RUSH HOUR 3 Kicks the Competition

An okay opening for Rush Hour...$50 million is a wild success for just about any other movie, but with Bourne still hot, Chan and Tucker have their work cut out for them. It should pick up some megabucks overseas, though. I really enjoyed the flick...and the crowd I saw it with LOVED it. A very fun time.

The big news is that the film didn't make as much as the first Rush Hour sequel...but I think that can clearly be attributed to that fact that there has been such a long time in between the release of the last Rush Hour film. And in that time Jackie Chan has had no big hit films...plus, Chris Tucker has starred in nothing: no movies, no tv shows...and no stand-up comedy specials--thus, the audiences' fever for these movies have cooled down some.

Considering this fact, they are lucky they got this much money...which I think is great under the circumstances.

Do we think there's a chance Harry Potter might overtake Spidey into 2nd place on the worldwide totals or sithe gap too much to make up at this point? It looks to me like wessmith1966 is the current frontrunner on the predictions although I reckon the Bourne Ultimatum will get into the worldwide top ten in the next few weeks as it's released throughout the world.

I think it definitely has a shot, KempMike.

Let's see what Harry Potter's overseas numbers are later tonight. They should be updating the foreign box office tonight or tomorrow.

I'd say Harry Potter will probably take 2nd place within two weeks.

I saw Rush Hour and Star Dust this weekend. I never saw any comercials for Star Dust so I'm not surprised it didn't make any money, plus it's a PG-13 fairy tail. That's a weird combo, but I enjoyed it. RH3 was ok. If you liked the first two you'll probably enjoy this one.
As for my picks I went with world totals and I guess I got the first two right. Ratatouille and Transformers, I guess I had switched around, and I'm still surprised about that since Rat was ranked so high by critics, but oh well. Plus I never even thought about the Simpsons so I really missed the boat on that one.

I''ve seen commercials for Stardust everywhere.

Stardust suffered from bad casting. Michelle Phipher (spelling???) hasn't been seen on the screen in years...and who wants to see Robert DeNiro in a fantasy film. The last time we saw him in one, it bombed (Rocky and Bowinkle), As for Claire Danes, he last film of note was Terminator 3, and that was how many years ago???

They should have gone with a much younger cast...and brought in actors who are hot right now...I mean, what kids are going to demand that their parents take them to see a Robert DeNiro film???

Add to that, this movie should have been released at Thanksgiving and or Christmas time, not against heavy summer film competition!!!

I don't care what critics say, I liked Rush Hour 3. Yes, the box office wasn't as good as Rush Hour 2 but remember Rush Hour 2 was 6 years ago and the original 9 years ago. That's an eternity in the movie business. This will probably be the last big opening of the summer. It's not surprising that Stardust, which I didn't see, didn't do well. It's a tough sell and with Harry Potter still out there I doubt the fantasy crowd would go for it. Not surprised that Daddy Day Camp bombed. Why bother with a sequel Eddie Murphy wouldn't appear in?

The critics are so full of it!!! They attacked Rush Hour 3, but these same critics loved the Charlie's Angel films???!!! And quite frankly, the Harry Potter films were boring, yet the critics love them because of the institutionalized bought hype.

I really feel Pippi Longstocking is much better...low budget, bad dubbing, and all--and remember Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, those were real classics???!!!

Saw RH3 this weekend. As stated above it was OK to me, not as funny or interesting as 2, which I now consider to be the best of the three. Jackie's not as spry and Tucker seemed to dominate much more.
The studio doesn't seem to be able to market Stardust correctly. In interviews, Gaiman intends it to be in the Princess Bride vein, but the ads seem sort of vague as to what you are getting into. I think the average moviegoer looks at it and considers it a rental.

I knew that Stardust had no chance to compete against Rush Hour 3 (or either of the other movies in the Top 3), because, quite simply it's original and can't be summarized easily in one sentence. Nor can the concept be easily condensed in a 30-second commercial or a 2-minute trailer.

Yes, it's a fairy tale, but it is a fairy tale for grown-ups (the original Neil Gaiman novel is referred to as a "fairy tale for adults"). It's not a romantic comedy, but there are romantic and comedic elements. Yes there are sword fights and magic spells, but it's not fantasy adventure. It's not Shrek 3 which "parodies" the fairy tale by making pop cultural references. Its humor is more British than the crassness of a lot of comedies. The only thing that audiences have to compare to it is Princess Bride, but P.B. has the conceit that the story is being told by grandfather to grandchild. That gives you a way into the world. Not so with Stardust; like most Neil Gaiman works there is simply a world of magic that exists just behind ours. It will probably pick up legs through August (though I doubt it will ever break the Top 3), and I'm sure it will do well worldwide.

Metalwater, it isn't a movie for kids. Nor does Rocky and Bullwinkle qualify as a fantasy film. And the most recent Harry Potter movie was one of the best of the series. And I will disagree with any critic who loves either of the Charlie's Angels movies (or the Rush Hour flicks).

By the way, according to rottentomatoes.com, C's A got a 66%, C's A: Full Throttle a 41%. The Rush Hour trilogy: 57%, 50%, and 20%. The fresh rating for Stardust is currently at 73%.