I’m not buying reports about Dunkirk having cost $150 million or thereabouts. I heard second-hand from an inside-the-loop guy that it was definitely more in the range of $200 million. I do believe, however, that it’s looking at $35 to $40 million by Sunday night. Which is a reasonably good weekend figure, considering the lack of stars and perceptions of arty somberness.
But it also means that a fairly significant sector of those who routinely pay to see hot-ticket films on the first weekend are saying to each other “it sounds good but maybe it’s not emotional or dumb enough, right? We don’t want to see a movie that belongs on a museum wall…we want to have fun and relax.”
Younger mainstream moviegoers will pay to see the latest superhero CG mulch at the drop of a hat and without breaking a sweat, but open a critically hailed, super-sized art film and some of them get the willies. A movie of this stellar calibre comes along two or three times a year, if that, and these bozos have to think it over.
A PostTrak audience poll, gathered by comScore/Screen Engine and posted by Deadline, says that under-25 guys have given Dunkirk a 95% score while under-25 women have given it a 94%. Over-25 males accounted for 47% of the audience and an 88% upvote, while over-25 females counterparts comprised 22% of ticket buyers with an 81% “yeah yeah.” 47% of viewers were lured by the subject of Dunkirk while 18% attributed their interest to reviews.
I’m going to repeat that: Less than one in five viewers were motivated by those rave reviews. You stupid cows in the field, swinging your tails at flies.