Capitalism’s Profits
I’ll give him credit. Capitalism opened reasonably, pulling in $4.5 million. That’s good for a documentary.
On the other hand, it’s not that great. Fahrenheit opened at $24 million for its opening weekend; Sicko at about the same amount ($4.5 million). At this point, it’s not certain that Capitalism will pass Earth as the most successful documentary of 2009, despite Earth having about one six-thousandth of the publicity. And to put all these numbers in perspective, Capitalism finished well below a Bruce Willis flick that was not screened for critics and is in its second week, below The Invention of Lying and with less per screen than the re-release of Toy Story/Toy Story 2.
In the meantime, the movie ratings from viewers are poor. Box Office Mojo has a typical viewer rating of “C”. That’s slightly below Transformers 2, which I just saw on an airplane and turned off because I was getting tired of what seemed like a 2.5 hour trailer for a better movie. IMDB’s current rating is 6.4. The meaning of that is hard to gauge since IMDB’s rating formula is secret. But most movies start out at their highest point (driven by fans) and sink lower as the general public judges it.
Don’t be fooled by in the inevitable boasting. Financially and artistically, the public is responding to Moore’s movie with a great big “meh”.
ETA by DonnaK:
My paologies for butting in, but when I saw this review just now I thought it a perfect tagline for this article. When college students are trashing Moore’s movie like this, it’s really time to sit up and take notice. From the Indiana Student Daily:
Moore seems to think modern finance is a scam the rich use to steal money from other people. When he talks about the banking bail-out he makes it seem like the financial crisis was engineered so the financial industry could get its hands on tax-payer cash. He shows viewers a world in which capitalism is truly a zero-sum game. But that isn’t the real world.
The details Moore leaves out are pretty important. He talks about the health care and pension his father got while working for General Motors, but fails to mention that it was easy to offer those benefits before their true costs were clear. He damns Reagan as being responsible for all sorts of trends including stagnating wages and increasing consumer debt. No president has had that much influence over the economy.
Moore is most off-base when he suggests that a revolution is brewing. There is a big focus on strikers at a Chicago glass factory. The film also pulls its toughest emotional punches with plenty of foreclosure protests. But it is hard to buy that these struggles are the lead-up to a big revolt.
“Capitalism: A Love Story” has raked in a little less than $5 million so far. Compare that to the “Fahrenheit 9/11” opening, and Moore seems like a relic from the Bush era.
His glory days might be done.
Ouch.
Comments
Ouch! Is right. When the contemporary crowd brands one as “so-last-year” Your Andy Warhol time is about over…
This movie completely uncovers Moore’s idiocy. He blatantly uses the capitalistic system to enrich himself and then unashamedly bashes it and says how bad and antiquaited it is and must be replaced. Is this guy psychotic or what? Did too many acid trips in the 60’s, Mikey?
I can’t believe someone can be so self-righteous to bash the very system that he has made millions from, tell people how bad it is, and then want them to spend more money to make HIM look good! I’m glad he hasn’t run for president. What scares me, if he did, he probably would win! There are enough left-wing wackos out there that really believe in his crapola that could get him elected if the middle to right were apathetic about him. Much like Obamarama. What makes me smile is that the people who used to support him are now turning their backs on him! This is a true sign that he has lost cred with the left! I really wonder how they can justify giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize? He hasn’t done a thing to deserve it. Not even close. Only other person I could think of that was less worthy of winning it would be Yasser Arafat. I guess criteria for receiving it must have reached a new low. I guess just talking about peace is good enough for them to give the prize.
Could we stop calling this guy a documentarian? If he is a documentarian then Leni Riefenstahl is a “documentarian”. She at least had an artistic sensibility. Documentarian implies a level of objectivity of which Michael Moore is not possessed.
Maybe you’re just being a bit dishonest in your reporting on reaction to this film.
$9.1mill in its first ten days of major US release is not too shabby, especially for a documentary. And it still has to open overseas.
Plus it currently has a 6.7/10 vote from over 2,500 viewers on IMDB and a 74% rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes. That’s a flop?
You also keep referring to Sicko as a flop but $24.5 mill business (source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/business) on $9mill budget is still a profit, even if you add another $9mill for promotion, and for any documentary, making a profit is commendable.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was a freak result/response, and to judge all his films against that in cash terms only is not a fair shot. The fact that his movies after that are still making a profit are a testament to his ongoing popularity.
Of course you folks on here have issues with him, and I respect that, but give credit where it’s due, Moore is still making films that many people want to see.
I look forward to a lively debate on these matters and thanks for letting me join Moorewatch :)
$9.1mill in its first ten days of major US release is not too shabby, especially for a documentary. And it still has to open overseas.
Plus it currently has a 6.7/10 vote from over 2,500 viewers on IMDB and a 74% rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes. That’s a flop?
I do not think anyone called it a flop in a financial sense. It will make a profit, or at the very least break even (If we assume it cost 9 mil like Sicko and using the rule of thumb where a movie becomes profitable after it makes double the cost).
However, it does look to be a flop in the sense that people are not flocking to see this. On opening weekend, it made as much as Sicko. However, it was released in double the amount of theatres than Sicko, so attendence is definately down.
I understand this is a documentary...but it is a Michael Moore documentary. His name does carry some weight, but in this case his name is not drawing in the crowds like his other movies have.
RSS (Subscribe)
Wow...I believe the studio that released Capitalism had estimated that the weekend take was around 5.5 mil. Looks like they were off by a million.
On top of that, Sicko opened in twice as many theatres, so the average per theatre is cut in half from Sicko.
Just as you said, another indication that people are not too interested in this film.