Which films make the most money?

September's figures are out.

The past month saw a number of new releases on the worldwide cinema scene. "Insidious 2", from "Saw" director and creator James Wan was the top release of the month, grossing over US$82m worldwide and US$70 m in North America alone. Foreign box office receipts for the film should increase substantially going forward as it is yet to be released in a number of major locations. These figures are already impressive considering the film was made off a budget of only US$5 million.

It has been a strong year for Wan. His last release "The Conjuring" topped box office charts in July and has grossed over US$297 million to date worldwide off a budget of only US$20 million.

The second biggest release in September was "Prisoners" starring Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal. Since its 20 September release the film has grossed US$46m worldwide including US$40m in North America alone.

Vin Diesel much awaited "Pitch Black" and "Chronicles of Riddick" sequel, "Riddick" opened on the 6th September and has grossed US$85m to date worldwide. This is a relatively healthy considering it was made off a budget of only US$3m. We expect the film to end off at around US$130m total worldwide gross.

Other major September releases included "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2", "The Family" and "Rush". "Rush" tells the true story of the Formula1 rivalry between James Hunt and Niki Lauda and has received strong reviews on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes.  Since its 20 September release it has grossed just over US$25m worldwide.

For October, international audiences can look forward to the release of:

  • "Gravity", a space drama starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.
  • "Captain Phillips", from "Green Zone" director, Paul Greengrass and starring Tom Hanks. The film is based on the true story of merchant mariner Richard Phillips, who was taken hostage by Somali Pirates during the Maersk Alabama hijacking in 2009.
  • "Machete Kills", the sequel to the cult hit "Machete". Directed by "Desperado" director Robert Rodriguez, the film stars Hollywood hard man Danny Trejo in the lead role alongside a strong supporting cast featuring Michelle Rodriguez, Charlie Sheen, Jessica Alba and a debut performance from Lady Gaga.
George Clooney. Photograph: Getty Images

Andrew Amoils is a writer for WealthInsight

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496