![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/tom-hanks-1200x630.jpg?resize=640%2C336&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/tom-hanks.jpg?resize=640%2C360&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n
In the latest big-name bomb to befall Hollywood in a rough few years for the silver screen, Tom Hanks\u2019 \u201cHere\u201d opened at just under $5 million and looks set to lose big money for producer Miramax and distributor Sony.<\/p>\n
Despite a wide opening (2,647 theaters) and big-name stars (Hanks and Robin Wright), \u201cHere\u201d only managed to open at No. 5 in its opening weekend, all behind films that had been in theaters for some time.<\/p>\n
\u201cVenom: The Last Dance\u201d remained No. 1 with just over $25 million for the weekend, according to Box Office Mojo<\/a>. \u201cThe Wild Robot,\u201d \u201cSmile 2,\u201d and \u201cConclave\u201d all finished ahead of \u201cHere\u201d despite having been in theaters for several weeks.<\/p>\n The film, which reunited Hanks with \u201cForrest Gump\u201d and \u201cCast Away\u201d director Robert Zemeckis<\/a> \u2014 also responsible for \u201cBack to the Future\u201d and \u201cWho Framed Roger Rabbit?\u201d, among many other blockbusters \u2014 uses digital aging effects to allow \u201cHanks and Wright to portray teenagers and octogenarians across 105 minutes,\u201d Variety<\/a> reported.<\/p>\n The movie \u201cfollows the inhabitants of a single house over the course of 100 years,\u201d Variety noted. Unfortunately, the vibe from critics seemed to indicate they felt like being trapped in that house for 100 years, too, which is why it earned a 36 percent rating on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cYou know those extended commercials that sometimes run around the holidays that offer up vague, sentimentalized bromides about love, family, and brotherhood that are brought to you by soulless corporations as part of their annual year-end \u2018We\u2019re good, right?\u2019 campaigns?\u201d wrote Peter Sobczynski in a one-star review for RogerEbert.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cImagine one of those stretched out to 104 minutes, and you have Robert Zemeckis\u2019 \u2018Here,\u2019 a hollow and vapid paean to the whole of the human experience that has all the depth and profundity of a generic greeting card. The result is a movie that isn\u2019t just bad but baffling \u2014 one that traffics in practically every imaginable emotion without generating a genuine one of its own.\u201d<\/p>\n Rex Reed in the Observer<\/a>, meanwhile, noted it was trying to recapture the magic of \u201cForrest Gump\u201d by reuniting the key principals \u2014 Hanks, Zemeckis, and Robin Wright, who played Jenny Curran, Forrest\u2019s love interest, in that movie.<\/p>\n Instead, Reed wrote, it was \u201ca lame attempt to make more money by capitalizing on a great film\u2019s financial success using a revolutionary new technology that reduces overhead by eliminating the need to hire real actors.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201c\u2018Here\u2019 is a long and plotless mess about the passage of time in a single space defined through the years by imagery that begins with dinosaurs, progresses through cowboys and arrow-pointing Indians to the invention of the wheel, and ends up with traffic horns and supermarkets \u2014 all seen through the eyes of a single family,\u201d he wrote, while noting that most of the movie takes place in a house.<\/p>\n \u201cAlong with avoiding the threat of a gargantuan budget, the movie saves a fortune on sets,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Well, that\u2019s only half-true. While not hyper-expensive by the standards of modern Hollywood, \u201cHere\u201d wasn\u2019t cheap, either. The stated budget for the film was $45 million; use the typical Hollywood math of doubling the budget to find the break-even point once promotion and distribution are factored in, and \u201cHere\u201d needs $90 million at the box office to turn a profit<\/a>.<\/p>\n As of Saturday, according to Box Office Mojo<\/a>, its worldwide gross stands at $11,375,818. Not only that, but its take fell by over 50 percent in its second weekend<\/a> of release, meaning it\u2019s probably not going to be a sleeper hit that sticks around theaters for a while.<\/p>\n The embarrassing first-weekend haul is less than 1 percent of Hanks\u2019 highest-grossing film \u2014 \u201cThe Da Vinci Code,\u201d at $758 million<\/a> \u2014 or even the Hanks\/Wright\/Zemeckis \u201cForrest Gump<\/a>,\u201d which took home $677 million.<\/p>\n That being said, while \u201cHere\u201d is a rather impressive flop, it has company in the disappointment department.<\/p>\n As ScreenRant<\/a> noted, after the modest comeback of 2023 \u2014 fueled by the \u201cBarbenheimer<\/a>\u201d craze and \u201cThe Super Mario Bros. Movie\u201d \u2014 Hollywood is again facing a slump in 2024, with only two films topping the $1 billion box office mark worldwide: \u201cInside Out 2\u201d with $1.697 billion and \u201cDeadpool and Wolverine<\/a>\u201d with $1.337 billion.<\/p>\n Apparently, even the end of COVID hysteria wasn\u2019t enough to save Hollywood from wokeness, streaming, recycling intellectual property or trite filmmaking. Who knew? Except moviegoers, of course.<\/p>\n This article appeared originally on The Western Journal<\/a>.<\/p>\n The post Tom Hanks Movie \u2018Here\u2019 Absolutely Bombs With Embarrassing Opening Haul, Less Than 1 Percent\u2026<\/a> appeared first on The Gateway Pundit<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In the latest big-name bomb to befall Hollywood in a rough few years for the silver screen, Tom<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n