Interesting. I haven't seen "Overnight" in about 3 or 4 years now, but I thought I remembered the arguments with Weinstein being over casting? Or at least, partially over casting. But I did have to look up some reviews to recall certain details, so maybe those got it wrong.

Absolutely, and I guess Chris Brinker was one of those people. But while Weinstein himself is a controversial figure in the business, his badmouthing of Duffy, combined with Duffy's own behavior, could have gone a long way. I mean, let's face it...isn't it pretty obvious by the way that Duffy behaves in the documentary that almost nobody in their right mind would want to give him a multi-million dollar budget to do with as he pleased?

I don't remember exactly where it was, but I do remember it. At least one review mentions it.


True, but the fact is, it was in theaters for a while (its original release was somewhat limited, if I recall) and gathered momentum through word of mouth. I remember "Time" compared the image of Keanu Reeves on the poster to the Columbine shooters, and still, that didn't hurt the movie's success at all.

I really don't think studios were shying away from shoot-em-up films that much, even after "Columbine". It still sounds to me way more like an excuse by Duffy, who has motive to deny that "Overnight" exists, let alone admit that he dug his own grave. As we agree, he did things he shouldn't done. He was an arrogant SOB, he didn't behave the way he needed to, and he forgot that getting an offer is only the first step to getting the movie made.

Anyway, I still wish him best of luck with the sequel, and hope he's learned his lessons.

While we have veered way off the original topic. It is fun discussing this.

In Overnight it never explains what happened between Duffy and Weinstein. It very well could have been casting. Even though had Duffy final choice, Weinstein may have thought Duffy's cast would have been a bad choice. When the film got put in turnaround. Duffy didn't accuse Weinstien at first, but a women executive at Miramax. Her name is mentioned in Overnight, I can''t remember it.

I watched the first half of Boondocks with the commentary. Duffy makes no mention of his deal with Weinstein. He says he got all these offers from different studios with big budgets, but he decided on a smaller budget to make the film he wanted to make. In reality that wasn't the case. Duffy had no choice but to take the small budget if he wanted to get the film made.

In Overnight he came off as a major dick. But look who made the film. Two guys that were managers for Duffy's band and was left pissing in the wind by him. So they're are bound to hate him with good reason.

The Matrix had pulled in 27 million by April 4th its opening weekend. But I'm wondering if it nosedived after Columbine. With all the negative publicity made towards gun movies. It could have scared off potential buyers.

But the major thing that makes me wonder. They don't just let any film get into Canne do they? There had to have been at least one interested buyer. I mean the film cost 5 to 6 million to make. It could have tripled that at least if it would have been given the publicity. The Boondocks is a damn good film, it's really enjoyable to watch. One of the best lines. "Cuddle? What a fag?" (I have a nothing against gay people, it just hilarious to hear it from a gay character.)

I hope All Saints Day does good in the box office. New people are bound to check out the first film after seeing the trailer for part 2.

Here's what IMDB says:

$129,715,015 (USA) (2 May 1999)
$117,082,992 (USA) (25 April 1999)
$98,946,842 (USA) (18 April 1999)
$73,310,417 (USA) (11 April 1999)
$37,352,692 (USA) (4 April 1999)

You can see it took in about $25 million from April 11th to 18th, and then $19 million from the 18th to the 25th (after Columbine). A decline of $6 million is not that substantial; it's pretty standard for any film that's been out for several weeks. Especially since you can see that it stabilized and continuously took in $4-$5 per week for most of May and June. If Columbine really scared moviegoers away from action films, I think it would be way more obvious in the film's numbers.

Besides, the entertainment industry almost never shies away from material only because it's controversial. Usually, controversy has the opposite effect - it boosts interest in a movie. I really just don't think it explains why "The Boondock Saints" received no purchase offers. I think the explanations are more likely:

(1.) Duffy's reputation as an arrogant prick.

(2.) The fact that on the surface, "Boondock Saints" really isn't that good a movie, besides Willem Dafoe's performance and its cult status. If you're a distributor and you have to decide which movie is going to get millions of dollars in marketing budget costs, what would you see in "The Boondock Saints"? (and remember that in the mid- to late-1990s, there were a lot of Tarantino-style shoot-em-ups coming out)

The "Overnight" movie made Duffy look like a drunk jackass. The only thing that went wrong was the deal felled apart. The movie is awesome and it has a religious meaning to it: God's laws are greater than the laws of men and that evil and sin is every where and you shoul do something about it. I have to wait until the sequel's out on DVD because it only got released in 70 theaters in the New York area. That's really a fuckin' pain in the ass but I'm paitent.

They shoulda made this movie years ago if they wanted a sequel. It's a bit too late for one and no Defoe

Ahhh the movie business. I have a PBS documentary mini-series about Hollywood. It aired approximately fifteen years ago and it's excellent. Many people in the business gave interviews. One of the people to be interviewed was Mr. Heston. He had a great saying about the movie biz. I'm paraphrasing here, but it's still on the mark.

"The trouble with movie making as a business is that it's art. The trouble with movie making as art is that it's a business."

What a great description for what seems to me to be such a Helter - Skelter world. I'm a move buff and a layman so my observations are that of an outsider of course.

Well, the sequel did pretty well in its limited run...it made over $500,000 last weekend, which sounds tiny, but actually is pretty good considering it was released in 70 theaters. They're going to expand it to other markets next week.

Also, while I agree that Dafoe was pretty important to the original, let's not lose focus of the facts here...the original was a pretty bad movie itself. Reviews I've read so far say that the sequel is better in comparison, but the bar was pretty low to start.

The first movie had it's moments but it kind sucked.

I thought the first movie was pretty good

The lines were just ridiculous.

The first movie could have been a cheesy, tongue in cheek action movie or a serious action film.

It tried to be both. And it failed. Tremendously.

Willem Dafoe was the only good thing about it. That is, because all of his scenes are in the tongue in cheek style. Willem Dafoe is just simply awesome. The underworld scene in Platoon was in tongue and cheek style and was one of the great scenes in the movie. I mean, we got a Grassmask AND a Remington Wingmaster being used as an bong. I mean, come on!