Who gives a crap what Variety thinks. Its another rag like your so called newspaper. Drop off doesnt mean jack. You said it would fail , More than quadrupling your cost of making a film is far from failing. It hasnt even opened in many countries yet, so in the end it will probably garner close to 200 million. That was my point. How many movies in history can say they made a profit of more than four times their cost? Not many. You said, plain and simple, that it would fail. So i could care less about drop off rates or anything like that. All that matters in the end is the profit. You just had a biased view against the movie long before you saw it, you were wrong , and like all the other elitist movie "experts" out there, you cant admit you were wrong. Im done debating this with you, since i know youll never admit you were wrong, so dont worry about emailing me back. Maybe one day youll realize that most of the viewing public cant stand the so called " Oscar" movies that are put out. Only you and your kind like those. We like good old fashioned action and fun movies, for which ive never seen a reviewer give more than an average rating to
> [Original Message]
> Date: 3/5/2008 2:46:29 PM
> Subject: RE: your Cloverfield review
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Sent: Wed 3/5/2008 2:30 AM
> To: Reed.Tucker
> Subject: RE: your Cloverfield review
>
>
>
> So you wanna retract your previous statements about how this movie would
> fail. 130mil plus worldwide on a 25mil budget is far from failing. As i
> said to you in my previous email, shows how little you know about how small
> budget movies can work. Maybe in the future youll wait until something is
> out before opening your mouth about it, cause in this case it made you look
> pretty stupid. But i guess i shouldnt expect anything less from your paper,
> the New York "Com"Post heap. Your paper is a rag and a joke. Find a new
> profession youre good at , cause you suck when it comes to speculative
> journalism
>
> > [Original Message]
> > Date: 1/14/2008 1:59:25 PM
> > Subject: RE: your Cloverfield review
> >
> > My story wasn't, in fact, a review. My story said nothing about whether
> the movie was good or bad. I leave that to the paper's movie critic. It was
> just an article on how hype is driving interest and how audiences might
> want to be slightly cautious. That's it.
> > Reed
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 10:13 PM
> > To: Reed.Tucker
> > Subject: your Cloverfield review
> >
> >
> >
> > I have seen the movie and it kicks ass. All you movie reviewers are the
> same. A bunch of elitist assholes who only like artsy foreign movies or
> movies with homosexual themes. So to your review i give five fuck yous, and
> may the Cloverfield monster pay you a personal visit one day and take a
> monster size crap right on your pathetic little brainless head. Thank you
> and have a nice day
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > -----------------------------------------
> > This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged
> and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended
> recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the
> intended recipient), you are hereby notified that you have received
> this transmission in error; any review, dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
> by reply or by telephone (call us at 212-930-8000) and immediately
> delete this message and all its attachments. Any content of this
> message and its attachments that does not relate to the official
> business of NYP Holdings, Inc. must be taken not to have been sent
> or endorsed by any of them. No warranty is made that the e-mail or
> attachment(s) are f r e e from computer v i r u s or other defect.
>
>
>
>
>