Slashdot Mirror
March of the Penguins Tops Box Offices
Zinside writes "Yahoo News is running a story stating that March of the Penguins may become the No. 2 documentary of all time at U.S. box offices." From the article: "The film, which follows a pack of Emperor Penguins during an arduous mating season, had grossed $18.4 million by Wednesday and was poised to surpass the $21.6 million for Michael Moore's anti-gun documentary Bowling For Columbine. For 13 months, Jacquet and his crew braved Antarctic temperatures as low as 70 degrees below zero - and winds up to 150 mph - to capture astonishing images of thousands of emperor penguins engaging in a mating and child-rearing ritual that is nothing short of astonishing. The Penguins are a miraculous species, capable of extreme heroism, self-sacrifice, sorrow and unshakable love."
In the meantime, the R-rated "The Wedding Crashers" is a summer sleeper as well, running at #2 for it's first two weekends, then up to #1 in its third weekend, then back to #2 this weekend, putting it's tally for less than 4 full weeks at over $144 million. And while "March..." did really well this weekend, it's because it nearly tripled its screen count. Yet vs. "The Wedding Crashers" it had a lower per-screen gross ($3709 vs. $5312) on fewer screens (1867 vs. 3106).
We'll have to watch it longer term to see if it's legs keep up.
What's neat to observe is that Warner Bros. is rolling in the dough this weekend with the gamut of ratings.
This Weekend's Top Grossers
#1: Dukes of Hazzard (Warner Brothers) - PG-13
#2: The Wedding Crashers (Newline - owned by WB) - R
#3: Charlie and the chocolate Factory (Warner Brothers) - PG
#5: Must Love Dogs (Warner Brothers) - PG-13
#6: March of the Penguins (Warner Independent) - G
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
Idiot.
It was an "in joke" for fans of a comic strip, not a spoiler.
I doubt that stating a comic strip penguin finally finds his mother (anyone remember when he raided a Mary Kay testing lab in search of her?) ruined the end of the movie.
It may not have been a funny joke, and you may have found that idiotic. That, I accept. But if you think I spoiled the end of the movie, any cred you may have as a "trivia geek" could be in jeopardy.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
from the article: "to surpass the $21.6 million for Michael Moore's anti-gun documentary Bowling For Columbine"
Obviously whoever wrote that never watched "Bowling For Columbine" or is trying to distort what it's about. Say what you want about the documentary but any honest person can tell you it's not anti-gun.
It you watch it, weather you agree with it or not, it's final premis is that the culture of fear and violence perpetrated by our foreign policy and the mass-media that supports it, that seems to cause the staggering amount of gun deaths in the US...not guns. In fact there are arguments made that it's not the guns (I remember the comparison to canada). Michael Moore himself is a member of the NRA.
This may be taken as flamebait or trolling or whatever but that statement made there about "Bowling for Columbine" is simply not correct.
None of the big chain theaters have picked this film up here in Newport, RI, so the Jane Pickens Theater, one of the last of the single-screen Movie Houses from the golden age of movies, gets to cash in.
It's got an enormous screen, bazillions of seats (including a balcony!) and a Dolby surround-sound system that became the prototype for the one found in most theaters today. It was one of the only places film conservators could show acetate-based films before restoration, because the projection booth still had all its steel fire-shutters from the '20s operational. (An equipment change in the late '90s, and the growing trend to preserve, duplicate and restore before screening, ended the practice.) They sometimes still show cartoon shorts before the movie, on reels they've had since the '60s.
The Pickens also ran Farenheight 9/11, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Chicago and The Nightmare Before Christmas when none of the chain multi-plexes would take the chance.
Support your local movie house!
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this or not (/me is lazy), but if you liked this film, you might wanna also check out Winged Migration, by Jacques Perrin. It's good on details, and incredibly beautiful. If you suffer a bit from add (/me again), you'll like it cause it's split into regions of the world, so you can take it bit by bit, if you don't think you can stand 2 hours straight of birds flying...
No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
Another excellent documentary is "The Blue Planet" series from the BBC. They also cover penguins, but not in as much detail, but then you get to see polar bears, whales, and the weird things deep down. It really gives an insight into the amazing variety of life on "our" planet.
...one of the best GBP30 I spent on DVDs.
The quality of the video is stunning - it's almost as if you have a window into the undersea.
March of the Penguins, according to Yahoo! Movies did not top the US box office this weekend. It was #6 behind The Dukes of Hazzard, Wedding Crashers, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sky High, and Must Love Dops. How does this constitute "Tops" at the box office? Top means highest point... not in the top 10. To put the movie's earnings in perspective Dukes of Hazzard, the top (#1) movie at the US box office, made $30,575,000 slightly over 5 times as much as March of the Penguins made this weekend.
Just saw the US trailer for the movie. I think it's not really accurate, you can see all those penguins walking on that war-ish music...
:)
e mpereur/qt/marcheempereur.mov
Here's the french one. I think it is way better than the US one, but maybe you'll think the US one was better. That's why we have 2 trailers
http://www.commeaucinema.com/bandeannonces/marche
What is a "vacation" like for the president? Here is a week from a week of Bush's vacation time in 2001:
There's a reason the Democrats in this country lose to people like Bush. Look in a mirror to see it.
"It's not natural" and "It's not what God intended"
...thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I can take no issue with the fact that many animals tend to display homosexual behaviors. The facts are the facts. That it appears in animal communities makes it as 'natural' as anything else in nature. For what it's worth, while examples do exist, it is quite far from the norm in animal communities.
With respect to "It's not what God intended" I'd have to say that is exactly right.
Let me be clear. What passes for socially acceptable behavior in the human community in areas other than homosexual expression are FAR from God's plan. For example: in 1 Cor 6, the Bible says:
Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers...
This is a harsh condemnation of 'natural' behaviors. Who among us is truly unselfish? There's a stark description of unacceptable behavior without a reference to homosexual acts.
It also says (between the ellipses) "nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor "
Finally, it says in I Cor 6:
"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God....Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."
God's plan was for man to behave in distinctively unnatural ways. In Philippians 2 it says: "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others."
In fact, Jesus said in Luke 9:
Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."
It stretches credulity to try to interpret the meaning of passages that explicitly condemn homosexual behavior in any way other than what they say. The fact is that the New Testament writings convey a radical lifestyle. Jesus himself, when talking about the marriage relationship said in Matthew 19:
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriagebecause of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Even his disciples were unnerved by Christ's bold, counter-cultural and authoritative teaching about God's perspective on marriage.
Jesus' teachings are radical, and quite distinctly unnatural. I find no contradiction between suggesting that a behavior is natural and yet condemned by Christ.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?