretty weak and I expect Epic to top that, though not by a whole lot. Even with a four-day gross factored in, Epic doesn’t seem to have any major buzz to it, but should still bring in enough of its target audience. As with any animated film, Epic could certainly surpass my somewhat modest prediction, but I’ll say:
Epic opening weekend prediction: $45.5 million
Tomorrow on the blog, my projection for Memorial Weekend’s Top Five.
All My Life... I Wanted To Be A Blogster 