I love going over the box office listings on this page (Box Office Mojo) not because I care about things like top ten movies but because I like looking at the estimated budgets and weeks on the chart relative to what they’ve made. On the current listing (which changes every week, of course) I can see three movies with budgets of $200 million or more. One of them, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, had a budget of $250 million and has earned $301,948,049 after 21 weeks. (This ignores ancillary products like books, toys etc., and also ignores DVDs etc. It is strictly the movie as it performs in theatres.)

Harry has made about $50 million more than its budget. Now let’s look at two other movies.

The Blind Side has currently earned $128,867,559 after 3 weeks. It had a budget of $29 million. So it has earned almost $100 million over its budget and after only 3 weeks. Then there is the other one we keep hearing about, The Twilight Saga: New Moon.  It has earned $255,363,052, also after 3 weeks. That’s more than $200 million more than its budget and again after only 3 weeks.

After 5 weeks the movie Precious has made $36,252,012 having been made with a budget of $10 million. After just 2 weeks the movie Old Dogs as made $33,924,385 from a budget of $35 million. Anything further it makes is essentially money beyond its budget cost.

Lastly, look at two of the most costly movies (both pegged at budgets of $200 million). After 5 weeks A Christmas Carol has earned $115,249,331, falling short of budget so far by roughly $85 million. After 4 weeks the movie 2012 has made $148,958,486, about $50 million less than its budget.

From an investor’s point of view, what movies would you want to have your money in? Which ones have the best ROI?

As mentioned, none of this includes all the ancillary material. You can be sure Harry Potter and 2012 are games, or will be, and there are DVDs and so on. But you would have to be sure you get a percent of those revenues before investing. Movies appear to have the best ROI when the budget is low (and that makes sense) but to repeat, why then would studios spend $200 million on something? Even when they make money the ROI ratio isn’t great by comparison. (It has to relate to the franchise aspect, meaning all the other products that spin off from it.)

To a large extent the movies that get made are based on numbers, at least as far as Hollywood goes. Did anyone need to see yet another inspiring sports story? You would not think so since they seem to get made with a regularity that makes my bowels envious. As it turns out, we did want to see another inspiring sports story. The numbers indicate that.

Yes, I know. There is a heck of a lot more to the financial end of movies and public taste and so on. Still, looking at earnings relative to box office and weeks in the market makes a fascinating study. However, what I would really like to see is the budgets relative to everything a movie makes in return – all in, as car dealers like to say.

The other thing that intrigues me is the marketing budget relative to overall budget for individual movies. Why do we hear so much about movie A before, and sometimes after, its release date and far less, if anything, about movie B? I’d like to see a kind of comparative chart on this.

On Friday, it was Planet of the Apes coming in at number 6. Not only did I see the movie when it came out (and liked it), I picked up the DVD when it came out a few years back – I even reviewed it (though some of what I say may be a bit wrong-headed).

Today, coming in at number 5, it’s Yellow Submarine. As I commented over on Britannica, I saw this years ago, have seen it in bits and pieces over the years, and have never been able to get enthusiastic about it. Sorry, but I’ve just never liked it. However, since it was so long ago that I saw the full movie, it may be time to watch it completely again and reassess it.

Who knows? I may come to enjoy it.

Strangely, I’ve intended to pick this movie up and watch it for years but keep putting it off. I’m not sure why. Some years back I went through a “Shakespeare on film” phase, something that recurs with me, and went through quite a few cinematic interpretations of “The Bard.” (Sorry. I, too, can’t stand it when people refer to Shakespeare as “The Bard.”)

As I mentioned in the comments over at Britannica, the first “Shakespeare on film” that I really enjoyed was Kenneth Branagh’s “Much Ado About Nothing.” My enjoyment, I think, was in part because I so quickly stopped thinking in terms of, “This is Shakespeare,” and started simply enjoying it as a movie. And I think that was due to Branagh’s direction, which was so clearly cinematic, as opposed to a camera capturing a stage performance, or an approximation of a stage performance. Also, partly due to the play itself but also due to the wonderful performances, the film was so damned exuberant! I loved it.

One last thing … In Branagh’s movie, because it was so clearly cinema, I found I was able to enjoy Shakespeare’s language, perhaps because I was able to understand the context of the words more viscerally than I was used to at that point.

Hmm … This is the second day when I’ve discussed one film because I couldn’t really venture an opinion on the film up for discussion.

Maybe tomorrow!

Currently, I seem to be taken up with the Dirty Harry movies (the 1970′s). I’ve recently watched the first three (Dirty Harry, Magnum Force and The Enforcer) and soon will see the last two (Sudden Impact and The Dead Pool). On Saturday I watched Dirty Harry (1971) again and wrote a review about it, which I haven’t really highlighted because I’ve found I don’t entirely agree with what I wrote and plan to do a revision of it.

Essentially, I consider it an urban western. After watching a number of the DVD features, I find I’m not alone in this opinion. Oddly, for what seems, on the surface, a pretty simple movie, Dirty Harry is a difficult film to get a handle on, and to a lesser extent so is the Dirty Harry series, because of the perceived politics of the film and the violence.

It should be mentioned that the first movie, Dirty Harry, is a classic (to use an over-used term). The other films in the series, while to varying degrees entertaining, are not in the same league at all. I think this is at least partly due to the fact that those movies, and the character of Harry, are somewhat muted in comparison. In the original, Harry is pretty darned focused and is motivated, simply, by hatred for bad guys and “the system.”

But I’ll leave all that to my revised review, when I get around to that revision.

(I wonder what Benson’s number 9 movie from 1968 will be?)

My problem with making up such a list is I can’t remember what movies are from what years. If I were to make a list I’d inevitably forget some then, once remembered, I’d want to revise my list. And this would go on endlessly. And that problem is nothing compared to the one of choosing. Did I like this one more than that? Hmm, the film is clearly a great film but it puts me to sleep – do I include it?

Off the top of my head, I’d probably say Once Upon a Time in the West is my favourite. But then there are all those other movies from that year, like 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Producers, The Party, Rosemary’s Baby and so on.

I’ll be interested to see his list. He starts Monday with his number 10, and will work on down the list from there. And I’m sure there will be ones agree with and ones that make me mutter, “What? Is this guy nuts?” I’m also sure there are people who, upon seeing me pick Once Upon a Time in the West as my favourite, are muttering, “What? Is that guy nuts?”