Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter They did make a "family-friendly" without being stupid; it was "Wall-E".

Truth.

Ah, but the "Sex in the City" movie was full of SEX, yet another thing in American movies Anderson was complaining about. Plus, it had a very strong female fan following, including those who would dress up for the screenings like old "Rocky Horror Picture Show" movie-goers would.

"Mummy 3" did okay because it was family-friendly. It's a breezy, light-hearted movie that any kid can go see while his/her parents shut their brains off for 90 minutes. "Hellboy 2" I think didn't do well because 1. its story was cliched and 2. it's about a demon that looks like the devil who fights other demons, ie. not as family-friendly as "Mummy 3".

There seriously needs to be a way for a movie to be "family-friendly" without being insultingly stupid and simple.

Yes, the Mummy franchise makes one cry for Mummy, yet the audience keeps coming, and I'd say it has as much to do with Brendan Fraser as it does with the CGI or action scenes (neither of which helped Hellboy II cross the $100 million mark, and that was a far superior movie to either Mummy 3 or X-Files 2.  If anyone should cry about the success of The Dark Knight, it's Hellboy II). 

But let's compare apples with apples.  Sex in the City was a popular cable TV series, and based on what I've heard, the movie is just okay.  It kicked up over $150 million without any CGI or action scenes that I've read about.  It's just an extended episode of Sex in the City. 

So, why can SitC kick X-F:IWtB's butt despite stiff competition from Iron Man and Indy 4? 

I say it's the difference between an okay movie of a popular series and a lame movie of a popular series.

Shall we now compare X-F to Get Smart?

This just in:

Actress Gillian Anderson is blaming the popularity of new Batman movie The Dark Knight for her The X-Files film's low box office grosses.

The X-Files: I Want To Believe, starring Anderson and David Duchovny, earned a disappointing $10.2 million (GBP5.1 million) in its opening weekend (26-27Jul08) in the U.S., while The Dark Knight took an impressive $75 million (GBP37.5 million) in that same weekend.

And Anderson is convinced that her movie - based on the hit TV show - is suffering because so many people are flocking to see the Batman sequel instead: "It's (The X-Files film) had a bit of a rough time in the States. It's opening against one of the highest grossing movies, Batman. People in the States are so used to lots of CGI (computer-generated imagery), action and sex -- and we don't really offer a lot of that in this film."

Clearly she hasn't seen the movie. Because if she did, she would know "Dark Knight" doesn't have excessive CGI -- or sex either. Just a great script, and excellent acting to back it up.

It was alright -- Hardly the worst movie I've seen this summer, and certainly not as stomach-churning as Will Ferrell's latest output of cinematic fecal matter. I think it just wasn't what people were expecting for a summer movie.

But I do find it bewildering that a TV show about aliens produces a sequel about religion, and a movie trilogy about religion (Indiana Jones) produces a sequel about aliens...and they both come out in the same year. Bizarro world!   

Yes, I knew Christensen was a Razzie "winner" -- and he deserved it so badly! As much as I would like him to "win" again for ruining "Jumper" (along with the crappy script), I have a strong feeling it will come down to Myers vs. Murphy.

Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Then you should be pleased to know that the "prettyboy" was nominated for a total of 3 RAZZIES®, and "won" a Worst Supporting Actor trophy for his portrayal of "Darth Whiner."  And he may well be back in our Worst Actor category this year for JUMPER -- Although the competition in that category (including Stallone in RAMBO, Al Pacino in 88 MINUTES, Mike Myers in LOVE GURU, Eddie Murphy in MEET DAVE, etc.) is already pretty stiff this year...

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Then you should be pleased to know that the "prettyboy" was nominated for a total of 3 RAZZIES®, and "won" a Worst Supporting Actor trophy for his portrayal of "Darth Whiner." 

And he may well be back in our Worst Actor category this year for JUMPER -- Although the competition in that category (including Stallone in RAMBO, Al Pacino in 88 MINUTES, Mike Myers in LOVE GURU, Eddie Murphy in MEET DAVE, etc.) is already pretty stiff this year... 

This movie opened with a very disappointing $10 million, while "Dark Knight" (the only movie that matters right now), flapped its way to $314 million. The only thing that can stop it is really, really (really) HARDCORE Star Wars Fans, who are willing to sit thru that crappy-looking "Clone Wars" movie.

But ever since that "prettyboy" ruined Vader's image by making him a whining emo punk, that franchise is as dead to me as is "X-Files"!   

"Hardcore fan" raising his hand here.

The movie trailers, when they appeared in the theaters, did surprise me. However, for fans of the show I think a second movie was warranted, because the first was a huge disappointment. It wasn't a bad movie, just a total rehash of the TV series.

I'm sure there's worse movies out there, and seeing it here is a bit painful  .  The X-Files worked extremely well as a dramatic series, but I always knew the translation to movies would likely not work at all. Not when you go to the movies and see aliens left and right, monsters popping out of the woodwork . . . and that's just in the audience!   

$35 million?  They may actually break even after worldwide box office and DVD sales and rentals.

Too bad it apparently isn't a good movie. 

I haven't watched the series that often, either, but from what I've gathered from those who did, each episode would either help explain a bit more about the aliens or would be a standalone episode, called a "freak show" by one fan because there would usually be one character with abnormal abilities.  The first movie was definitely about the aliens.  This one appears to be a standalone.

And I'm afraid we won't need Scully and Mulder to figure out why the theatres are so empty. . . .

The TV show never held my interest, and a "follow up" a decade later makes no sense.

This one begs the question: Who's in charge over at Fox -- And how much longer will they still have a job??

POOR 20th CENTURY-FOX -- TWO WEEKS AFTER THEY CRASHED-and-BURNED with 2008's BIGGEST B.O. BUST, MEET DAVE...and ONE WEEK AFTER the DECIDEDLY EARTH-BOUND SPACE CHIMPS MADE 'EM LOOK LIKE CHUMPS... THEY ALSO RELEASED the MOST UN-NECESSARY, UN-ANTICIPATED SEQUEL of the YEAR: X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE...

NEVER HAVING BEEN FANS of the SERIES (BUT HAVING BEEN to the ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO "UFO MUSEUM") WE WERE CURIOUS HOW THIS ONE MIGHT TURN OUT. WORD-of-MOUTH, BOX OFFICE and the CRIX OVER at R.T. ALL SUGGEST NO ONE OVER at AREA 57 HAS ANYTHING to WORRY ABOUT...

SO, FORUM FILERS -- WE WANNA BELIEVE YOU WANNA HAVE YOUR SAY, TOO, SO... HERE's YOUR CHANCE!

GILLIAN: "I took a tip from Laurence Olivier when he made INCHON , and insisted they pay me in cash..."

DAVID: "Thank God we didn't agree to work for box office points!"