Benvenuto Visitatore ( Log In | Registrati )


14 Pagine V  « < 12 13 14  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Maleficent 2, Walt Disney Pictures
veu
messaggio Ieri, 21:54
Messaggio #313


Gold Member
*******

Gruppo: Moderatore
Messaggi: 18.171
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 27/8/2005




Alessio, noi abbiamo amato alla follia il primo Maleficent, quindi non vediamo l'ora di vedere il sequel. Se già ci dici così, non tarderemo molto a vederlo... non siamo ancora andati perchè di solito alle prime visioni c'è sempre troppa gente e uno il film non se lo gusta appieno (crediamo che in tutta la nostra vita non abbiamo mai visto un film al week end di esordio).
Non vediamo l'ora di vederlo!


User's Signature

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
I seguenti utenti hanno apprezzato questo post:
veu
messaggio Ieri, 21:55
Messaggio #314


Gold Member
*******

Gruppo: Moderatore
Messaggi: 18.171
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 27/8/2005




Qui un po' sui costumi del film:

Dal sito The Walt Disney Company:

Costumes are a Force of Nature in ‘Maleficent: Mistress of Evil’

For Disney’s Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, costume designer Ellen Mirojnick (The Greatest Showman, Behind the Candelabra) created stunning, unique looks for the three strong, vastly different women at the film’s center: Aurora (Elle Fanning), Queen of the Moors; Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer), leader of the more cosmopolitan kingdom of Ulstead; and, of course, Maleficent, one of the most iconic Disney villains of all time, played in the new live-action film by Angelina Jolie. In addition to designing a dazzling array of dresses for these independent women—and overseeing the costuming of nearly 600 extras—Mirojnick collaborated with multiple teams to determine a look for the dark fey, winged creatures with horns like Maleficent. She excitedly took on the challenge of designing for these eco-warriors, and refrained from incorporating any man-made materials into their costumes.

“Everything is made of the earth or woven from things that can be grown and colored from natural dyes,” Mirojnick explains. “It is all of the earth in a very natural way.”

Working closely with the production and set design, hair and makeup, and visual effects teams, Mirojnick’s research focused on a diverse range of civilizations and tribes across the globe that have still not been integrated into a modern society. The filmmakers envisioned that the dark fey, living in exile and at war with the human race, originally hailed from a variety of biomes, including desert, tundra, jungle and forest—distinct environments that would inspire Mirojnick’s designs.

“Seeing what those environments and what those lands would produce was the language that we used to move forward in trying to create the look of each biome and civilization,” she explains. “The palette for the jungle fey is comprised of lots of color. The desert fey look dry and crackly, and their wings are of a very dry‐colored nature, as is their skin. The tundra are white, arctic‐like and feathery with some pale blue and pale gray colors, and the forest fey are green and brown with very organic, treelike qualities.” The costumes came together through what Mirojnick describes as an “abstract process” that merged research, sketches, fabrications and molds—often in a nonlinear way.

“Everything was done by hand—nothing was really machine made,” Mirojnick shares. It was really done in the most organic, earth-like way.” Costumes from the dark fey were made from natural fabrics such as wool or silks “in the rawest stage,” with textures and colors added later to “gray goods,” as unfinished fabrics are also known. Though Mirojnick’s team worked with familiar materials, those elements are intended to be unrecognizable on screen. She notes, “We tried not to make it look like something that you could identify. You don’t recognize what exactly it is, how it’s made or what it is made from.”

As committed as Mirojnick and the filmmakers were to these natural materials and processes, innovative digital technology was required to truly fulfill her vision for these fantastical creatures. The iconic horns could be achieved through the use of prosthetic makeup, but elements such as the leather-like wings of the dark fey had to be finished after production was completed, through visual effects. “You hand it over to visual effects and you trust that they understand and they do their work with you,” Mirojnick says. “It was great trust that we all were working as one to create this.”

It wasn’t until viewing the finished film that Mirojnick saw how her hand-sewn creations and the visual effects elements were truly woven together. “And I was blown away,” she said. “I watched it and thought, oh my gosh, as if I were an audience member who didn’t know anything [about the designs].”

The dark fey and the Mistress of Evil herself take flight today. The thrilling adventure Maleficent: Mistress of Evil is directed by Joachim Rønning from a story by Linda Woolverton and a screenplay by Linda Woolverton and Noah Harpster & Micah Fitzerman-Blue. The film is produced by Joe Roth, Angelina Jolie and Duncan Henderson with Matt Smith, Jeff Kirschenbaum, Michael Vieira and Linda Woolverton serving as executive producers.


User's Signature

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
veu
messaggio Ieri, 22:00
Messaggio #315


Gold Member
*******

Gruppo: Moderatore
Messaggi: 18.171
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 27/8/2005




Discussioni sui costumi con alcune immagini di ricerca per i costumi di Ingrith e Aurora:

Dal sito ET Online:

'Maleficent: Mistress of Evil' Costume Designer Reveals Secrets Behind the Movie's Most Iconic Looks

Every time Michelle Pfeiffer's Queen Ingrith appears onscreen in Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, she is somehow wearing more luxurious fur capes, dripping in even more pearls, ornamented with even sparklier jewels. Sitting in the theater, I found myself gasping at the sight of her, taken aback at the glamour of it all each time she entered a scene.

"But did you like the movie?" costume designer Ellen Mirojnick laughs when I've finished raving about her work. I tell her I did. Mistress of Evil, Disney's sequel to 2014's Maleficent, picks up five years after that once-upon-a-time, as the formerly sleeping beauty, Aurora (Elle Fanning), is engaged to Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson). Their nuptials promise to unite their two kingdom, if only their soon-to-be-in-laws -- chiefly, Aurora's godmother, Maleficent, the misunderstood sorceress played by Angelina Jolie, and Phillip's mother, Ingrith -- could get along. Alas, war is waged, both in manners (watching Jolie and Pfeiffer swap increasingly barbed digs during a dinner party is worth the price of admission alone) and eventually actual warfare of the medieval knights and CGI faeries variety.

Director Joachim Rønning (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) assumes the reigns for the sequel, while Mirojnick takes over for Anna B. Sheppard, who earned an Oscar nomination for her work on the first film. That Mistress of Evil picks back up so many years after that first happily-ever-after gave Mirojnick the creative freedom to put her own stamp on the fairy tale.

"The thing that enticed me was that it had not been made, like, the next year. So Aurora had grown up and Maleficent now has wings," she explained. "And then there was a new group that Maleficent finds, the Fey, and there was this introduction to a queen who has built a kingdom as big as Versailles. There are many different levels of telling yet another chapter in this story while trying to maintain the brand at the same time. It was a great challenge on all fronts."


Ahead of Maleficent: Mistress of Evil's release, Mirojnick provided ET with an exclusive look at her design sketches (below) and discussed the process of outfitting her leading ladies and the details hidden in their costumes.

Ahead of Maleficent: Mistress of Evil's release, Mirojnick provided ET with an exclusive look at her design sketches (below) and discussed the process of outfitting her leading ladies and the details hidden in their costumes.

Angelina Jolie as Maleficent

ET: There are all these new components, but in terms of designing for Maleficent, having had that design language established in the first movie, how do you come in and make it your own?

First and foremost, she has evolved, because she has wings. In the first one, she didn't have wings -- her wings, as we learned, were cut off when she was young -- so that was the first thing that has to be taken into consideration. We had to shift the silhouette because the fabrications that needed be used to allow Maleficent to fly really beautifully and gracefully were way different from the first film, where they were heavier fabrics, lush fabrics that were far more beautifully integrated into the land. She was a character that stood on her feet. Now, she was able to fly, and so we introduced silks and chiffons and Georgettes in all different layers to give her a fluidity in flight, to have it almost be like a ballet, and still maintain the language of Maleficent and how she has been established in real time and as a result of the animation prior.

Angelina really owns this character. And you've worked with her before, both as an actor and a director. Does she come in with ideas of where she wanted Maleficent's costumes to go in this film?

Oh, absolutely! Angie is such an amazing actor, producer, director to work with, because she is totally focused on the totality of the film, number one, and then, of course, her character and how it fits within the story as the story unfolds and where her story arc will go. In the very beginning, we covered many, many, many, many different arenas -- because of the amount of different types of situations that not only Maleficent would find herself in, but the rest of the film reveals -- and yes, she does come in with very, very strong ideas. With that, it's our job to translate it into a language, to begin with, and then collaborate further and further and further on.

Her most striking ensemble, for me, is what she wears to the engagement dinner, with the gold-dipped crow skulls as her collar and the skull-accented headdress. What was the genesis of that costume?

It was for an engagement dinner and she is the queen. And she, under no circumstances, was going to be intimidated. This is her formal, queen robes and it is just the heightened version of who Maleficent is, make no bones about it -- that's not intended to be a pun! [Laughs] She is there to represent her kingdom, her family and she needed to hold a very strong stance. She comes to the royal dinner as the queen, and this is who she is, this is the strength of who she is, and she's going queen-to-queen. She is the queen of the land, make no mistake about it.

There's not much, if any, purple used in Maleficent's costumes in either film -- which is, of course, her signature color in Sleeping Beauty. Did you ever try your hand at introducing more purple into her look?

It actually is used, but you would never actually see it for the exactness of that color! In her costume, particularly the black of that costume, there are about three or four layers of fabric to make up that costume from inside out. There are different tones of black that are used to create that blackness and one of them is a blackish-purple, but that was our biggest attempt to use purple, to be honest. But we did try! [Laughs] We did try to use it. Angie's very, very, very big note at the beginning of the process was that she felt that Maleficent was very black and white, very graphic, as if she were a screen star from the black-and-white films of yesteryear. It was a very strong black-and-white image. Just as they did in films prior, there's many colors that you do use to create a black-and-white feel, so that was our way into using a tone of purple in the black.

Michelle Pfeiffer as Queen Ingrith



Queen Michelle is finally playing a queen. And, my god, the outfits you have her in are dripping with pearls and diamonds. She is not the type of gal that looks in the mirror and takes one accessory off.

No, Coco would maybe have a palpitation in seeing that, right? [Laughs]

It's all very intricate. Would you say Michelle's were the more involved costumes of the bunch? Or that took the most time to create?

I'm glad that it looks that way but it didn't necessarily take twice as long to create. The vision for Queen Ingrith was very clear from the very beginning. Michelle had not been cast at that time, but the idea of who Queen Ingrith was and what she appeared like -- in this very, very luxurious way, having very, very luxurious pieces in her wardrobe -- it was not to tell you that she was evil from the get-go. It was really to give you a sense of, This is a woman who gets what she wants and has great purpose and will stop at nothing to get what she wants. You're not quite certain if it's for evil intentions or not evil intentions, but that was the overall theme. And then when they cast Michelle, everything was adapted for her and because her coloring was so sensational, the pearls and the diamonds were the perfect color accents to making a platinum queen absolutely gorgeous.



I never thought the designs read as evil. More so, I thought they looked like armor. Like a helmet and breastplate made of jewels. And they look heavy! How heavy are those pieces?

They're not! But if you look at any armor, armor looks heavy as well. So they look heavy. They look like they are armor. The fabric itself, it's Italian and it was chosen because it looked like it could have metal in it, but it doesn't. The pieces themselves were created on a base that was so flexible -- I can't tell you exactly what it was because it is a fabrication that is just used to create bases of things to hold other things on -- but it wasn't heavy and we worked it out very, very carefully so that Michelle could move in it. The point that was more difficult to figure out was how were the shoulder pieces going to work with the breast piece? And how was she going to maintain flexibility and do whatever she needed to do? But it wasn't heavy at all.

I loved that with her final look (above), I just thought, "Of course, this woman would wear white on her future daughter-in-law's wedding day."

[Laughs] Of course. Of course! What else would it be? I think that Michelle does an evil look better than I've seen in a long time. She is par excellence as Queen Ingrith and having her evil ways, but she wears it better than anybody I have ever seen wear it.

Elle Fanning as Aurora



As you mentioned, five years have passed and Aurora's style has certainly evolved. Her costumes feel more mature, while also being more lacey and whimsical.

When she's introduced, she's now queen of the Moors -- Maleficent appointed her Queen of the Moors -- and she lives in this land with all the different fairies that she cares for and watches over. The dress was made to feel as if it was made by the fairies. It was not a structured, court-like dress. It was a very whimsical, fairy-tale dress that only the fairies could create. That was the reason she was introduced in the blue. It is a totally silk-embroidered, organic design. It is all handmade. It has no machine-making in it at all.

The character has those iconic dresses in Sleeping Beauty -- the blue and pink gowns -- and it feels like you're paying homage to those here, both in that first dress (above) and the pink, floral one she wears for the royal dinner (below).

Yes, they were definitely homages to the animation and homages to Sleeping Beauty. The dress that she wears to the engagement dinner has the same feel -- with embroidered flowers over net -- [but] it's the 60th commemorative year of Sleeping Beauty, so what we did is -- although it wasn't really good to do a dress at that time that was a version of the Sleeping Beauty dress -- we adapted just the collar for that ensemble. Later on in the film, at the very, very, very end, I did a new version of the Sleeping Beauty dress for her, after she marries the prince when they're at the castle waving bye-bye to Maleficent. So using that Sleeping Beauty scene and Aurora, Queen of the Moors, we kind of blended it all to become a fairy tale and that she's a fairy-tale princess/queen.



When you look at all the costumes you designed, is there a hidden detail that you really appreciate? Or a nod to the animation that you've put in that you're particularly proud of?

I think it's adapting the Sleeping Beauty collar and the Sleeping Beauty feel for Aurora. It might not be obvious when she walks into dinner -- and then the dress goes through an evolution -- but to view Sleeping Beauty as the next evolution of Aurora was-- I hope it worked and I hope it didn't look goofy and I hope that it actually was part of her story that could then go on. It's not hidden. It's right there out in plain sight, but I'm very happy that we were able to pay homage to that.



User's Signature

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BennuzzO
messaggio Ieri, 22:01
Messaggio #316


Gold Member
*******

Gruppo: Utente
Messaggi: 2.164
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 31/12/2006
Da: Lavinio Lido di Enea (RM)




Ho visto ieri il film e devo dire che sono molto soddisfatto. Mi è piaciuto davvero tanto e l'ho trovato pieno di spunti interessanti: ho letto molte critiche nei confronti della Fanning, ma io l'ho trovata di un'intensità straziante durante una determinata scena.
Promosso, per me.


User's Signature

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
I seguenti utenti hanno apprezzato questo post:
Daydreamer
messaggio Ieri, 22:17
Messaggio #317


Gold Member
*******

Gruppo: Utente
Messaggi: 4.806
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 9/4/2008
Da: Brescia




Hai ragione Benny, non credevo di emozionarmi così, mi son venute le lacrime agli occhi <3.


User's Signature

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
veu
messaggio Ieri, 22:50
Messaggio #318


Gold Member
*******

Gruppo: Moderatore
Messaggi: 18.171
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 27/8/2005




Nuovi poster:

Art by Mike Mahle




Art by Chelsea Lowe Illustration



User's Signature

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
veu
messaggio Oggi, 12:30
Messaggio #319


Gold Member
*******

Gruppo: Moderatore
Messaggi: 18.171
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 27/8/2005




Dal sito Memeburn:

‘Maleficent: Mistress of Evil’ is Disney’s take on the ‘Red Wedding’

After seeing the trailers and watching a few interviews I wasn’t sure what to expect going into Maleficent: Mistress of Evil. But then again, who really has faith in sequels?

SPOILER WARNING: This article contains the plot details of Malificent: Mistress of Evil.

I remember enjoying the first movie, Disney’s live-action retelling of Sleeping Beauty, and thinking that it was a sweet story about redemption and love. Disney, however, had to undo Maleficent’s redemption arc in order to pull off a second movie about the infamous villain, but I found the “rumour has it” technique it used to do this rather lacking.

In Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, the titular character has retreated to the mountains while Aurora (aka Sleeping Beauty) rules the moors as Queen because humans have spread the wrong version of Sleeping Beauty’s story: the version where Maleficent is pure evil.

This grinds the plot into motion as Aurora seeks approval from Maleficent after accepting Prince Philip’s proposal. Beyond uniting the lovebirds, the union will bring the magical and human worlds together where a Shakespearean-like feud still lingers.

In an odd cross between a cringey romantic novel, traditional Disney and Game of Thrones (yes, I said it) Maleficent: Mistress of Evil takes audiences on a journey of love, fairytales and way more death than I was prepared for.

After all, I wasn’t expecting Disney to murder characters left, right and centre. But, what do I know?

Before the movie gets to the action-packed, political and diabolical plot points though, there are a few awkward moments to sit through. The romance between Philip and Aurora, for one, is masked in cheesy dialogue for most of the movie’s beginning and end.

The heart of Mistress of Evil, however, is much more exciting.

After Aurora’s future mother-in-law, Queen Ingrith, has successful framed and wounded Maleficent, she plans a wedding for her son with the sole purpose of inviting the moor-folk to their doom.

A wedding that’s also a murderous trap sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

When I say Disney took a leaf out of the “Red Wedding” scene from Game of Thrones, I do not say it lightly. In fact, the fairies are murdered with literal red dust designed to kill them, and it rains down upon them with no mercy.

The battle scene is long and vigorous, keeping you on edge throughout. I was honestly taken aback by its intensity as several storylines unfolded.

Eventually, I found myself holding on to the simple fact that this was Disney, that there had to be a happy ending. Right?

I was rudely awakened by an emotionally-charged scene that left the Mistress of Evil dead in a pile of ash. Yes, Disney killed off the main character and left me stunned for several minutes.

Once those minutes passed, however, Maleficent is reborn from her ashes because she’s the last fairy with phoenix blood — a new piece of information that the movie uses to explain why the fairy is so powerful.

Despite the death and destruction, Maleficent saves the day with a sacrifice and is reborn with newfound love in her heart.

Disney certainly had me there for a moment, but in the end, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil tells a many-layered love story using themes of politics and loss.

And, with a true wedding at the end of the movie, Disney still delivered on the happy ending.


User's Signature

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
veu
messaggio Oggi, 12:33
Messaggio #320


Gold Member
*******

Gruppo: Moderatore
Messaggi: 18.171
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 27/8/2005




Dal sito Glamour:

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil Updates the Disney Princess in Subtle, Powerful Ways

It's an exciting, modern fairy-tale romp that features, and this cannot be overstated, some of the prettiest dresses you've ever seen.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, Disney’s sequel to the 2014 retelling of Sleeping Beauty with Angelina Jolie that’s in theaters now, is sort of strange and dark for a fairy tale. That’s what makes it so great. The movie covers a lot of things—motherhood, the loss of innocence, love, hate, immigration, power, magic—without losing focus. The costumes are, and I cannot stress this enough, excellent. And best of all, it honors the most enduring tropes of Disney fairy tales (Spoiler: good triumphs over evil) while updating the princess narrative in subtle and powerful ways.

Just look at Aurora’s (Elle Fanning’s) story. She’s now 21 years old and engaged to Prince Philip. It’s hardly surprising or revolutionary that she’s marrying her first boyfriend, but we then learn they’ve been dating for five years. Five years! Compare that with the “love at first sight, married the next day” plot of, well, just pick a movie. Aurora is no sleepy princess, either. She’s the strong-willed barefoot queen of the Moors, the forest wonderland where magical creatures live, having given her previous castle to “the people.” We stan an egalitarian monarch.

Of course, this will come as no surprise to those who saw the first film, a decidedly feminist reboot of Sleeping Beauty. But Linda Woolverton—the screenwriter behind both Maleficent films and basically your entire childhood (Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, hello!)—tells me that turning a tale of problematic true love on its head was a challenge at first. While writing the first film, she struggled with making the Disney villain sympathetic. “What on Earth happened to this woman that she was that pissed off?” she asked herself. “I had to give her a real reason.”

The answer: Woolverton wrote a scene in which Maleficent is drugged by a paramour and wakes to find he’s cut off her wings. “It was…nothing we ever said out loud, but it feels like a date rape,” she tells me. “It’s funny, I worked really closely with Angelina Jolie on the whole script—she was fantastic—and we never actually said ‘date rape.’ It wasn’t until after that it was like, ‘Oh, huh, that’s what that is.’”

That powerful metaphor in Maleficent’s backstory wasn’t the only twist in the first film, though. You may recall that it’s actually Maleficent herself who breaks the sleeping curse by kissing Aurora on the forehead. (Turns out the unconditional true love of a mother is greater than that of a random paramour’s.) That moment was yet another instance of Woolverton’s realizing, after the fact, what she had written. “For the first Maleficent, I was talking [in an interview] about the moment when Maleficent wakes Aurora up and gives this speech, and I broke down,” she says. “It was so terrible. I realized that the whole movie was an apology to my daughter for getting a divorce.” She adds, “I didn’t even realize it until that moment that the whole movie was about that.”

Mother-daughter tension is at the center again in Maleficent: Mistress of Evil. “It’s about watching a mother and daughter as they go to the next level of their relationship,” Woolverton explains. ”The daughter leaves home. There are other challenges to their love. The prince and the young man’s parents create this feeling of being threatened. I wanted the audience to worry about their relationship. Their love is really what earns their way back together.”

Faced with the possibility of losing her beloved Aurora to humans (gross) who live in a castle (yuck) on the other side of the river (ick), Maleficent throws a small tantrum at a dinner party hosted by Queen Ingrith of Alstead (Michelle Pfeiffer). The gathering was billed as a celebration of Aurora and Philip’s engagement—but we later learn the queen was using it as cover to curse her husband, the king, with the point of the spinning needle from the first movie. She then blames it on Maleficent’s tantrum so she has grounds to start a humans-versus-fairies war and colonize the Moors once and for all.

I’ll give you a second to read that again. The plot’s not overly convoluted, exactly, but it’s certainly more complicated than “boy fights dragon, boy kisses girl.” And it’s not a light and breezy adventure, either. Like the 1959 animated feature, this movie might scare some kids. A lot of it takes place at night. Some of it takes place in a graveyard. Maleficent journeys to a faraway realm where she meets others of her kind and discovers they’re the last of a dying breed, forced to live in exile by humans. They’re refugees going extinct, in other words. And they have a righteous hatred borne of oppression. Queen Ingrith has a bigoted hatred borne of, she says, inequality and a scarcity mentality, but she’s been known to spread fake news before. If that all sounds, uh, timely to current political events, Woolverton doesn’t deny it. “You don’t want to make the screaming parallel to what’s contemporary, because that’s what keeps your movie from being a classic,” she says. “But some things are obvious.”

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil is an exciting and modern fairy-tale romp that features, and this cannot be overstated, some of the prettiest dresses you ever did see. It’s a feminist epic for our times, and that’s worth the price of admission.


User's Signature

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
veu
messaggio Oggi, 12:36
Messaggio #321


Gold Member
*******

Gruppo: Moderatore
Messaggi: 18.171
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 27/8/2005




Dal sito Variety:

Box Office: ‘Maleficent: Mistress of Evil’ Dominates With Soft $36 Million

Five years after Angelina Jolie’s “Maleficent” cast a spell over the box office, the villainous enchantress has returned to the top of domestic charts. Disney’s “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil,” a sequel to 2014’s fantasy adventure based on the “Sleeping Beauty” sorceress, flew lower than the original and debuted to a disappointing $36 million from 2,790 North American theaters, nearly half of what the first movie made in its inaugural outing ($69 million).

Despite opening below projections heading into the weekend, “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” easily towered over competition including holdover from Warner Bros.’ “Joker” and newcomer Sony’s “Zombieland: Double Tap.” The “Maleficent” follow-up did benefit as one of the few offerings catering to younger female moviegoers in a marketplace that’s been largely dominated by male-skewed titles like “Joker” and Paramount’s “Gemini Man.” Women represented 56% of ticket buyers, about 50% of which were under the age of 25.

“Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” now marks the lowest opening weekend of the year for Disney and will have to rely on the international box office to recoup its $185 million budget. The film had much more promising showing overseas, lifting off with $117 million for a global start of $153 million. The original pulled in a mighty $517 million from foreign territories and another $241 million from the domestic market.

Given its A CinemaScore and a 96% Rotten Tomatoes audience average, Disney’s president of global distribution Cathleen Taff says the studio remains optimistic that “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” will have legs in coming weeks.

“While it’s a lower opening than we had expected, we do think we have a good start for October with a great window leading into Halloween,” Taff said. “With great word of mouth, audiences will gravitate to the film.”

Elle Fanning also returned for the sequel, joining newcomers to the series Michelle Pfeiffer, Ed Skrein and Chiwetel Ejiofor. “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” was directed by Joachim Ronning (“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man Tell No Tales”).

Fellow new release “Zombieland: Double Tap” launched at No. 3 with a better-than-expected $26.7 million and should continue to build momentum throughout October as Halloween nears. The original “Zombieland” premiered to $24 million in 2009 and ended its box office run with a solid $102 million globally. Directed by Ruben Fleischer, the zombie comedy reunites stars Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin. Rosario Dawson, Zoey Deutch, Luke Wilson and Thomas Middleditch joined the cast. “Zombieland 2” cost $42 million to make, roughly double what the studio spent on the original ($23 million).

After its two-week reign atop domestic box office charts, “Joker” slid to second place and added $29 million in its third weekend of release. That puts the dark supervillain origin story — starring Joaquin Phoenix and directed by Todd Phillips — close to the $250 million mark in North America with box office receipts currently at $247 million. Overseas, “Joker” has scared up a mighty $490 million for a worldwide bounty of $737.5 million.

MGM and United Artists Releasing’s “The Addams Family” finished the weekend in fourth place, dipping 47% to $16 million in its second outing, which puts North American ticket sales at $56.8 million. Rounding out the top five is “Gemini Man,” which declined 58% from its inaugural weekend to $8.5 million. Ang Lee’s sci-fi epic, starring Will Smith, continues to suffer with its domestic tally hovering at $36.5 million.

In box office milestones, STX and Lorene Scafaria’s “Hustlers” crossed the coveted $100 million benchmark at the domestic market. After six weeks in theaters, “Hustlers” pulled in another $2 million, boosting its haul to $101.8 million in North America and $128.8 million globally.

Meanwhile, Focus Features’ “Downton Abbey” has surpassed $88 million in the States and now stands as the studio’s highest-grossing movie ever at the domestic box office, a record previously held by “Brokeback Mountain” with $83 million.

Among awards season hopefuls, Fox Searchlight’s “Jojo Rabbit” bowed with a strong $350,000 from five theaters in New York and Los Angeles, averaging $70,000 from each location. Written and directed by Taika Waititi (who also stars in the film as an absurdist imaginary Adolf Hitler), “Jojo Rabbit” is set during World War II and follows a young boy eager to join the Hitler Youth, who discovers his mother is hiding a Jewish girl in their attic. Critics have been mostly impressed with “Jojo Rabbit” (it holds a 77% on Rotten Tomatoes), while audiences have awarded it with an A CinemaScore.

“There are many reasons to be very optimistic about the future of ‘Jojo Rabbit,'” said Frank Rodriguez, Fox Searchlight’s president of domestic distribution. “Notably, the very good performance at the box office this weekend, the excellent CinemaScore of A, and the interest that we see from exhibitors and moviegoers who are eager to play and see the film in the coming weeks.”

“Jojo Rabbit,” based on the novel “Caging Skies,” will continue its paced rollout next weekend in eight new markets, including Denver, Austin, Phoenix, Washington DC, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and Toronto. The studio is aiming for a nationwide release by Nov. 8. The cast includes Roman Griffin Davis, Thomasin McKenzie, Scarlett Johansson, Rebel Wilson and Sam Rockwell.

Elsewhere, Robert Eggers’ “The Lighthouse” took in $419,764 from eight venues. A24 and New Regency’s darkly comedic drama, led by Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe, will continue to expand nationwide next weekend, where it will play on 500 screens.

Also at the specialty box office, Neon’s “Parasite” landed at No. 11 on domestic charts and generated an impressive $1.2 million from just 33 theaters in its sophomore frame. From director Bong Joon ho, the acclaimed social satire has made $1.8 million to date.

Overall, the domestic box office remains down 5% from last year, according to Comscore.


User's Signature

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
veu
messaggio Oggi, 12:37
Messaggio #322


Gold Member
*******

Gruppo: Moderatore
Messaggi: 18.171
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 27/8/2005




Dal sito Ansa:

Incassi Usa, subito al top Maleficent 2

Batte Joker che sfiora però i 740 milioni globali

(ANSA) - ROMA, 20 OTT - La 'signora del male' strega il box office americano: il sequel di Maleficent, remake-spin off del classico Disney La bella addormentata nel bosco, con Angelina Jolie e Michelle Pfeiffer, debutta in vetta alla classifica del week end con 36 milioni di dollari, battendo 'Joker', il film di Todd Phillips con Joaquin Phoenix clown cattivo, che incassa 29,2 milioni di dollari nel week end, ma sfiora i 250 milioni sul mercato nord americano e ben 740 milioni di dollari a livello mondiale.
Terza piazza per un altro sequel, 'Zombieland: Doppio colpo', con Emma Stone, Woody Harrelson e Jesse Einsenberg, che esordisce con 26,7 milioni di dollari. Seguono 'La famiglia Addams' in versione animata (16 milioni di dollari nel week end, 56,8 milioni in totale) e 'Gemini Man' di Ang Lee con Will Smith (8,5 milioni nel fine settimana, per un incasso complessivo di 36,5 milioni).


User's Signature

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
veu
messaggio Oggi, 12:49
Messaggio #323


Gold Member
*******

Gruppo: Moderatore
Messaggi: 18.171
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 27/8/2005




Sugli incassi... l'abbiamo sempre detto che fissare un film a ottobre era una mossa suicida per la Disney. Ottobre (così come maggio) sono quelle date in cui la gente raramente va al cinema.
Aggiungiamoci che Maleficent - Signora del Male non ha avuto alcun tipo di merchandising (libri in Italia manco per idea, in USA sì, nel resto del mondo no, bambole/giocattoli in edizione limitata per la JAKKS Paficic e nemmeno un'uscita per Disney Store)... un cambiamento di data improvvisa con un anticipo di quasi un anno (e certa gente nemmeno sapeva del cambio di data), senza contare che il film nei cinema SUBITO DOPO Il Re Leone viene sempre demonizzato (vedesi Pocahontas che nonostante sia il film più alto a livello di incassi della seconda metà degli anni 90 è snobbato e volutamente demonizzato SOLO perchè è venuto immediatamente dopo Il Re Leone)... allora PERCHE' fare questa uscita nei cinema a ottobre? avevano paura che Frozen 2 nell'era post Re Leone potesse essere azzoppato e allora azzoppano Malefica 2?
Certe decisioni ci sconvolgono proprio.

Che poi Il Re Leone sarà un successone a livello di pubblico ma contiamo che è stato anche molto pompato dalla Disney...


User's Signature

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daydreamer
messaggio Oggi, 13:23
Messaggio #324


Gold Member
*******

Gruppo: Utente
Messaggi: 4.806
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 9/4/2008
Da: Brescia




Tuttavia nel mercato internazionale sta andando fortissimo e sicuramente il passaparola lo aiuterà!!


User's Signature

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theprinceisonfir...
messaggio Oggi, 16:20
Messaggio #325


Advanced Member
****

Gruppo: Utente
Messaggi: 330
Thanks: *
Iscritto il: 27/9/2013




Il risultato al botteghino nordamericano è davvero deludente; sembrerebbe destinato a terminare con un incasso minore di quello accumulato da Dumbo.
Buono invece il risultato internazionale, dove lo star power di Jolie e Pfeiffer ha sicuramente fatto la differenza. Prevedibile un risultato complessivo appena sotto ai 500 milioni di dollari WW, un discreto successo.
In Italia ottimo esordio, noi ci stiamo dimostrando il mercato europeo più amante del Fantasy e delle fiabe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

14 Pagine V  « < 12 13 14
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
1 utenti stanno leggendo questa discussione (1 visitatori e 0 utenti anonimi)
0 utenti:

 

RSS Versione Lo-Fi Oggi è il: 21/10/2019, 20:49